< 22 November	24 November >

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. Tone 17:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Abouata[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Papaursa (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:07, 26 November 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. Tone 17:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Joseph Adventure[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NFF, no evidence that principal photography has commenced and the article is not referenced. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 23:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that is any more than a figment of somebody's imagination given the long list of TBD in the infobox. Completely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Whpq. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:40, 29 November 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. Tone 17:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmartPixel[edit]

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

The two references in the article are the firm's own site and wikihow; I cannot find others. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software with no hits on Google News, spam article created by a paid advocate. MER-C 02:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Taking into consideration other creations by the same user, clearly intended as promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this product is notable. AllyD (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (franchise)[edit]

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

There's no reason for this article when A) there are only two films in this "franchise", and B) the second film isn't even scheduled to be released until 2015. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support A reasonable argument. Hard to have a franchise with only 1 1/2 movies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small and unneeded as of now. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely even a franchise yet. Koala15 (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to SpongeBob SquarePants since it is not needed yet. JJ98 (Talk) 04:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Koala15 - Not a franchise yet!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I created it, I think what I did was unneeded and therefore this article should be deleted. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 10:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- this isn't a franchise yet, not even a series. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:17, 26 November 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 Word of Mouth (The Wanted album). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Word of Mouth Tour[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation expect to take it to AFD. This is an upcoming tour which fails WP:CONCERT: "Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Way too soon on this one and to expect it to become notable is Crystalballism. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Word of Mouth (The Wanted album). Does not seem to satisfy WP:NCONCERT. Deletion is also acceptable, but it doesn't seem absolutely necessary. If the tour turns out to be notable, then it can be recreated, but I agree that it's to early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 25 November 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 close. Withdrawn by nominator after pagemove to more appropriate title. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 11:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy in females with intellectual disability[edit]

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

Term does not exist. Nothing on google books [1] nothing on pubmed [2]

Refs appear to be primary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: moved by the Doc to Epilepsy in females with mental retardation (next time, move it first!). Ansh6 6 6 07:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Though this was automatically cancelled when I removed the tag. Feel free to close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:45, 24 November 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Denby[edit]

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

Per WP:TWODABS. The film critic appears to be the primary topic with thousands more viewing his page, so we can move his article to David Denby after deleting this. I have not found any other mentions that would make this not a TWODAB. (Even if this is kept I strongly believe the critic is the primary topic.) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfigure per nom. Although I'm not sure, I have my doubts that David Denby (academic) is himself notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TWODABS is irrelevant, as there is currently not considered to be a primary topic. I suggest that this should have been presented as a Request to Move the film critic to the base name title David Denby - ie to establish him as the Primary Topic. Once this is done, there is then clearly no need for a dab page, per TWODABS. PamD 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Denby (surname). They are already listed there. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gauntlet (series)[edit]

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

Non-notable web series. Not covered in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Independent web series that hasn't received considerable news attention or even anything equivalent of substance. Google News didn't find anything but through another search, I found links like this from when it started and this which says it was sponsored by companies like Geico (S1, found a Geico blog mentioning this as well) and Verizon and Motorola DROID (new S2). It's nice that they connected with some major companies but it's only sponsorship so it's nothing that special. Aside from that, there isn't anything that significant. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rooster Teeth or delete. Does not seem notable, and the spinout was premature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JSN PowerAdmin[edit]

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

Top 100 Joomia extensions is not notability ,and there's no evidence for anything else DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The referenced Joomla websites do not amount to WP:RS and there is a lack of evidence of notability for the product there or located elsewhere. AllyD (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Numerous searches and current references do not provide one significant third-party, I found a WikiHow guide but that's hardly significant. This software hasn't received the news coverage (even minimal) required for an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gholam hossein Davani[edit]

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

I'm not finding results on Google (including Google Scholar) that suggests this accountant has had sufficient independent coverage to satisfy either WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC (due to his published papers). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. because:

1. The Global Accounting History^[1] (the four volume set that edited by Gary J. Previts - the 87th member of The Accounting Hall of Fame^[2], Peter Walton & Peter Wolnizer) aims to establish a benchmark reference source that covers the evolution of accounting, financial reporting and related institutions for all major economies in the world in a comparable way. Volume Four examines seven nations from Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa, including Egypt, Iran, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey. Each chapter is authored by a specialist from its respective country. Chapter 2: IRAN has authored by Gholam hossein Davani and professor Zabihollah Rezaee as two famous Iranian accountant (please see page vii: contributor biographies, Gholam hossein Davani^[3]) Mohsen ghasemee (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ACADEMIC, Criteria # 4: The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Mohsen ghasemee (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. He also has been a member of several editorial boards, including HESABDAR (in Persian means: Accountant) the monthly magazine of the Iranian Institute of Certified Accountants (IICA) and HESABDAR RASMI (in Persian means: CPA – Certified Public Accountant) the quarterly magazine of the Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants (IACPA). Both these professional bodies (IICA & IACPA) are members of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).^[4]^[5]^[6] Mohsen ghasemee (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This note is addressed to Mohsen ghasemee. When you wrote this article you made a common mistake. Wikipedia is a secondary-source based encyclopedia, see WP:SECONDARY, meaning sources should be independent of the topic e.g. newspapers, books, journals by authors with no connection to Davani. Currently all of the sources in the article are by Davani, not about Davani. So currently the article is effectively unsourced. Surely, there must be Farsi newspaper articles about Davani? Book reviews? Anything about Davani or his work, written by anyone except Davani. That is what Wikipedia requires for sourcing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one (use Google Translate) seems like an interview with the article subject in an WP:RS. Are there more like this? I'd be happy to withdraw this, if so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to: Shawn in Montreal & Green Cardamom
I added 2 independent secondary sources from Donya-e-Eqtesad, now. This economic daily is one of the most circulated newspaper in Iran with a special emphasis on business and economic news (like WSJ in USA). (Please Check It)^[7]^[8] Mohsen ghasemee (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to confirm this source[3] says (in translation) "(At) this time I will introduce one of the most famous national accountants". As mentioned by Mohsen ghasemee it is a very reliable source on this topic. This kind of direct assertion of notability makes up the lack of coverage since it's Iran which is notoriously difficult to source for persons notable within Iran, and the field of accounting which is specialized not typical media coverage, I am willing to error on the side of caution and not delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite happy to withdraw this nom, for the same reasons as stated above, if no one has any objections, in that case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

^ Book Description, A Global History of Accounting, Financial Reporting and Public Policy: Eurasia, Middle East and Africa (Studies in the Development of Accounting Thought), Amazon
^ Gary John Previts, The Accounting Hall of Fame, The Ohio State University
^ A Global History of Accounting, Financial Reporting and Public Policy: Eurasia, Middle East and Africa (Studies in the Development of Accounting Thought), Google Books, see page: vii (contributor biographies, Gholam hossein Davani)
^ IICA, Member Bodies, IFAC (official website).
^ IACPA, Member Bodies, IFAC (official website).
^ A Global History of Accounting, Financial Reporting and Public Policy: Eurasia, Middle East and Africa (Studies in the Development of Accounting Thought), Google Books, see page: vii (contributor biographies, Gholam hossein Davani)
^ Market Faces: Accounting Tribune, Donya-e-Eqtesad (daily economic newspaper in Iran), No. 2710, 8 August 2012 (the special article about Gholam Hossein Davani as one of the famous Iranian accountants)
^ Global History of Accounting, Donya-e-Eqtesad (daily economic newspaper in Iran), No. 2480, 13 October 2011 (the special article about A Global History of Accounting, Financial Reporting and Public Policy, chapter 2: IRAN, that authored by Gholam hossein Davani and Zabihollah Rezaee)

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domnina (daughter of Nero)[edit]

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

Contested prod, very obscure fictitious character. PatGallacher (talk) 21:00, 23 November 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 November 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- not so obscure, if you're studying medieval legends, christian legends, Neronian legends, or the "lives" of saints, etc. one way or another, we do NEED to provide some coverage of the subject here; simply "disappearing" it is not an acceptable solution.

(i will quietly note here, that the nominator's contrib history shows no interest in any of these topics)

it is also useful to have the article for disambig purposes see: Domnina. There's no way to adequately condense this info to fit into 1 line on a disambiguation page.

i did suggest the {prod/delete}-er try to find a suitable merge, if they felt that strongly about it, but they don't seem to be interested... (or they could otherwise re-work the material; perhaps into a renamed article with a different focus)

Lx 121 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am open to persuasion if this person is mentioned in more than one obscure legend, but this needs to be clarified, the referencing should be improved. Maybe we could merge it, but what into? I am interested in ensuring Christian converts from paganism are properly dealt with, see my edit to Leif Ericson a while back. PatGallacher (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure -- At present Photini redirects to the story of the Samaritan Woman at the Well in John 4. Giving her a name is a late antique invention; so probably is Domnina. Nevertheless, the story exists, even if it is a late antique pious fiction. We should thus not be deleting the subject out of hand. I am also unhappy about mixing biblical truth with later amplifications (fiction). I would accordingly suggest:

Create article on Photini (whose spelling I may have wrong).
Redirect this article to it, unless there is another independent tradition about Domnina.
Add a short section to the article on the Samaritan Woman, referring to the later traditions.

If WP was being prepared in (say) AD 400, we would have referred to this as WP:OR, but we are in 2013, not 1600 years earlier. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- i don't claim to be an expert on all neronian-christian legends, but i KNOW "virgil in the basket", i did the commonscat for it & i have one of the illustrations, irl. the identity of the "femme fatale" varies btwn "febilla", "the emperor's daughter", & "nero's daughter", sometimes named as domnina, sometimes unnamed. his actual daughter hasn't turned up in any version i've come across, & oddly enough nero & his "daughter" are more popular in this tale than augustus & julia, even though that would at least be possible in terms of the timing. i suppose that's because he's such a great villain & fits better into the timeline of christianity (augustus having been mentioned @ jesus' birth). Lx 121 (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a citation for a version of Virgil in the basket which explicitly either uses the name Domnina for the femme fatale or connects the story to the legend of Saint Photina? Without one, we simply have two legends referring to a "daughter of Nero", with no indication that they are supposed to be the same person. (By the way, if such a citation is provided, then Keep; otherwise, rewrite the section relating to Saint Photina and either move it to Saint Photina (or Photine or Fotini or whatever) or merge into a separate section of Samaritan woman at the well. PWilkinson (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sourcing supplied to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid deletion criterion; there are scores of book references for this (probably imaginary) character. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Samaritan woman at the well, which is not so long or convoluted. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gab Olivier[edit]

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

I found a few items at ResidentAdvisor and inthemix.com.au which at least confirm his existence and some of the facts here, but I didn't find enough to convince me that he's notable enough for an article. Michig (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 16 November 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Evaluation Centers[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Note first (and only relevant) Google Books listing is a reprint of the Wikipedia article. Brianhe (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify or delete I came across this article when looking up some companies in the Category:Research and analysis firms. At most, this deserves a just stub, otherwise deletion may be appropriate. Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 17 November 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Purely promotional article with references that don't prove notability, merely existence. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Windows API. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows.pas[edit]

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

Not notable, virtually untouched for 6 years. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 20:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 17 November 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to windows.h. I could find no secondary sources for this Pascal language binding to the Windows API. But it exists and is verifiable, so is worth the one sentence merge into it's more notable cousin, the C binding API windows.h. --Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's appropriate. But I can't come up with anything better. I've been leaning toward deletion since I this the first time, but I just can't decide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a reference. But as far as I can tell, there is nothing more to say about windows.pas than the two sentences in the article. So, the topic fails the "significant coverage" test of WP:GNG. Merging sounds like a good idea. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that a merge to windows.h is not fitting (completely different programming languages). So maybe a Merge to Windows API is a better alternative. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Merging to Windows API#Compiler support seems like the best idea yet. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as G3 by User:Barek. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triedom Diet[edit]

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

Non-notable diet, possibly made up by the author. Did a google search and didn't find anything related to this topic. -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths[edit]

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

This article is a table of fraction-to-decimal equivalents for all fractions between 0 and 1 where the numerator=64. It is unreferenced and fails WP:NOTGUIDE. The original author has spent quite a bit of time formatting the table, but it is not encyclopedic. When this article was PRODded a few years ago the author made a passionate plea to keep it on the article's talk page; I encourage editors to consider those comments. Pburka (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Absolutely no encyclopedic value here. Wikipedia is WP:NOTACALCULATOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination criterion is invalid per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Referencing is not necessary per WP:CALC. Nor does WP:NOTGUIDE apply, since the page is stating mathematical facts, not showing how to do something. There is no such policy as WP:NOTACALCULATOR. The only remaining question is whether this table is notable, and such tables do indeed appear in numerous textbooks and standard reference works (e.g. [4]). It doesn't seem very notable to me, but then I live in a "metric" country. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've given no justification for keeping this article. Wikipedia is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, specifically "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion". 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean we need an article to confirm it. (WP:NOTACALCULATOR: "The output of an ordinary calculator is not notable.") Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "such tables do indeed appear in numerous textbooks and standard reference works" speaks to notability, though notability is not very high here. However, no valid arguments for deletion have been made. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not encyclopedic. Looking at precedents, while list of prime numbers survived AfD[5], it provides information and navigation links on types of primes. Other lists have been deleted in the past: see for examples Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbers that are not primes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of values of the cosh function, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbers ordered by Google rating. The category Category:Mathematical tables also indicates that tables of this sort are not a major part of Wikipedia. There are 3 reasons for keeping a list, but this isn't any use for navigation or developing Wikipedia and I don't think it's a "valuable information source" since it's easy to calculate the values and nobody has explained for what purpose such a table would be needed beyond the vague claim "similar charts are used every day by machinists" which isn't substantiated or justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTACALCULATOR. While this information may indeed be useful or even interesting to some people, it's simply not encyclopedic. Lists of fractions is what WP:NOT#And finally... was meant to address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal (WP:NOTMANUAL) and not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Plenty of other websites with this kind of info. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 29 November 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 Rooster Teeth. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Past Cast[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources establish that this is a notable podcast. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rooster Teeth. Already covered in appropriate detail in main article. Deletion is also acceptable, but it doesn't seem absolutely necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 25 November 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 Rooster Teeth. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immersion (series)[edit]

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

Not a notable web series. No independent reliable sources cover the subject to demonstrate notability. Nominated for one award but a single nomination doesn't take it over the notability threshold. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rooster Teeth. Main article covers it in appropriate detail. These articles look like unnecessary spinouts for non-notable ventures, but maybe someone else can find sources. I don't see anything. Deletion is also acceptable, but it doesn't seem absolutely necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Danielle Connolly[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that has been here for 6 and half years without sources. Doesn't appear to have had major roles. 'Starring role' in Underworld: Evolution turns out to be way down the cast list as 'Tanis Vamp #1'. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A rock band allegedly wrote a song about her once, but I can't find that as a criterion in WP:BIO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:22, 25 November 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 Rooster Teeth. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Patch (podcast)[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent reliable sources demonstrate that this podcast is independently notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rooster Teeth or delete. Could also be redirected to the podcaster, but I'm thinking he's probably going to get nominated for deletion sometime soon on notability grounds. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:28, 25 November 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. Tone 17:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Granados[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability guidelines. And just a small sidebar, I don't understand why the U-17 World Cup is listed as a contribution in the article, like Mexico won it. Which wasn't the case. – Michael (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RPGQuest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Others might disagree though! SarahStierch (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any in-depth secondary coverage. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readrz[edit]

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

Unremarkable minor website, couldn't find anything online, fails WP:NWEB and GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:48, 23 November 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 I'm withdrawing this for now. There seems to be something but it needs to be presented better.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout (violent game)[edit]

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

This is not an article describing "knockout" outside of the first sentence. It's just a glorified list of violent attacks attributed to the "game" as it has been reported in recent news media, with a violation of WP:NPOV by focusing on the conservative media and not introducing any other view points (if they even exist). —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep Clearly fulfills WP:notability criteria. On another afd, Ryulong has clearly revealed his agenda[6] of deleting whatever he believes is associated with "right wing nut jobs". Simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If s/he believes there are NPOV issues, s/he is welcome to address them in the appropriate fashion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot demand a "SNOW Keep" when you are the first commenter. And no, it does not fulfill WP:N. It's just a list of attacks by African American youths on people where the intent was to render the target unconscious with a single strike. Wikipedia is not the news to inform people what this is. And stop violating WP:AGF by automatically assuming that I am violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT (an essay and not actual policy). I have raised actual arguments against this article's inclusion on this website, as well as the other one. If we cannot have a subject free from bias then we should not cover it because we are not providing our readers with information that is relevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly seems descriptive of "knockout" as a whole. The list of events is descriptive and helpful. The attention it has received in the media, and the role it plays in the conservative agenda, is a major part of the "game"'s identity, and therefore necessary to a useful description. Like many social phenomena, its meaning is derived in large part by its context within society. I personally came to the article because I did not understand some of the oblique social references made in social media, and wanted to be educated. If the article had lacked description of the conservative depiction of the "game", I would not have come away able to understand those references. The article can certainly stand some improvement, but is genuinely useful now, and does not deserve deletion. TTK (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It still stands that WP:GNG must be met. A bunch of news articles on unrelated assaults does not make an article, particularly when it is half of the article and other content was removed for not meeting WP:NPOV.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at every single word in WP:GNG, and could not see how the subject could be construed to fail to meet it. What specifically do you believe causes this subject to fail to meet the GNG criterion? TTK (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage", as articles only discuss assaults with single mentions of a "knockout game" peppered through them, does not meet this. The article is inventing this phenomenon just as it goes along. Certainly, an article that just exists to frame a list of assaults wherein the supposed goal of the attack was not to rob or murder but are part of an alleged game does not fit in with what Wikipedia is for.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does not seem to be the case. Plugging "knockout game" into google-news comes up with 110,000 hits, several of which are articles talking about "knockout game" as a subject of investigation, debate, and/or legal inquiry, not simply to describe a particular assault. These are three such articles from just the first page of hits: "Police across the U.S. are investigating whether random attacks are part of a violent game called knockout,", and: "Violent knockout attacks – where people randomly approach strangers on the street and punch them in the head – are spreading across the United States, and New York State lawmakers are asking the federal government for help", and: "New York City police authorities are investigating a series of unprovoked physical attacks in public places on people who are Jewish, in the form of what is called the knockout game.”. TTK (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may be incorrect in my determination of whether or not this article does or does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. That's what this discussion will find out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how come this article only focuses on assults perpetrated by black American youths when British white boys are doing the exact same thing?—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's about knockout, then just add it to the article then! It's Wikipedia -- you have the power! If I had seen the article earlier I would have added it myself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been consistently and repeatedly on the media for many weeks now with records going back more than 20 years and has long been an aspect reported in various papers and official sources, but only recently gaining prolonged national recognition, conservative or otherwise. I first found this article almost two weeks ago and while I am not active its formation, I did feel that it merited GNG by google and news checks - and the fact that it was on TV and was why I looked it up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've not covered content that the media has covered for several weeks because it's a slow period in the news cycle and every tom, dick, and jane got their 15 minutes of fame.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been reported repeatedly as of late. Many reliable sources and Ryulong appears to have an ideological issue with this article. Arzel (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to assume good faith. Claiming I am ideologically against the article is a vast misinterpretation of my actions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sirsy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor band. I cannot see how this passes WP:GNG except (possibly) technically. Recently edited by Sirsy (talk · contribs). Calton | Talk 13:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. The sound (and nearly unanimous) keep arguments in the first AFD have not been addressed, let alone refuted. If the nominator "cannot see" how the band meets notability requirements, they would do well to actually review the range of press coverage that a Google/GNews archive search turns up, including at least one review in national media (Village Voice), showing the band likely satisfies WP:MUSIC #1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12 in addition to the GNG. "Minor" does not equate to non-notable; the bulk if the items in almost any category are "minor" rather than "major". An encyclopedia strives to be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as possible A7 candidate. 108.218.12.104 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that somebody loosely affiliated with the band edited the article recently is a bogus reason to delete, as is the tautology that it is technically notable, or that they are not very good (sorry, my opinion, from what I've seen and heard of them). At least 200 out of 435 members of Congress, as well as a number of other politicians, would lose their articles, if that were valid. It is well-documented that this band has toured extensively, all over North America; thus they pass WP:BAND, period. They would play a gig anywhere, and, it appears, they have, from house concerts to festivals. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian regarding meeting WP:BAND but given this cursory (from the first page) there also seems to be reasonably clear evidence that the band would meet the WP:GNG. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 30 November 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. An argument is raised for merger, but there is no actual verified content to be merged. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Broncos[edit]

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

Amateur team, fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable source. Hack (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without the presentation of any sources to exceed WP:GNG, I have to agree. Even if we assume good faith I still think it will fall short.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is a national amateur gridiron league which is the highest level in Australia. This team does not play that level. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not top level of the sport, article has no references, list on non-notables, same as above.Hughesdarren (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whilst not potentially notable I it's own right - the information about the team history should be merged/incorporated into Gridiron West. Dan arndt (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gridiron West. The-Pope (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RELISTINGISEVIL Why was this one relisted? It's a candidate for WP:SNOW.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Paul - someone once told me patience is a virtue - there is no great rush on these things Dan arndt (talk) 05:21, 24 November 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. Tone 17:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yandi Munawar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mr. Munawar still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The article should be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, in my opinion, but contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I'd also suggest we SALT. Giant Snowman 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon ng Bayan Rosario 2001 And Beyond[edit]

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

This is an overly detailed article about one municipality's action plan to comply with the the principles of 1992 Earth Summit. Mostly outright cut-and-paste copyright violation, and otherwise pure indiscriminate info that fails WP:SOAPBOX. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At most the plan could be mentioned in the municipality's article. Note that most government websites have a copyright notice (despite Philippine copyright law saying that content created by the government are public domain). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The plan is already mentioned at the municipality's article (Rosario, Batangas#World Outlook in Local Action). That's more than sufficient. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 15:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Beast Wars and Beast Machines characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream[edit]

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

Redirect was undone without explanation. This is a toy/character, with no reliable sources that aren't game guides or catalogs etc. Not notable in the real world, though a redirect would be perfectly fine. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect. It's got a few references, but they turn out to be fansites, Cracked.com, and what looks to me like trivial mentions. Not good enough to establish notability. The original action was legit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt - no iteration of this character meets notability requirements. Lock it down to prevent the redirect from being undone again. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources clearly meet GNG. I see multiple websites and at least one dead-tree book... and furthermore, since multiple toys appear to bear the same name, an article distinguishing among them serves that purpose, and so could be considered a list article, which has different notability expectations, in that a list of non-notable things of a notable type can be appropriately kept. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources "clearly" demonstrate that this toy has been the subject of " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Would that be the comedy website that describes one iteration of the toy as "shitty" or the one that describes itself as the ultimate Transformers fansite? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real coverage in NY Times, Times of London, Harper's Weekly, and others. What is this topic anyway? Non encyclopedic, that is, outside of a preschool playground perhaps. Delete. Thanks.97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - There is nothing to establish actual notability, so an article is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus and strength of argument indicate that this invention doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Uniflow Steam Engine[edit]

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

So far as I can tell the article is a spam-like advertisement for a patent. The work described is OR and there are no reliable sources other than the original patents, which are not reliable sources for notability, and so the article does not show notability of the topic. GliderMaven (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My past talk comments, and similar concerns:
Are there any references here, especially independent ones, that discuss the AUSE engine in particular, as opposed to being about uniflow engines in general? So far I'm seeing a novel engine put forward as a notable subject: It is a novel engine. It is a new invention by one particular team. If it isn't, then it belongs in the existing uniflow steam engine article. It uses a single electromechanically-actuated inlet valve. It has a void within the piston, controlled by a sprung bash valve. (I don't believe the benefit of this) It doesn't use a condenser on the exhaust, because it doesn't need one. (I don't believe the authors understand why this isn't an advantage) It abandons the recompression of exhaust steam when approaching TDC. This is an advantage of the Stumpf uniflow engine. The authors here appear not to appreciate the thermodynamics of either engine. Although it's not a key part of the design, the piston is made of Invar. At this point I stop believing its technical credibility. I'm seeing no independent sources for the engine described above. I'm seeing almost nothing (outside this article) that meet the standard of well-presented OR by the team itself, such as would be in a technical paper. Overall I find this engine simplistic and far from an improvement over previous practice. It appears to have been designed by someone unskilled in steam engine design and thermodynamics and it makes many decisions from a basis of ignorance. Particularly it seems to operate as an engine with no expansion, using some incompressible fluid. It entirely ignores (as Stumpf had such a deep understanding of) the effects of expansion in the steam and the conversion of heat energy into pressure energy. I'm in no rush to be a deletionist, but if this appeared at AfD, I'd have no basis for arguing to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment My past talk comments, and similar concerns:

Are there any references here, especially independent ones, that discuss the AUSE engine in particular, as opposed to being about uniflow engines in general?

So far I'm seeing a novel engine put forward as a notable subject:

It is a novel engine. It is a new invention by one particular team. If it isn't, then it belongs in the existing uniflow steam engine article.
It uses a single electromechanically-actuated inlet valve.
It has a void within the piston, controlled by a sprung bash valve. (I don't believe the benefit of this)
It doesn't use a condenser on the exhaust, because it doesn't need one. (I don't believe the authors understand why this isn't an advantage)
It abandons the recompression of exhaust steam when approaching TDC. This is an advantage of the Stumpf uniflow engine. The authors here appear not to appreciate the thermodynamics of either engine.

Although it's not a key part of the design, the piston is made of Invar. At this point I stop believing its technical credibility.

I'm seeing no independent sources for the engine described above. I'm seeing almost nothing (outside this article) that meet the standard of well-presented OR by the team itself, such as would be in a technical paper. Overall I find this engine simplistic and far from an improvement over previous practice. It appears to have been designed by someone unskilled in steam engine design and thermodynamics and it makes many decisions from a basis of ignorance. Particularly it seems to operate as an engine with no expansion, using some incompressible fluid. It entirely ignores (as Stumpf had such a deep understanding of) the effects of expansion in the steam and the conversion of heat energy into pressure energy.

I'm in no rush to be a deletionist, but if this appeared at AfD, I'd have no basis for arguing to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- This may be a bad article, but it is not WP:OR as it appears to be reporting on a US patent, as indicated by the talk-space item on the main page. It certainly needs tagging for improvement, but not in my view deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the patent? I can't see one related to this engine. If this was decent quality OR, this would be published as someone's MSc thesis or whatever and this article could then at least reference that. As it is, we've a dubious invention supported by nothing else other than this article. That's textbook OR and just exactly what we're not here to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, see WP:PATENTS. Patents are not reliable sources for notability in wikipedia; you can put virtually anything in a patent, and the patent office will rubber stamp it. They're not reliable; there's no editorial or refereeing in patents, the patent office just check nobody has patented it before. They can only be sources to prove what was patented, and when. They don't show anything about notability; for that we need something in books and refereed papers, there's none of that here.GliderMaven (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from author: Below are responses to the above comments on this uniflow engine.

The uniflow engine primarily the work of Dan Gelbart, a well known retired engineer who specializes in ressurecting obsolete and forgotten technologies. He has worked to restore Galileo's optical instruments in Italy. He reburbished (rebuilt) the very first ruby laser and demonstrated it at Simon Fraser University. In the current effort, he has recreated the uniflow steam engine, the development of which was stopped by the advent of steam turbines and diesel engines. Gelbart is not in business and his efforts are not product prototypes. The motivation for the work is to preserve important historical technologies that have otherwise been forgotten. The nature of this work on forgotten technologies means there are few references to be cited. The Wikipedia article is an attempt to document forgotten historical knowledge before it is lost again.

The electromechanically-actuated inlet valve is logical progression for steam engine control, previously patented. Note that an electromechanically-actuated inlet valve does not require complicated valve gear (cam shafts, etc).

The inlet valve (not the piston valve) is a "sprung bash valve". The benefit of this is that large solenoid current is not required to open the inlet valve against high pressure steam. The mechanical energy needed to bash open the inlet valve (force X travel) is only about 0.03% of engine power. This is much less that standard valve gear.

The uniflow engine actually does use a condenser on the exhaust. However, the condenser is not a vacuum condenser, which is more expensive and complicated.

There are three methods of handling spent steam in a uniflow engine. 1) The engine can adiabatically recompress spent steam at TDC to convert mechanical energy (stored in the flywheel) back into heat, some of which is lost though the insulation around the cylinder head. The advantage is mechanical simplicity (no valve in piston). The disadvantages are that a heavier flywheel may be needed and that energy is lost through waste heat. 2) A vacuum condenser can remove spent steam from the cylinder. This can add efficiency at the expense of greater mechanical complexity. A vacuum condenser may not be appropriate for a small engine. 3) A valve in the piston allows the return stroke of the piston to pump used steam from the cylinder. This eliminates the need for a vacuum condenser but adds a precision moving part to a complicated piston design. The engine described uses 3) as the most economical approach.

An Invar piston is an economical choice to avoid steam leaks and cylinder wear. The Invar alloy is not intrinsically expensive; only low demand makes the price high. An Invar piston can be cast and machined, just like an aluminum piston.

Editor Andy Dingley says: "Particularly it seems to operate as an engine with no expansion, using some incompressible fluid." This is a misunderstanding. The engine operates on expanding steam. No incompressible fluid is used.

I hope the editors will not delete this article. --Guy Immega (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki article will inevitably be deleted because it fails the basic tests of a wiki article – in particular WP:N and WP:RS. As it seems to go nowhere in meeting them, then deletion will happen. I'm not calling for it, I doubt that the names on this page known for their interest in steam engines will be keen to remove it either, but as soon as one of the teenagers sees it, it'll be gone. WP:N and WP:RS. I would suggest saving a draft of this in userspace at User:Guy Immega/Advanced Uniflow Steam Engine, as something to work on with a view to obtaining such sources.

The question of whether it works or not is interesting, but simply irrelevant to WP. This isn't an academic journal, it doesn't care. You can describe a water-fuelled car here and, provided that some other source has also discussed it, water-fuelled snake oil is WP:Notable per WP policy.

As to the engine details, then I remain unconvinced, but that's too much detail for the moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Requires multiple reliable independent sources that discuss the topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Patents and self-published sources do not establish notability. ~KvnG 23:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Michig (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Kučan[edit]

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

BLP Prod tag removed with the addition of sources, but none of them look reliable, let alone constituting significant coverage. Michig (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on my research, she clearly passes notability guidelines. See sources like: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] etc... SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts whether they are all reliable sources, and a few would probably not be considered significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references from Nezavisne Novine, a daily newspaper published in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It clearly satisfies WP:NEWSORG of WP:RS. She does pass notability guidelines, little work is needed on the article though. Hitro talk 18:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Sarah plus one more.[14] The sources currently in the article should be deleted they are almost all unreliable book seller or primary sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, for me there are enough sources identified now to push this above the threshold, and as there have been no other editors in favour of deletion, I am withdrawing the nomination. Thanks for your efforts. --Michig (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gampaha Rugby Football Club[edit]

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

No content but an infobox. James^x12345 12:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It clearly passes Speedy Removal candidature. Hitro talk 18:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street residences[edit]

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

This article is entirely WP:INUNIVERSE, unreferenced and WP:CRUFT. Goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and most importantly, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). –anemone projectors– 12:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:LISTN. It belongs on a fansite, where they don't care about notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- find some wikia where this would be at home. Here, it fails WP:LISTN and WP:V. Reyk _YO! 23:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN, Belongs elsewhere!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. SmartSE (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congo Today[edit]

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

No significance..... Wikianoldie (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm normally inclined to be lenient to articles about newspapers (they are not often reported about by their rivals). But in this case this is a very new news blog and the article is blatantly 'adverty'. Too soon to have established any notability or track record. Sionk (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lui (Producer)[edit]

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

No significance, but lets get other opinions... Wikianoldie (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some research, she's merely mentioned in some reliable secondary sources but at this time, she does not appear to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 23 November 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 Kokhav Nolad 10. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Taragan[edit]

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

No significance, but i think we discuss it out. Wikianoldie (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kokhav Nolad 10. He won the show, but seems to have subsequently done very little of any note. Sionk (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 23 November 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. Tone 17:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Football Club Philippines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nomination hasn't submitted properly, so I'm nominating it again because it clearly fails WP:FOOTYN since it is not yet participated at any league, and WP:GNG for original research. FairyTailRocks (talk) 09:37, 23 November 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 November 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an article about a recently formed team which is only proposed to join the league in the future. I cannot see any significant coverage in reliable sources so it fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a hoax to me. Fenix down (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - full of unsourced speculation and fails WP:ORG. The names in the list of prospective players and absence of any GHits are all the signs of a hoax. Interestingly there is some coverage of a similarly named club in England, Philippine United Football Club - [15][16]. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the sole reason it hasn't played yet, and there isn't enough coverage of it yet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skrillex Presents: Free Treats - Volume: 001[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Doesn't add anything to Wikipedia as a whole and unlikely to be visited by many people. DJUnBalanced (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no purpose to have a dedicated article to one compilation EP that was given away for free.Idensai (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 17 November 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, TBrandley (T • C • B) 08:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bondy[edit]

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

Nothing here suggests notability and I found no significant independent coverage of him. Michig (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article text shows no more than a man with a series of reporting jobs. No evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agency Republic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Already made two rounds at AfD. In both cases the outcome was to keep it and clean up the promotion. 3 years later and awards are still the only thing covered in the article. I would trim them, but there would be no article left. Best to remove it until a disinterested editor makes a proper page per WP:NOT promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a private company operating as an advertising agency. It has worked for some notable clients, but notab ilitry is not inherited. I assume that the Alistair Campbell mentioend is not the journalist who was Tony Blair's press secretary. I might be convinced to vote "keep", if there was some evidcne as to substantial profits, capital employed, or staff employed. Until someone will provide clear evidence of notability, I would assume that it is NN. However I do not know and am thus not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on my research, it does not pass our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 10:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grey DeLisle[edit]

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

While prolific in voice acting, this doesn't seem to be notable per WP:CREATIVE. And it is completely unsourced (well, from reliable sources at least). Searches return social media and fan sites. This is one of many a bio (and cv like) about voice actors. Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn -- though the sourcing needs to be shored up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was notable. We all thought it was notable. I thought the user was vandalizing the article and I was doing what my heart tells me to do, undoing vandalism. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voice actress with multiple credits is notable. Grapesoda22 (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Literally the Mel Blanc of our current generation. WP:BEFORE not done, and there are many, many other voice actors I'd send here before this would ever get near AfD. Nate • (chatter) 09:28, 23 November 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. Tone 17:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Brito[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Into the Rift (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely fails WP:NMMA and the article's only source is a link to sherdog and that's not enough to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Sarkar[edit]

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

Another up-and-coming Bengali unknown filmperson, with no serious credits and no credible assertion of notability; borderline A7, but I figured let the body decide. Orange Mike | Talk 04:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-> No reference asserts her notability. No encyclopedic value as such. Flunks on WP:BIO,WP:FILMMAKER. Hitro talk 17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Omony[edit]

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

I don't believe Sunday Omony is notable enough either as a model or a TV host to warrant a wikipedia article.

As a TV host, she fits none of the criteria listed on WP:CREATIVE:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - She is the host of a minor talk show on local cable, and does not even appear on her own station's website: http://shaw.ca/ShawTV/Calgary/Personalities/

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - No

As a model, she fits none of the criteria listed on WP:NMODEL:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - No

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - No

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - No Sonofacar (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The AfD was incorrectly entered. There's no notice in the article. Not sure how to fix or what else might be wrong in the process.~~ Fixed by User:Taylor Trescott. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:21, 10 November 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because from what I can see, she passes WP:GNG with the sources listed in the article. Any suggestion she doesn't? Not only is there coverage of her, there is coverage of the coverage! If she does, she doesn't also then need to pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMODEL. Additional criteria are designed to allow those subjects that might not pass WP:GNG to be considered notable for their contributions. A subject need not pass WP:GNG and an occupation-specific criteria. Stalwart111 03:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes our general notability guidelines. Here's just a sample of reliable secondary sources.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] -- SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; nominator's only contribution was this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 23 November 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. Tone 17:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dipayan Mandal[edit]

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

Advertisement for "upcoming icon" who's never actually directed a film until now. Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 23 November 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 November 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject gets passing name-checks in PR about the upcoming "Teen Patti" film, but that falls far short of any of the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. (Note also that some of the film's press uses the alternate spelling "Dipayan Mondal", under which a previous autobiography was deleted.) AllyD (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not finding any sources that demonstrate notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madars Razma[edit]

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

Not sure about this. We do not have articles for many of the World Dart Federation world masters #1 players, and this guy is pretty good, but is only ranking in the 30s to 40s in the world masters. There is scattered enough coverage to build a small article, the question is whether we should. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 8 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never made it even to the round of 32 in any world championship event (regardless of tour) and has career earnings of under 4000 euros. Not a notable professional.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by reading WP:NSPORTS I can see the player is usually notable if he ever competed in highest professional tournaments. I suppose that being qualified even if not succeed to the round of 32 counts as competing. Also, he hold rank no. 1 professional darts player in Latvia of 2010 and 2012, and that also counts as notable. There is no arguments according to policy to delete the article. Alex^{discussion ★} 08:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank DiBussolo[edit]

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

Unref blp - couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to promotion by account which only created articles on DiBussolo and around him. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced BLP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the amount of claims in the article, I'm surprised that there's no coverage out there for him. According to this article he's received 8 Grammy nominations, but doesn't state for what or when. It's entirely possible that this could be referring to an album he performed on but wasn't the major contributor. (In other words, he played guitar on a recording of Les Mis that was nominated.) I don't think he'd pass WP:PROF, as it doesn't seem like he's held a big position at any of the more notable colleges and doesn't seem to stay with them for very long. I don't mean that to sound rude, just that he seems to have moved around a lot. The best source I've found so far is this one and I'm not entirely sure of their editorial process, although it looks relatively good. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a Cadence review for one of his works, but there really isn't much out there. I tried searching the Grammy website for his name and found nothing. A general search for his name and "Grammy" brings up primary sources that vaguely mention that he received nominations in "various categories" but never any specific information. There is a possibility of more sources being available off the internet, but the lack of any real coverage in general is fairly telling. Usually there's some brief coverage out there that would help back up notability, but all I'm finding are mentions of local performances (date and time type mentions). There's enough to suggest that some jazz aficionados might be aware of him, but nothing that would show that he's notable enough or has a big enough cult following to merit an article. I'd suggest a speedy for sheer spam, but given that there is a possible chance of offline sourcing, I'd recommend that this go for a full week in the hopes of more sourcing getting found. If anyone wants to userfy this, I have no serious problem with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To dissuade tagging for promotional prose, I've removed the puffery and reduced it to a discography and brief paragraph. The prior version can be seen here. Something I want to emphasize is that he doesn't seem to have performed on the official soundtracks for the various movies and musicals, but has instead put out his own renditions of the music, which is fairly normal. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:* WT:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Century Family Money Book[edit]

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

Unremarkable self-help book. No sources at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now has reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources have been provided. Notability established per WP:BKCRIT and GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 08:07, 23 November 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. Tone 17:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LaunchPadCMS[edit]

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

Notability not established per WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found on multiple searches: Google, Highbeam, Questia. (For a CMS system to throw a "Sorry,the page you visited isn't exist!" message from each of its own menu pages seems a bit, well, less than fully featured.) AllyD (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, software article of unclear notability. Lacks independent RS references. A search did not reveal any significant coverage. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 11:05, 24 November 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. Tone 17:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Robbins[edit]

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

Not notable local politician. Fails WP:NPOL. ...William 11:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions....William 00:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions....William 00:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's a perfectly nice person, but as the mayor of a small city, not particularly notable. Jonathunder (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail our general notability guidelines at this time, sadly. SarahStierch (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The politispam tone of the piece notwithstanding, the entire question here is whether elected mayorship of a small town of 3100 people is sufficient for an automatic pass under the Special Notability Guideline for politicians:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

I don't see significant coverage rising to this level. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nunt (book)[edit]

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

Notability of this book is not established; only reference is the book's website, which links to reviews in local newspapers. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete He claims to have got reviews[25] but i can't find much online: some are dead links, some to publications of dubious authority, and references to mainstream newspapers are too vague. If there are a substantial amount of in-depth geographically-dispersed reviews by professional critics or academics, that would prove notability, but it's hard to tell from that link (some look more like passing mentions or possibly reviews of other work). It was nominated for an award from the Writers Guild of Alberta[26][27] and was one of 51 poetry books on the 2005 ReLit poetry longlist[28], but neither of those is sufficient to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:58, 23 November 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. Tone 17:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpositive data[edit]

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

No references to indicate that this is a common, or at least notable, definition in the database world. A GScholar search for "nonpositive database" didn't turn up any results either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm no database expert but this article looks utter baloney to me. Since its creation in 2006 every edit has been merely clerical or administrative in nature. There are no substantive links to the article and it has no references. I can think of nowhere it could (let alone should) be redirected to. Thincat (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably more like a neologism a researcher coined for a thesis or somesuch. Never caught on. W Nowicki (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SimCode[edit]

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

Unremarkable programming language. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. If someone wanted to mention it in BBS, that'd be fine, but I don't really see any reason to specifically recommend a merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Sources[edit]

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

Not a notable company Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. This company is not notable - it has been tagged as such for a very long time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good coverage here. Annual revenue exceeding US$200 million strongly suggests notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A brief mention in one book, and one press release are not sufficient. Annual revenue is not relevant, only substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources actually matters. If it really is such a big company it should have dozens or even hundreds of articles in the business press. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Multiple mentions in that book over several pages, actually. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AfD notice was removed from the article. —rybec 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination the article is much better sourced now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Body Dancer[edit]

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

This article doesn't have a single reliable source supporting anything that is said on the page. The article, before I removed some of its main unsourced content, said The song first became successful in Italy and France. It became a hit in Poland and Germany, and then throughout Europe. None of it seems to be true as I checked all the charts for France, Italy, Germany. Sure the song seems to have been released as a single. But do we need to have a page for every non-notable song that has been released.--Harout72 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 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 November 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sadly it looks like it doesn't pass general notability guidelines, perhaps something will appear in other languages. For now, I suggest redirecting to Elena's article. SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Massive huge hit in the Philippines, one of the most popular hit songs of the 80's in that country and still hugely popular to this day. Early edits in the article by another editor stated that the song was a hit in Italy (the song's country of origin) and Europe - maybe it was only an airplay hit in Europe. Will find a more reliable source for the Philippines though.222.127.85.99 (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the song belongs to the project Magic Fire and not immediately to Elena Ferretti catalog's, we should consider deleting it rather than redirecting it. After all, the article for Elena Ferretti, is another article that is unsourced and perhaps most of what's on there should be removed.--Harout72 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG. If the IP editor is correct and this was a huge hit, then that might rescue it under WP:NSONG, but I can't fine historical music charts for the Phillipines. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ik Waari Haan Karde[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of it having even been made, let alone released. Google throws up a few mentions of it being an "upcoming" film, but there is very little to go on. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Gomez (fighter)[edit]

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

On notability grounds - MMA fighter with no top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights and the only link is to Sherdog, so he fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breadnbeyond[edit]

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

Author contested PROD. This appears to be about a non-notable animation company, with no third-party coverage. Google search returns no reliable sources, and Google News shows no press coverage. All the references are either to the companies website itself, or some promotional material for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG, and WP:ORG offers no help. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Girl Bleed a Lot[edit]

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

I do not think that this book meets the requirements of WP:NBOOKS. It was self-published and its web presence is relegated to fringe sources (or mocking said sources). Thomas Sowell's review makes up two separate sources, the FrontPage Magazine source is an interview where he's trying to promote his book, and VDARE is...VDARE. It's a bunch of highly conservative websites that I doubt would even be considered reliable sources spouting off praise for this book, and detractions in what are probably the only reliable sources which basically say that this book should not be given the time of day. —Ryulong (琉竜) 01:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Clearly fulfills criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS. Seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given the contentious nature of said book. A book that is currently the #1 bestseller, believe it or not, in the "Civil Rights & Liberties" e-books section on Amazon.com[29], should not be so flippantly deleted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't call snow keep when you're the only person to comment thus far. this book has been out for a year and it's suddenly only now getting coverage? And the #1 spot on Amazon.com's "Civil Rights & Liberties e-books section" doesn't seem to be much of a feat to be honest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book is notable and meets the criteria in WP:NBOOKS in an obvious way. It has caused wide discussion, some of it critical to be sure, but that's not part of the criteria. I don't understand this deletion request at all. Nolens Volens (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about the notability of a self-published right wing nut job's book is all. If we do not discuss the author as a subject before this book then it is highly unlikely that the book is truly of historical note.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've revealed your agenda. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can think that if you want. I have pointed out the issues with this book not meeting the minimum requirements of Wikipedia's retention policy. No one has bothered to refute it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already. It clearly fulfills criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS. You've just chosen to ignore it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria #1 of WP:NBOOKS states
The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
as well as
The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
and
"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
Nothing regarding this book meets these requirements. As I've pointed out, two of the references are identical, all of the sources praising the book are right wing conservative websites who have a vested interest in spreading hate and racism, which is what the two sources critical of the book point out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a borderline personal attack. Please calm down. Ypnypn (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Point #1 of WP:NBOOKS says "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." Let's go through the article's reference at the time I write this and see what coverage they give:

"Why Aren’t Race Riots News?" in the National Review does not discuss the book beyond its title. There is no critical coverage of the book itself.
"White Girls Bleed a Lot" at LewRockwell.com is a reprint of the National Review story.
"White Girl Bleed a Lot" at FrontPage Magazine is an interview with Flaherty about the book, so that does go in depth about the book. However, it's an interview rather than critical commentary about the book.
"'White Girl Bleed A Lot'—New Book on Black Mob Violence Frames No Hypotheses" is a column at VDARE.com that, while it mentions the book, does not discuss it in depth.
"Why conservatives obsess over flash mobs and 'race riots'" at Salon.com does discuss the book in depth. It's a panning of the book, but nonetheless, it's significant coverage.
"WorldNetDaily Now Peddling White Nationalism" from the Southern Poverty Law Center mentions the book in one paragraph but does not cover it extensively.

So, I count five unique sources: one review that pans the book, one interview with the author, and three mentions of the title in works about related topics. The book has not received enough coverage in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC) amended 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly meets criteria in WP:NBOOKS. The book has been the subject of reviews by Thomas Sowell of the National Review and Alex Pareene of Salon (these reviews are positive and negative, respectively). It has also been the subject of detailed discussion and review at sources such as FrontPage Magazine. It is a popular work which has caused wide discussion; it is not self-published. Some specific points:
- "Why Aren’t Race Riots News?" in the National Review is not a "trivial" mention of the work, such as an entry in the list of all books published in 2013. It describes the content of the book and says that the author of the review found it well documented and in agreement with his own research. Thomas Sowell has actually written about the book twice: the second mention is here http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364322/very-dangerous-game-thomas-sowell, in which some of the chapters of the book are mentioned. Clearly Thomas Sowell finds this book notable.
- Likewise, http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/censored-black-on-white-violence-in-america is a detailed review of the book; FrontPage has in fact mentioned the book a number of times, and did not merely publish an interview with the author.
- Salon.com has a detailed discussion of the book; the review is negative, but that's not one of the criteria for inclusion.
- WND books is not a vanity press, and the book is not self-published. WND certainly searches out controversial subject matter, and it's no academic publisher; however, it has published important works such as the memoirs of Ion Mihai Pacepa.
- 'White Girl Bleed A Lot' is the best-selling book on Amazon.com in the "Civil Rights & Liberties" category, and was at No. 630 for all of Amazon.com at the time I checked. That doesn't establish notability in and of itself, but it certainly helps show that this is a popular and much-discussed work.-Nolens Volens (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a best selling book in the Kindle store of that category, not all of Amazon.com. Thomas Sowell has written about the book once and the content on the two websites is identical. WND books may not be a vanity press but this book is certainly self-published. Frontpage is a right wing rag that isn't a reliable source because this is a promotional interview with the author rather than an independent review of the book.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The kindle and paperback editions of the book are #1 and #2 books respectively in the category of "Civil Rights & Liberties" on Amazon.com, not just in the Kindle store. I would call that pretty significant, as is being in top 1000 on Amazon.com as a whole. Please start actually following up the discussion, if you want people to WP:AGF. I gave a URL to a second article by Thomas Sowell, who clearly considers the book significant; and I gave a URL to a FrontPage Magazine article which reviews the book, which is separate from the interview with the author. It is not a self-published book; you seem to be unclear on the concept of self-publication. And I am not sure why you think that "right-wing" is some kind of a winning argument. A number of well-established journalists write for FrontPage, and it is widely read; it certainly is a conservative publication in the same way that, say, Huffington Post is liberal, but it is good enough to establish the notability of something (note that we are not discussing the quality or correctness of the book anywhere in the AfD discussion, which is about notability only). -Nolens Volens (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:NBOOKS#Online bookstores: "There is no present agreement as to whether a book's ranking at Amazon (found in the 'product details' section) constitutes evidence of notability." If its sales and ranking were significant, that would be mentioned in an independent source, no? Nobody's pointed out that such a review exists, or at least hasn't cited it in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reliable sources commenting on the book, both from "conservative" and "liberal" outlets. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. The book is clearly not self-published. 2. It's been reviewed by at least 2 national columnists. 3. It's on one of Amazon's best-seller lists. This does seem to be a case of an editor simply objecting to the book's existence. Jlambert (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"""Book should be kept on Wiki. If it is deleted, Wiki is nothing more than a liberal publication with its contents slanted to a socialist agenda. I have always enjoyed and supported Wiki financially, I will no more if it is involved in censorship of information to the people.""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfinGator (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Frotz(talk) 00:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NBOOK multiple book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Nolens Volens for finding those other reviews. It now looks to me like there's enough coverage to support an article. At the least, I'd like to give a few more months to work on the article based on that other coverage. If, three to six months down the road, the article were to still be a mess, then it might be appropriate to start a second AfD. At this time, and in light of the sources presented in this discussion that were not in the article before, I now think improvement is the better path than deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like editor bias to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrOringderff (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanveer Alam[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks references and the links are trivial mentions or lack independence. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 11:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters#Elmyra Duff. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elmyra Duff[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters#Elmyra Duff. I found a "top ten worst characters" ranking at smosh.com, but I'm not even sure that's a reliable source. I don't see much in the way of notability for this character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if inter-disciplinary.net is a reliable source, ~~trim immensely, but keep~~ pretty much all of the current content would need to go, but this from google scholar appears to be a pretty in depth analysis of her character/role [30] (on page 4) and another short commentary at [31] (on page 6 /(70)). and this book by macfarland looks like it goes into some depth on her character in the transition from Pinky & the Brain to Pinky & Elmyra & the Brain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on feedback from RSN it isnt a reliable source, Redirect. Use the sources above for some third party validity in the list article, but there is nothing worth merging. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 23 November 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 Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist preaching (Sri Lanka)[edit]

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

This article is lacking context, references and coherent text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 12:34, 7 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buddhism in Sri Lanka. It is a plausible search term, but does not add anything that could be merged. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really likely that anyone would search for that title? 'Buddhist preaching' maybe, but adding a country within brackets opens the way to all manner of article titles with variant formatting and countries.--Derek Andrews (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not a particularly likely search term but if it is going to help (80 people a month) find it, there's no real harm (per WP:CHEAP). Stalwart111 11:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glen (Child's Play)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Glen (Child's Play)

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

Non-notable fictional character. No reliable sources exist that attest to the notability of the character separate from the film or discuss the character from the out-of-universe perspective required for writing about elements of fiction. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT, WP:FICT and probably a bunch of other policies and guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/create List of Child's Play characters. Not independently notable and does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted twice? There seems to be 100% in favor of deletion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Om Hospital[edit]

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

Another editor had prodded as Non-notable institution - only refs are the hospital's own website and passing mentions in news sites. Creator objected on talk page. I think it's also spam when most of the article is contact details. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original ((prod))er here: reasons as quoted above. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 23 November 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. Tone 17:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autobahn (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF, Film is in early stages of Pre-Production, filming will not commence until March of 2014.--Jockzain (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFF, according to the source listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being TOO SOON and failing to have enough coverage of its production to meet the third paragraphh of WP:NFF. This may well have suitable notability in a few months... but not yet. Allow undeletion or recreation once criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Exotic pollution[edit]

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

Original research. The term isn't mentioned in any of the cited references, and the only relevant search engine hits seem to be copying the Wikipedia article. Kolbasz (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Kolbasz pointed out, the term is not found in the sources. Very likely WP:OR. --bender235 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like OR or just something someone made up one day (recently). Stalwart111 11:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. With any merger from history subject to editorial consensus. That outcome seems to best reflect the tenor of the discussion. Sandstein 18:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prowl (Transformers)[edit]

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

Sourcing for this toy consists of catalogs, in-universe guides, and blogs. Not a notable entity, though perhaps a redirect to somewhere is warranted. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The page has 54 sources and the nomination is quite unconvincing in its airy dismissal of these. This seems to be a blatantly frivolous nomination without a trace of due diligence per WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel, I take offense at your "speedy" dismissal. And I could ask you--54 sources? What kind, sir? This is a YouTube video of a dancing robot toy, from the manufacturer. This is a bunch of pictures on a fansite. This is also a bunch of pictures on a fansite--and one wonders whether linking to those pictures isn't a copyright violation. (Perhaps Werieth, who is experienced in these matters, can shed some light on that.)
  No, show me acceptable published references. As for these in-universe guidebooks, we know that existence does not equal notability. Being listed in one of those books, then, doesn't mean anything for notability on Wikipedia, since those books by definition include every single character, toy, and whatnot, so being listed in one of them means nothing. (You know we're talking about animated characters and plastic toys, right?) Besides, notability is not inherited: that something is a Transformer does not mean it's notable. It's just like with every other subject: notability needs to be proven by in-depth discussion in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your 54 sources aren't independent or reliable. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - per Drmies's ping I thought I would comment. I am familiar with with Wikipedia's non-free media policy. The article in question pushes that with excessive non-free files. There is a distinct lack reliable third party sources. Those sources are sub par at best. I will note that I really dont have the time to analyze all the sources for copyright infringement, especially because fair use may allow for liberal usage in some cases, however there are several obvious copyright violations. http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/tf/books/sticker/return/return.html is one example, this is a scan of a coloring book in its entirety (as far as I can tell). Werieth (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of characters, there is zero notability outside the fan universe, multiple copyright violations which are being used as sources, multiple other sources that are either borderline violations or have zero academic value and are 100% fan generated content. Given the issues I cannot support keeping the article as is. Werieth (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden. Alternatively, a merge to List of Autobots is preferable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having zero real-world notability. The "sources" are quite frankly a joke and to suggest that the toy is notable because the article includes links to fan pictures of the toy is laughable. Other stellar sources include works of fiction in which one iteration or another of the character is used. The character exists, but existence is not notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. This article depends on fan-published sources, comprehensive guides, and other sources which can not establish notability. Deletion is acceptable as a fallback, but I think a merge or redirect is probably in order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources listed for this piece of trash article are not reliable. They are mere fanboy zines. No real coverage in the Washington Post, Der Spiegel, etc. The pro-Transformers lobby should be stopped. 97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick look and immediately find that the Prowl incident ... was widely reported in the Washington Post back in the day. Your trash talk seems to be false. Warden (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

michaelandchrissy.com is not a reliable source and the linked story seems to be about a server farm. Nothing that sugests the toy is notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NinjaRobotPirate. TTN (talk) 17:12, 30 November 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. Tone 17:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic America[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT. Articles is entirely promotional, citations are primary, failed WP:ORG. v/r - T P 20:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP this page represents a notable company. Strategicadmin (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find is routine business announcements. Clearly a firm going about its business, but no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. Stalwart111 11:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironhide[edit]

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

No references but in-universe guides and toy catalogs, so no kind of notability is established. No surprise then that this article contains nothing more than plot (OR) and details about dimensions of toys and such. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The page has 54 sources and the nomination is quite unconvincing in its airy dismissal of these. This seems to be a blatantly frivolous nomination without a trace of due diligence per WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You miscounted. There are 52 references; perhaps you simply copied this from another AfD. The same objection applies: 18 of those "sources" are of this kind--pages on a fansite. This is a reliable source? A picture on another fansite? Please, Colonel Warden, explain to me how that "source" verifies that something was "remolded into Ratchet", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
  Need I go on? This is explicitly a fansite. This (now dead--and "Kraftbrands" is accepted here as a reliable source?) supposedly verifies that the thing has lots of pieces. But it's dead and unreliable. Well, I could go on, but I think the point is made: there are no reliable, independent sources, just blogs and fansites and in-universe books (which list all these things because they're part of the universe, and so don't contribute to notability). Drmies (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 52 in-line citations and 2 book sources in the bibliography. 52+2=54. If we look at the first of the citations, that's a reference to an article in IGN which ranks the subject as the third best Autobot. This seems fine as coverage. Warden (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden. Alternatively, a merge to List of Autobots is preferable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination is inaccurate as of my review. It talks about reception, movie adaptations, and others, and has well more than enough sourcing to meet the GNG. Once the GNG is met, additional questionable or self-published sources don't magically harm notability. Jclemens (talk) 08:41, 24 November 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 Scottish independence. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independence First[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:212.219.249.5, whose rationale (see talkpage of this AfD) is "lacks notablity, with no actions or publications attributable to them, and with broken links". I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 20:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Group appears defunct, a couple news stories ca. 2005-06, Facebook page with 31 "Likes". WP:NOTNEWS at this point. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Scottish independence, where are mentioned briefly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect -- a brief summary to Scottish independence, but enough may be there already. The level of participation in the campaign does not seem enormous, and the campaign has been overtaken by events. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Brooks Band[edit]

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

Article seems to be a promo page not a reference article. List of awards won seem to lack references and most have no national significance, awarded by local parties and not widely recognizable public organizations. Claims of Grammy Awards and other nominations are not substantiated with references. Grammy "eligible" ? That's not an award? Yomymainman (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I completed the nomination and am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The whole thing reads like advertising copy. No discography; inclusion of "awards" before there was a band; inclusion of mere nominations. The whole thing wreeks of WP:NN, but I am not formally voting because I do not know enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not notable. only one of the references provided is valid (the link to the Register). The others are either dead, press releases, or directly related to the band. (I'm removing the releases that are listed as "eligible" - the only criteria for a record to be "eligible" for a Grammy is that it was released at a specific time.) JSFarman (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion - Definitely NOT NOTABLE. Reads like a press kit. None of the awards listed are from any widespread, industry recognized organization. None of the awards themselves show up with their own Wiki page which supports the notion of their narrow reach. Search of national Christian (and secular) charts turn up NO singles or albums that have ever charted by the group? As noted above, hardly any of the references work and the few that do, don't really reference reliable sources. IndieNewsReview (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Support deletion. Article reads like the artist's own pr. Awards are iffy. Some before there was a band? JmacBrown (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maximals. Sandstein 18:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magnaboss[edit]

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

Not notable outside of the universe. Article consists of a description of some characters/toys, with no independent references verifying any kind of notability per GNG. That a guide and a catalog list this thing is to be expected--that's what such books do. It doesn't mean it's a notable thing. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, of course, books about Transformers are expected to contain information about them. Trying to dismiss the notability of the topic on such grounds seems absurd - like trying to say that direct sum is not notable because it is only referenced in books about mathematics. Warden (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maximals. I agree with Drmies. Comprehensive catalogs do not establish notability to my satisfaction. Google reports many fansites but not significant coverage in reliable sources. Deletion is also acceptable as a fallback. These characters are well-represented on wikia, and they don't need their own intra-wiki fansite hosted on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list. There is nothing significant covering the character, so it does not need to be given this level of detail. TTN (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Here's the most notable thing: 16% of fans want to see this toy in a sequel, according to USA Today. Article consists of an enormous amount of trivial fan information, combining original plot research with catalog entries on the toys derived from this toy. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just looking at the previous AfD and the first five refs, IGN, IGN, too, and ~~X-entertainment~~ are all lists of top Transformer robots of all time and all list Grimlock in the top ten. The USA today article above contributes a little notability and another IGN review is a spotlight on Grimlock. ~~I don't know about X-entertainment, but~~ Excluding X-Entertainment, the other four seem independent, go into some depth and declare this particular autobot as notable. These sources and coverage of the Grimlock action figures is enough to pass notability for me. The article itself is very complete but relies too much on primary sources and in its enthusiasm looks to contain some synthesis and possibly OR, too. It could be pared back quite a bit without losing essential information. But this is a matter of editing and a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN hits looks good, but is X-Entertainment a reliable source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was uncertain before, but looking more closely, I agree that X-Entertainment isn't reliable. Striking it, thanks. --Mark viking (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep 49 sources this time. The nominator seems to be on a deletion spree motivated largely by antipathy towards to subject matter rather than a genuine attempt to understand and engage with the topic. This seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT writ large but, per de gustibus non est disputandum, this is not an adequate reason to delete. The nominator seems like those old-school educators who deplored comics on the grounds that they were not proper literature. But Jane Austen and Dickens were considered frivolous amusements in their day too — plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It remains our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Colonel et al, please explain how this video is a source. I think I counted nine "sources" from this website. Kindly take back your censoring charge, Colonel--it's a bunch of hoohey, and you know as well as I do (well, you probably don't) that individual Transformer bots won't ever be on a level with Jane Austen. You seem to miss, in your usual zeal, that this nomination is for one particular character/toy--I would nominate the gardener in Pride and Prejudice for the same reason. You could show some good faith by trimming this so it's not so obviously a fan page full of OR and nonsense, with four probably incorrectly used non-free images. But hey. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not especially familiar with either Transformers or Austen. Dickens is more to my taste and, for his work, we have pages such as List of Dickensian characters, Dickens' London and Sarah Gamp, which I have worked upon. I would like to do more on those but don't have the time and disruptive discussions like this don't help. You may not care for Transformers but it seems to be a billion-dollar franchise with a huge corpus of books, games, toys, movies, &c. It would be most efficient and sensible to leave Transformers experts to work upon that extensive field leaving us free to work upon our preferred topics: Dickens in my case and bacon in yours. Attacking rival tastes and topics instead seems both uncivil and unproductive per WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Transformers experts believe that fansites constitute reliable sources then it's probably a really good idea not to concede the territory to them. Calling the actions of other editors "disruptive" with no basis in fact is a staggering failure to assume good faith. Pull the log of incivility out of your own eye before accusing others of having a mote in theirs. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not attest to the individual notability of this character. Being selected as a fan favorite is not a component of notability, even if it's selected several times. None of the sources that are self-published photos of the toy in various configurations (which are somewhere around a dozen or more) attest to its notability. Sources that are obvious fan sites with names like "TFormers.com" and "TFW2005.com" don't attest to the toy's notability. Personal attacks upon the nominator are irrelevant to the nomination and the attacker should redact his comments and apologize. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources clearly meet GNG, even if the nom appears to wish that they didn't. 'Significant coverage' is equivalent to 'non-trivial coverage' which is a mere mention of a name in another context, and it's clear that many of these sources meet that definition. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources would those be, the 25% of them that link to tfw2005.com or the fan pictures from conventions? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No real coverage in the mainstream press such as the New York Times, MSNBC, academic journals, and the like. This article also has been deleted several times and has been recreated by fanboys. This article is an insult even by modern internet standards. 97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are thinking of the right article since even looking at the deletion logs shows no evidence that article has ever been deleted?--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate sublist of Lists of Transformers characters. The topic's a searchable term, so there's no reason to delete. But the content of this article is not the type that justifies notability (mostly all primary and fan site references, and where using reliable sources, the topic is not discussed in significant coverage). --MASEM (t) 16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't know why anyone would try to use a quantity over quality argument regarding the sources. The grand majority are irrelevant, and the few that do don't seem to constitute significant coverage. Redirecting and allowing for a selective merge by someone interested is the best option. TTN (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable character seen throughout many notable toy lines, television series, comic book series, and video games. I'm sure this toy got reviewed somewhere when it first came out, it a robot dinosaur after all. Searching for sources I find this bit at Kotaku [32]. He gets coverage as a video game character there. Just watch the video. The character is reviewed in comic books he appears in. He makes it on an IGN top ten list. He is a fan favorite, a mainstream newspaper listing him as one of the top Transformers its readers voted should be in the next Transformers movie. Dream Focus 09:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Crazy runner (talk) 16:53, 1 December 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 is no consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Merging, renaming etc. may be options. Tone 17:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers in space[edit]

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

Not a WP:NOTABLE concept Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an extremely encyclopedic topic. Fotaun (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of independent reliable sources that are specifically about the topic of "mothers in space" as opposed to "here are some female astronauts who have children". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is a muddled essay that would interest few people. The common thread is supposed to be mothers in space, but it isn't! Valentina Tereshkova had her first child a year after her space flight, Christa McAuliffe never reached space and Owen K. Garriott is definitely not a "Mother in Space". The article mentions childless wifes and adult children, but the subject "Pregnancy in space" is better covered by Sex in space. The trivial information "Cady Coleman spent Mother's day in orbit" exceeds the scope of any reasonable encyclopedic treatment. The content belongs to a non-Wikipedian "Moms in Space" website. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was the one who put a notability warning originally on the article but Fotaun's subsequent edits have met the threshold for a minimum quantity of sources to establish that the article can be encyclopedic secondary sources on mothers in space as a topic rather than as a "list of X in Y" as I was originally worried. Boleyn have you seen the current article with the post-afd edits? Rolf H Nelson (talk) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure, looking harder at notability guidelines I can see arguments both ways. The Time magazine article is the only ref I'm 100% sure isn't self-promotional or fluff. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jerry Pepsi and Necessary Evil - some of the examples don't fit with the topic. Green Giant (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The weak examples can be weeded out, so that should not sink a worthwhile topic. Fotaun (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weed out the weak examples and you are left with enough material for a possible section in List of female astronauts but not enough to form a separate article. The first sentence is a clear example of what is wrong with the whole article. It states "Mothers in space are females with offspring in outer space, typically Earth orbit". To me, that could be one of a number of scenarios; for example it could just as easily mean females whose children are in outer space, which would be evidently untrue because there are no children in space. Nothing in the article clarifies why it is notable enough to warrant an article. What precisely is so notable about "mothers in space". Is it the fact that they have left children behind on Earth? There are male astronauts who have left behind children on Earth too. Are these women carrying out motherly duties in space? Obviously they will communicate regularly with their families but so will the male astronauts. If you could point out a group of women who have given birth in space, or raised children aboard a space station, then it might become a notable topic. As it stands the article is futilely trying to link a number of noteworthy strands but these strands would be better served in other articles. Green Giant (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see Mothers in Space. Warden (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the proffered source, a book called Space Oddities: Women and Outer Space in Popular Film and Culture, 1960-2000, is about works of fiction. Any discussion of the actual real-world topic of "mothers in space" is limited to a few paragraphs (about one specific mother who tragically did not reach space) and the work itself is not substantially about the subject of "mothers in space". Even if we accepted this source, which we should not, WP:GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That book is not just about works of fiction, and the discussion you point out is a valid contribution to the topic. Fotaun (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "valid contribution" whatever that means doesn't change the fact that the proffered source does not help to establish the notability of the subject " mothers in space" because the book is not substantially about the subject " mothers in space". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't need to be about the topic of the article, see WP:GNG guidelines on what counts as significant coverage: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well again, the coverage in that source is not about "mothers in space". It's about one specific mother who never made it into space. It does not speak to the broader topic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this article needs a better title and lead section to loosen up the scope a little more to include all subjects related to motherhood and space, not just mothers who have been in space, but that's a trivial content issue not reason to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so where are the sources that would support this hypothetical motherhood and space article? "So and so was in space and had kids too" and "So and so spent Mothers Day in space" doesn't cut it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are few sources that talk about this topic in a general sense, there are enough on individual cases to show this is a topic that is often discussed. It's a good idea for an article and precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia is lacking in due to WP:SYSTEMIC bias issues. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This discussion shows systemic bias against...what exactly? Be specific in backing your accusation against the people favoring deletion in good faith. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:SYSTEMIC - it discusses how topics of interest to woman receive less coverage and support due to the well known Gender Gap across all of the WikiMedia projects. That doesn't mean voting delete in this AfD means you are personally biased, vote for whatever reason you want. The Gender Gap and SYSTEMIC is not a bad faith accusation. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way to rectify the gender gap is to create reliably sourced articles about notable topics, not keep poorly sourced articles about non-notable topics. Addressing the gender gap doesn't override notability guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable topic that is reliably sourced. (That it fills a gender gap = bonus.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the provided sources are not about the topic of "mothers in space". They're about "baby mice in space died" and "Christa McAuliffe had kids (but she died without getting into space)" and "One mother spent Mother's Day in space and this one time two of the four women on one space mission had kids but the other two didn't". No sources on for instance actually mothering in space. By definition a topic is not notable unless it is covered in multiple independent reliable sources and the specific subject "mothers in space" is not. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of mothers and space is covered in multiple reliable sources. Your requirement that the sources say "mothers in space" (the article title) or that it be a general treatment (versus specific instances and issues) is not part of the notability guideline, or any guideline. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are sources that mention that there are women who went to space who happened to be mothers at the time, which is not the same thing. And yes, the general notability guideline does mandate that there be significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Does the exact phrase "mothers in space" have to appear? No, and I never said that it did (although one would think that a source offering significant coverage of mothers in space would include the exact phrase at least once). But the subject does, again, need to be covered directly and in detail. Not "this is a mother who went to space, and this is another mother who went to space, and here's a mother who didn't make it into space. Also a bunch of baby rats died." Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that for GNG, "significant" is not a mathematical count of words, it's if there is usable information to write an article with. One sentence can be significant. We'd have to go through every source to determine and fortunately there are a lot of sources to look at. So the idea that every source here is a trivial mention - plus I'm seeing others in Google Books - seems hard to believe (in fact I'm seeing more than trivial coverage in some sources). I'm beginning to think this article would be better focused on children and space, with a sub-section on mothers, sort of the same thing since mothers have children by definition. There are unambiguously many sources that discuss children and space for example. I'd be happy to rename the article and refocus it on children, and maybe trim out some of the motherhood material that is too tangential. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter that you refer to appears to be a very speculative discussion which assumes that there might be children in space by the middle of the century. The introduction seems to waffle on about flight and space travel but seems woefully short on the topic of children in space. The bulk of the chapter is not available so I cannot speculate on whether it covers the topic on greater detail. Thus far, it does not strike me as a particularly encyclopedic topic, indeed it seems very WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish. Equally it would be wrong to dismiss this if it is covered elsewhere, so could you list other texts that cover this area? Green Giant (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strawman one example. Suggest do some google searches on (eg. children space) to see the abundant and varied material on this topic, both future speculations and more earth bound concerns (education, literature etc). Again, it is a general treatment and can cover a wide range of issues and subjects. We have many other general "in space" articles see Template:Inspace, there is precedent for general treatments of space topics. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is only saying the other stuff sets a precedent for a general treatment of topic, not as reason for having the topic. Fotaun (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Green Cardamom, so your answer is ... just do a Google search and it will magically appear. You gave us one example and I pointed out the weaknesses, but that does not mean I have dismissed the idea completely. The point I was trying to make is - what were the other sources that convinced you that it is a viable topic? I don't want to dig through pages of Google searches filled with unrelated links like a youtube video and a PDF promoting a neologism. Bearing in mind that it is you who is proposing such material, the onus is on you, not me, to prove that it is a viable topic. Green Giant (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is based on common sense and a couple basic Google Books searches that confirmed there are various sources on this topic. Which sources are used and how can't be determined until actual text is added to the article, and since the article is currently being expanded by another editor, and this AfD indeterminate, I have no immediate plans to expand or change the article until there is clearer consensus on direction. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" does not mean "there is usable information to write an article with" and a single sentence is pretty much the definition of "trivial mention". From GNG footnote 1: "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial." A single sentence source may certainly be used in an article and indeed that single sentence may provide an important detail that isn't found elsewhere. However, "important" does not equal "significant" in terms of notability guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the rules don't differentiate between "important" and "significant" coverage. Further, significant coverage does mean usable for writing an article, covered in the "why we have this" section of the guidelines. If you are going to say these sources are trivial, you have not done a proper accounting, only making edited and honestly non-neutral paraphrases of certain sources. Maybe the closing admin will be convinced by those paraphrases, we will see. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a difference between "important" and "significant" because the word "important" does not appear in the guideline. I spoke of an individual fact within a source as possibly being "important", not whether or not a source was "important" because "important" is not an element of the notability guideline. And no, "significant" does not mean "usable for writing an article". It means that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Not really sure where the stumbling block is for you here. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot happened to the article since it was nominated, and since the early comments. Fotaun (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you continuing to work and improve the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bewildering as it may seem, it looks like there are more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG. I am a bit concerned that the article seems to mix the concept of being a mother already and then going in space with that of conceiving, giving birth and raising offspring while already in space -these seem two different things to me. However this has nothing to do with deletion. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. This concept as a concept has not received significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definately not OR: Parenting From Earth's Orbit (NYT), Astronaut Mom Karen Nyberg Prepares for Mission and Motherhood 255 Miles Up (NASA), Mother's Day in Space: Astronaut Mom Connects With Son From Orbit (FOX). Fotaun (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies the fact that some astronauts became mothers before they flew in space. But if you read Wikipedia:No original research, you can see that it is not enough to find sources at random to back up your essay. You're riding coattails.

Secondly your sources are very sloppy! As mentioned before Christa McAuliffe never went into space, so she wasn't a "Mother in Space". You put six references to carpet-bomb the readers (>>...in the Challenger Disaster.[19][20][21][22][20][21]<<) but there are TWO doubles! Challenger exploded 73 seconds into the flight and the crew compartment reached an altitude of approximately 65,000 feet (roughly 20 km). That's not space by Wiki standard - not even by a long shot! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have focused one small part of the article, but it is that source not us that links Christa McAuliffe with the topic of mothers in space. Fotaun (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Challenger, she was an astronaut on a space mission who was killed in the line of that duty. Article titles are placeholders not literal straight jackets, the scope of the article is defined by the article itself, in the lead section usually, and can be whatever we decide - article scope is not OR it's an editorial decision. This is a general topic covering many aspects, past, present and future, space and earth. It is not OR to have a general treatment on a topic that is covered in many sources in specific cases. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in its current state, with extra sources, the lead and the first section still have a "gee-whiz, look at that, an astronaut mom"-feel. The part that is different is the section called "Scientific study of motherhood in space", which is more encyclopaedic. If I understand your last statement correctly, I think the current article is not a general treatment of the topic but there is a way to make it more encyclopaedic. Move past the narrow focus on mothers and make it into an article about families in space, the effects of long-term separation of astronauts (male and female) from their spouses and children, the possible ramifications, ethics and challenges of raising children in space, the possible effects of radiation on human reproduction etc. As long as it is sourced properly, I can see such an article as a spin-off from space colonization and a number of related articles. Green Giant (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Women in space/women astronauts is a notable topic[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] but doesn't have a general article (there are lists of women astronauts, etc); I'd suggest a merge if it did, or maybe rename and edit this to the more obviously notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either Women in space or women astronauts, as proposed above in Colapeninsula's "Comment". Mothers in space does not have sufficient info about the narrow topic of "mothers", as noted above, and should be Deleted if not renamed. But the article could be quite comprehensively sourced with the slight clarification of Women/female humans in space, which have definitely received much press and are notable as a standalone topic. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 23 November 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 Decepticons . Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonecrusher (Transformers)[edit]

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

I wouldn't mind a redirect (though I don't know where), but as an article this cannot stand. A bunch of blogs and catalogs don't establish notability--the most relevant real-world fact, with some kind of verification, is that someone named their dog after this toy. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be proposing redirection not deletion. The nomination seems quite feeble as it is an easy task to find appropriate targets by using the what links here function which readily lists such possible targets as List_of_The_Transformers_characters. The page has 34 sources and it is easy to find more such this. The nomination misrepresent the sources by calling them blogs and catalogs when there are several book among them. The notability of the topic seem quite apparent and, as the page is quite substantantial, WP:SIZE indicates that we should leave well alone. Warden (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Alternatively, a merge to List of Decepticons is preferable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Colonel predictably links to not an independent book that discusses this thing in-depth, but rather a catalog and pricelist of products. One cannot deduce notability from such a book, or from the in-universe books and manuals referenced in the article, since such books automatically, by virtue of what they are, list everything: that's their job. Boz, in this and the other cases I'd be fine with a redirect, of course. The redirect isn't as simple as the Colonel makes it out to be (and the Colonel is on a spree of reversing the redirects I've made, without explanation or so much as a by-your-leave), since there are a lot of different targets and I'd rather leave that to the experts. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source is detailed, independent and reliable. The topic therefore passes WP:SIGCOV and that's that. Drmies' distaste for Transformers naturally extends to sources which cover the topic. There's no pleasing someone with such an attitude - see confirmation bias. Warden (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Decepticons. There is a rather impressive list of sources at the bottom of the article, but they all look like fansites, primary sources, or comprehensive catalogs. Much like All Media Guide is not used to establish notability for music-related topics and comprehensive film guides are not used to establish notability for films, I would argue that comprehensive toy catalogs can not be used to establish notability for toys. The rest of the sources are self-published or don't actually discuss the toy/character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with NinjaRP - no clear sources for establishing notability outside of the fanverse. Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outrageous stupidity. What is this Wiki-Fourth-Grade? Delete this Gobots stuff. 97.72.232.122 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is little need to keep the article in its current state. If there is any future improvement calling for a split from the list, it can easily be brought back. TTN (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. L Faraone 03:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Albie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article mostly consists of plot summaries. Source search only brought up fleeting mentions in articles about the show. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather than merge, (WP:GNG),since the List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters already has a character summary, and adding a large plot summary about one character would overbalance the article. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, since the name is very plausible as a search term. The effect would be nearly indistinguishable from that of deletion, but the preservation of the page history would allow future merging of text (no matter how large or small) if desired. Super Mario Man 19:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - because the name is a (barely) plausible search term for the character list. Do not merge any of the text since it would unbalance the list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. TTN (talk) 17:03, 30 November 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Web Performance Optimization Resources[edit]

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

Delete, appears to be a large promotional list of products and bloggers Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - under G11. This is nothing but a list of external promotional links. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though perhaps it could be integrated into Web performance optimization. This is a useful list of resources available for readers interested in this topic. It is deliberately vendor-independent and lists both free and paid-for options. Articles like List of corporations by market capitalization seem to have no problem listing large numbers of repetitive links to profit-making entities. I see this list as both more benign and more useful. — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a list of internal Wikilinks on this subject can be useful, but when nominated (and I cast my !vote) it looked like this. Perhaps with a very limited number of external reference-only links I could see keeping it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been removing external links - let me know what an acceptable number is. I feel like it's at the point now where it should be keepable, but please let me know if you want more changes. Jnklein314 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed links from several book titles which went externally to O'Reilly. Reformated the book list for consistency with other lists of books which appear on Wikipedia (e.g. List of science fiction novels). webbj74 (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this discussion isn't moving forward, and it seems like we have largely reached consensus that this article can stay. Can the notice be removed? Jnklein314 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we finalize this discussion? I'd love to come to a conclusion and get the notice removed. With the latest changes I hope the article complies with all of Wikipedia's standards. Jnklein314 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, help me understand how this kind of resource can exist on Wikipedia. The rational and goals for this page can be found on my blog: A New Source For WPO Resources. I'd love to know more about the right way to get this approved. -- jnklein314 —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there's a fine line between "promotion of a lot of bloggers and products" and "list of valuable resources, most of which are free and open source, but some of which are paid products". There must be examples that work on Wikipedia that are in the latter category. Jnklein314 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed many of the external links, and pointed the company names at their respective Wikipedia articles. Let me know if I'm going in the right direction. Jnklein314 (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading Wikipedia docs, and it seems like this should fall into the category of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. What needs to change for this article to qualify under that description? I'm happy to write a better lead in. Jnklein314 (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the kind of list that shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. It's wide open to abuse for promotional purposes, as it doesn't have a strict definition of what qualifies. The list itself also has no inherent notablity - it's not enough to say that web performance optimization itself is a notable topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, obvious spam magnet and not much more. Certainly people can find this useful, which might give commercial sites some motivation to keep such a list, but not encyclopedic. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure why there are delete votes, doesn't this fit the description of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists pretty closely? Jnklein314 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of the above, List_of_Adobe_Flash_software is a perfect example of such a list, and it is 100% vendor specific. If that can exist on Wikipedia, why can't this? Jnklein314 (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of Adobe Flash software is extremely specific, which is absolutely required for lists. Web Performance Optimization Resources is much vaguer and much more abusable. You'll note that there's no 'list of terrorist organizations' on Wikipedia, but there are articles such as 'US State Department list of foreign terror organizations' and 'list of designated terrorist organizations' where a government has to do the designating. One kind of example is specific and clear, while the other is arguable and abusable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So would each individual sub-list qualify as a valid article, since they are much more specific? Jnklein314 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jellyrox[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WPGNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from WP:MUSICBIO: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

The Jellyrox meets criteria 1, 11 (debatable), and 12.

(This does not totally prove his notability.....but it does prove he passes this specific statement by Wikipedia) RhettGedies (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have not been any non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself and so fails 1. 11 is not supported and really requires charting. 12 is also not supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment Regarding 1: Are you saying that different Christian websites (NewReleaseTuesday.com, Broken FM. Interviews, Cmaddict.com, etc.) and radio stations' websites are not valid for this?

Regarding 11: I quote you "11 is not supported and really requires charting."

Since it does not actually say that in the Wiki Musician guidelines, the part I have bolded is null and void until it can be backed by more evidence. To deal with the first half, the interview from KORB (Broken.FM) clearly support he is being played on a decently big radio station (NGEN Radio also plays him...but apparently their official Twitter is not good enough of a citation for the songs they play, track by track daily. I would argue the validity of this.).

Regarding 12: Again, KORB's interview with him is sufficent until proven not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhettGedies (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem without providing charts to support item 1 means it's not reliably sourced and since it can't be proven, the suggestion that it actually happened is null and void not my statement.

I'm not certain that one on-air interview on a radio station counts toward notability either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it needs to be proven that the subject was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence for notability and response to previous statement:

Recently found another radio interview with NRT Radio that was transfered from live recording/airing to "electronic post." (see link for interview: http://www.newreleasetuesday.com/article.php?article_id=1094)

Regarding 1 of the guidelines: I can't really comprehend how one can put clout in the 0.1 percent chance that official Christian websites are not the ones writing the reviews/summaries about The Jellyrox. If you are doubting that, you are doubting the credibility of everything on Wikipedia that has been cited by those site(s) (e.g. CMaddict.com is looked to as a professional site for reviewing Christian music, recently, Relient K's new album was reviewed by them and cited on the Wikipedia article.) If they aren't credible, why are they being cited for more professional renowned artists?

Regarding 11, if you go to NGENradio.com and go to music, they have a record for the music played that day. As of today (November 5, 2013), I saw The Jellyrox in the archive/line-up. Unfortunately, the list for today(Nov. 5th) will probably not be accessable by tommorow, but a new list will take it's place as the other is filed somewhere unaccessable to the common user (hence why they post track-by-track on Twitter). All this to say, there is proof of The Jellyrox in a routine daily rotation.

Regarding 12 and the Broken FM interview, see above for the officially published interview from NRT Radio for more support if that one isn't sufficent and notable (which hasn't been proved "yes" or "no" yet, mind you).

Regarding the WeLove Christian music awards that The Jellyrox is nominated for: They are being sponsered by New Release Tuesday (which claims to be the largest Christian Music Site online at this time) and Grand Canyon University. This should be sufficient clout to make them "credible."

(Note: This doesn't support anything, but a group of approximately 15 fans are in the process of trying to get The Jellyrox on Air1 Radio as well.)RhettGedies (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely close to credible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio airplay, awards, and even charting don't prove notability on their own, hence why WP:MUSICBIO only says an artist "may be notable" if the criteria are met. They certainly help, but without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as specified by WP:GNG (keep in mind, this doesn't include interviews, album reviews, or short news articles), all the radio play and awards in the world don't mean anything. NRT and CM Addict are both technically reliable sources (by virtue of having editorial oversight), but the closest either of them have to a proper article on the band is this one, and even that barely tells you anything about them. If you found something like this or this, that would be something else, but without that, it's hard to prove they're notable. In short, delete.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cited Cross Rhythms. This doesn't count just because it is small?

and, do artist profiles on NRT mean anything towards credability, this one?

Indie Vision Music also has a decent amount of published posts regarding The Jellyrox'. One of them is an interview, this one. As well as a post re-affirming the release of Embellish after many small posts of each song's debut via a stream.

Here is a CMAddict post highlighting an acoutic single by JRX. RhettGedies (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than just a paragraph or two. The articles I linked to talk at length about their respective bands and what makes them notable; most of those are just brief news articles, press releases, or just plain gushing over the band. They don't reveal anything that makes them different from any other indie band, other than being the lead singer from Eleventyseven. Still not notable.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, my resources are almost dry (you two are doing a fabulous job btw). Here is a brief press release regarding the WeLove awards. It probably doesn't help anything but whatever, here it is. RhettGedies (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's too bad.~~ This last one is about a nomination for a non-notable award. It's already been determined that WE LOVE CHRISTIAN MUSIC AWARDS are not notable. No one really writes about except NRT and the artists who are nominated for or win the award. It needs to be written about by others. The Doves are notable because others write about them. The Covenant Awards (Canadian GMA) are notable because they are written about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be sarcastic. I was genuinely complementing you. RhettGedies (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but I realize how that came across. I have stricken if. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Awards, a few sites besides NRT have written about them. Judge for yourself of course: here, here, here, and here. (I also found the Portal discussion that you are involved in, Walter. So I know this probably won't unhinge your opinion on them.) RhettGedies (talk) 22:57, 13 November 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, v/r - T P 02:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another review that talks a little bit about The Jellyrox in general as well as his debut release (2010): hereRhettGedies (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop looking for more material to support this artist until you've read WP:RS, WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO and clearly understand them. Your new source states that "Mountain Xpress is an independent newspaper located in Asheville, North Carolina." Looking at the source specifically. The first thing I notice is that the author is Alli Marshall. I look for a staff section and see http://www.mountainx.com/info/contact . It appears that Alli Marshall does a lot of writing for this independent newspaper. "aeblog" draws a bit of a concern though. It's not clear if this is a RS or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken.

You only addressed the one article. What did you think of the other articles addressing WeLove? Also, what did you mean when you said, ""aeblog" draws a bit of a concern though. It's not clear if this is a RS or not." Please elaborate more for us basic/simple users, such as me.RhettGedies (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The We Love discussion shouldn't be made here, but it's still weak. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ITunes, facebook, tumblr, bandcamp, soundcloud, twitter, instagram, youtube! If there is some notability hiding somewhere in this mess then in it's current form this article needs some TNT. We Love awards are not major. There's a lack of coverage of the band in independent reliable sources and a search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you fail to mention New Release Tuesday, Broken FM, and Indie Vision Music in your post. If you are going to cite the sources, then cite them all please.RhettGedies (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While all of those are technically reliable sources (editorial oversight and whatnot), the sources cited from them in the article do not cut the mustard. One is an NRT artist profile (not reliable, as they tend to be user-edited and/or copied from the band's press bio), one is an interview that seems to be no longer available (and anyway is only used to source the fact that it exists), this one is a blog by a staff member that only really talks about the one song, and the Heta Himlen review by IVM is, of course, an album review and thus does not count as significant coverage. The piece from the Asheville Citizen Times is just a list of upcoming concerts and does not list an author.

Simply put, none of the sources or claims currently in the article, nor any of the ones presented in this discussion, have sufficiently proved that the Jellyrox are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Therefore, I maintain my vote of "delete".--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which interview are you talking about? The Broken FM one simply must be searched for on their site (or the podcast version on iTunes is easy to find)

The NRT review is on a typed-out electronic copy on their website. RhettGedies (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the wall of text, retention is still only supported by the article's creator. Not sure why this has been relisted again. The arguments for deletion are policy-based while the arguments for keeping this seem to return to the same misinterpretations of policy. I'm not trying to insult the article's creator but dragging this out is becoming colosseum-esque. The great irony is that we're probably only a couple of good sources away from notability and spending time making the subject notable away from WP (rather than spending time on WP arguing that it is already) would be a much better use of your time. Work on getting the subject some good coverage in a couple of magazines and you can dispense with all of the above. There's a very good chance this could be notable in the future - go and make it so. Stalwart111 12:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Coughlan[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians standards. A county comptroller is not an automatically notable position, and I see no indication that he has any other claim to notability. There is no page for his position to redirect to. The Dutchess County article doesn't mention the office of comptroller either. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a county functionary of this sort is not enough to establish notability, and he doesn't seem to have any other claim of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 7 November 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, v/r - T P 03:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Has substantial coverage in multiple sources. It doesn't matter how small the position, if it meets WP:GNG, it's enough. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 20:18, 23 November 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 Debra Gauthier#Bright Lights, Dark Places. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 00:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Lights, Dark Places (book)[edit]

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

Worldcat shows this self-published book in zero libraries. [40]. Apparently the local reviews & appearances weren't enough to make it notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability has been shown via secondary sources for a memoir written by a controversial, high-profile female police officer, with local, regional and national coverage, who was a cast member on FOX's "Cops" episodes. Passes WP:GNG. Is notability now determined solely by Worldcat numbers? AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Redirect per conversation below). I see only one unambiguous book review in a (local) reliable secondary source: Las Vegas Review-Journal - it negates all the other Las Vegas Review-Journal sources since multiple stories from the same source counts as a single source under GNG. The 700 Club article says "She wrote a book" and that's it, trivial coverage. The book signing source is promotional not secondary. BlogTalkRadio is unreliable. The rest don't mention the book at all. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps the book article can be redirected to a Wikipedia article about Gauthier? I can start that page. I did a Google search and it appears there are reliable sources that can be cited in an article to show notability about her instead of just about the book. Your thoughts? -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Debra Gauthier has been created for redirect. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article is better since the sources have more significant coverage of the article topic. However, they are still mostly local to LV, but the 700 Club is national and LV is a large area, so it would be a closer call. Personally I'd probably vote Keep if it came up for AfD, if you find more non-local sources it would help. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I found an appointment to a national commission (American Bar Association's Judicial Assessment Commission of the Nevada Supreme Court) in 1999-2000 and added it to the article. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the page Debra Gauthier. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Debra Gauthier - The article for the book is good itself but the article about her covers it better all around. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 23 November 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 and redirect to Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kidd Creole[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT. Laun chba ller 10:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Urgh. If he had those releases he's noteworthy. There's sorta some reference text at the bottom. Not much to base a rewrite on, though, yeah - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a redirect to Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five. He's a member of a notable group. The discography is almost all releases by the group. The references have been cut and pasted from the article about the group. Lacks encyclopedic focus and there is a clear COI. I added a genuine source but it was replaced again with the cut and pasted refs. There isn't sufficient notability outside the group for a separate article and if there ever should be in the future it would need rewriting from scratch. --Michig (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michig - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems appropriate. Yomymainman (talk) 13:29, 25 November 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 HP Mini 1000. History will be left intact due to the interest in merging; whether and what to merge can be decided in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Internet Experience[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution for a single laptop ~~that doesn't even have an article.~~ ViperSnake151 Talk 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GNG not met. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Notable: source 1 source 2 source 3. These were found by a 30 second google search. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These articles only make passing references to the OS as a component of HP Mini 1000. It does not suggest any independent notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OS is in the title of all three articles and receives enough coverage in each to signify notability... in my opinion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But still; its a Linux distribution only shipped on one device. Make an article on the HP Mini 1000 itself and then you can talk about it all you want. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are not based on policy. It doesn't matter that it was only shipped on one device, it only matters if it is covered in reliable sources, which it is. It also doesn't matter if other stuff exists (or in this case doesn't exist). The OS's notability is independent of the device it runs on. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 06:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I assume you haven't seen HP Mini 1000 Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 06:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notoriety, there is a specific guideline in which this article fails to meet WP:Software, it does not meet its criteria, lacking in-depth coverage from a reliable source from its particular field (oses), it is not subject of social integration, it is not widely reported by reviews, manuals, etc, it is not a historical piece of software. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea why I'm lobbying so hard to keep this article... but the fact is WP:NSOFT is an essay and WP:GNG trumps it. This OS has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I don't understand why this doesn't satisfy WP:N. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only received a burst of coverage because it was a component of that laptop. So obviously any reviews of it are going to mention it. That doesn't mean its an independently notable product. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to HP Mini 1000 then. Note that the article on the machine does not use the grandiose name with all capital letters, and neither article links to the other. Not sure the redirect would be that useful to leave behind, but history perhaps. Combining the two would make a much better case for being notable. For that matter, merging all these individual "spec-sheet" articles into HP Mini to describe the product line through history would be best in my opinion. Right now the articles use present and future tense (sometimes past tense) without much mention of dates. These products change so fast that each one rarely meets notability requirements by itself. One can always go to the vendors' web sites to find more up-to-date specifications. Anything from 2008 is probably obsolete and unlikely to become more notable the longer we wait. But a narrative of how the product line evolved with appropriate wikilinks and citations to reliable verifiable sources is more "timeless" and thus more encyclopedic. W Nowicki (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HP Mini 1000. This seems like a subject that would be on-topic for the HP Mini 1000 article, and it doesn't have notability independent of that device. It gets Google hits, but they're not significant coverage of the operating system itself; it's always discussed as a component of the device. Much like we wouldn't create an independent article on a single-use tamper-resistant screw that was mentioned along with a gadget, we shouldn't create articles on single-use operating systems that are tied to their host device. If it ever becomes independently notable, then it can get its own article. Deletion seems a bit extreme, but that's an acceptable fallback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 25 November 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 Tsukasa Fushimi. Or merge from history at editorial discretion, until this work becomes notable. Sandstein 18:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ero Manga Sensei - My Little Sister and the Locked Room[edit]

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

This article has simply been created too soon. It is about a book that will not even be released for another month, and it is unlikely the book will satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:BK for a while, certainly not anytime soon. The only sources that have discussed the subject thus far have been those that announced the work was going to be published in December, hardly the level of "significant coverage" stipulated at WP:GNG. I would recommend userfying the article as a subpage of the article's creator, User:KirtZJ, until such time the article gains its own notability (i.e. notability not being inherited from the popularity of Tsukasa Fushimi's other work Oreimo). 十八 22:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.--十八 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--十八 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to argue for or against keeping this article. I will obviously lose either way; merely to reference on article creation in the future. I'll get right to the point. What is the difference between this article and something that is definitely a Wikipedia:stub or Wikipedia:start class Or something like Love Stage!! or Nobunagun besides notability? There is no way this series can or will ever go on its own without mention of its predecessor Oreimo simply because–

1)it is the only other planned full length series Tsukasa Fushimi is directly responsible for as far as I have seen.
2)Going back to the notability, the series has only been announced but has an official press release via Dengeki Bunko's website with useful information. There will obviously not be as much hype since it isn't even out and people are of yet unaware of anything else to judge it on
3)in addition to the fact that it will not receive as much attention as series who have received anime and manga adaptations.

All I did was compile the current information and there will obviously be more available once the series releases next month, therefore the only way to go is up. It seems unfair that the article should receive the hangman's sentence so easily because of the Notability when it is obvious that it can't achieve that just yet but may gain some level of it in about a month or so when media sources start reviewing its first LN. —KirtZ^Message 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really expect "media sources to start reviewing its first novel"? From what I've seen in the past, this simply does not happen, and trying to predict that it might seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me. CRYSTAL's 5th point even seems to apply directly to this instance. Besides, both Love Stage!! and Nobunagun have anime adaptations announced, so they have achieved notability per WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Any article must establish its own notability or it's liable to get merged or deleted; why else do we have notability guidelines?

I would also like to point out that mention of Oreimo in this article is superfluous. Fushimi has written two other series, a single novel titled Nekosis (also illustrated by Hiro Kanzaki) and his debut series Jūsanbanme no Alice (which ended at 4 volumes). Obviously, only Oreimo has of yet gained its own notability; the author's three other works, including Ero Manga Sensei, have not. This would be a case of WP:INHERIT. On your second point, "an official press release via Dengeki Bunko's website" is not a third-party source, so it doesn't help establish notability.--十八 01:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The big problem with saying other stuff exists (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is that ultimately the only reason other stuff might exist is because they haven't been redirected or nominated for deletion yet. Bringing the other articles up in an AfD is sometimes very counterproductive because in many instances the pages in question are either redirected or nominated for deletion themselves, which is often the opposite of what was the intent behind mentioning them. Now as far as whether or not Oreimo will be mentioned for this series, the comparison will be inevitable, but the big thing we need to remember is that the focus needs to be predominantly on the light novel series. That coverage doesn't seem to be out there just yet, although the benefit of it being the Oreimo author means that there's a higher chance of coverage because of this. I'll do a little research, but so far I'm leaning towards recommending that this gets userfied/incubated until more coverage becomes available. If by some chance this doesn't get any more coverage, I'd probably suggest reaching out to some of the various LN fan translation sites such as BakaTsuki to ask if they'd like to use any of the data. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only place I see any mention of Oreimo being in this article is if a reliable source compares Ero Manga Sensei to that series in a review. Just saying in the main article's body that the author also wrote Oreimo is like what book publishers do (By the same author of series!) to gain reader attention, something Wikipedia should not be in the business of doing as it is unencyclopedic. However, if it could be found in an interview by the author that he came up with the idea for Ero Manga Sensei because of the positive reception of Oreimo (which seems to be the case), that would be encyclopedic.--十八 06:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Asked and answered. As I said I wasn't here to debate but I really appreciate you taking the time to reply Juhachi, and for the insight Tokyogirl79. I'll be continuing to collect the information as it becomes available nonetheless. —KirtZ^Message 06:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect unless someone wants to userfy. It's probably going to be recreated when an anime adaption is announced. That's how Wikipedia is. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tsukasa Fushimi is apparently notable as the writer of other notable work (WP:WRITER), and therefore this info could be included in a new article on the author, per WP:NBOOK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Merge to Tsukasa Fushimi for now without prejudice against recreation in the future. Although I'm an Oreimo fan myself, as the book hasn't even been released yet, it's too soon to have an article. Apparently Tsukasa Fushimi may be notable enough for his own article, so if someone created an article for him, then this, as well as the book's Japanese name, can be (re)created as redirects to his article (besides; even if this were notable, it would be at the Japanese name since it hasn't been released nor licensed yet). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since his article has now been created, I've changed my !vote accordingly (although since this translation is unofficial, the proper redirect should be the Japanese name; I wouldn't mind if this were deleted instead since the translation is not the official English name). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've created the author's article as a redirect to Oreimo; if someone can write an article for him at that title, then perhaps Ero Manga Sensei can be mentioned over there. If I have time, I'll expand the page and turn the page into a biography. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tsukasa Fushimi. Only coverage is based off of an advertisement and/or press-releases, so the subject itself fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK for lacking independent coverage. Also, the success of a previous light novel series by the same author does not transfer notability on this light novel series. And the presumption that this light novel series will be successful and will establish its own notability falls under WP:CRYSTAL. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 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. As the article now stands, it is a WP:BLP1E of an otherwise low-profile individual who was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. While BLP1Es are permissible in a few cases where the person had a significant role in a major event, I cannot see that this is one of those exceptions. It is possible that the case should have an article, but that would be a different article from this one, and merely renaming the article does not resolve the issue. As such, I am closing this in accordance with Hasteur's concern. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Arthur Martens[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet the high bar needed for including the wrongly convicted, per WP:CRIMINAL. While it might be suggested that we rename the article to be about the case, I am not finding sources that indicate WP:PERSISTENCE. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I removed the copy of the talk page that I had added, was a bit clumsy, and is still at the talk. Tuntable (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRIMINAL the pilot is not a renowned figure (ie. someone famous before the incident). The event itself lacks persistence so does not appear to have had lasting social impact. WP:NOTNEWS on the national news headlines. This could become notable if he is written about in books in the future, or movie made about him, or the case is overturned causing a corrupt judge to be disgraced or sent to jail, etc.. out of the ordinary that impacts wider culture. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable because was a major story, and was widely reported at the time. (The first three pages of a Google search on Frederic Martens Conviction produces about 30 hits.) More importantly, it is important because it reflects the working of the Australian legal system. It resulted in severe criticism of the AFP and public prosecutor by the appeals Judge Chesterman. Public scrutiny is rarely available, so events like this provide important insights. (The article could well be renamed.) Tuntable (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Frederic Martens" Conviction leads to only 63 results. And some of those are just headline links to existing articles, because there are systems set up to generate links to headlines with "sex" (and similar terms) in them. And some of them aren't about this Frederic Marten at all; there was a Pennsylvania Crime Commission Director with that name, so his name shows up with the word Conviction on some pages, as does a Russian lawyer of the same name, and there are general catalogs, such as PeekYou telling you that they find 14 people with this name. Not doing an exat count, but it looks like less than half of that 63 are about this Maretns. (Googling with the middle name in place brings 23 results, some of the duplicates of the other search.) Google News Archives finds just three articles

Trying to use it as an example of problems with the AFP doesn't fit in with the encyclopedic method. Do we know this is the pattern with the AFP? If so, we know that because of statistics, and we should present the statistics in the appropriate place. If we don't know that, using an anecdote to try to assert it is misleading.

If it could be shown that this case had some actual impact, if (say) laws were significantly changed and the force cleaned up as the result of this, that would be one thing. But seeing that the articles I'm finding on the case are all from 2009, it seems that this lacks WP:PERSISTENCE. It absolutely should not be here under the name of the falsely accused and I'm not seeing cause for it to be here at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have already discussed the problem with the "Frederic Martens" Conviction search. Most articles refer to him as "Frederic Arthur Martens" and thence Martens, which your query will not match.

Telling people about how the world works is exactly what and encyclopedia is about. We do not want to have a winge page, but backed up by appeals court judge comments I think it offers important insights. Tuntable (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to the middle name concern above: "(Googling with the middle name in place brings 23 results, some of the duplicates of the other search.)" Even Googling his full name without the word conviction brings a grand total of 24 results. In other words, it doesn't add significantly to the sparse results. If this is "how the world works", then you should have sources on how the world works covering more than one data point, and an article on the greater topic should be built from those sources. Wikipedia is not a place for original theories. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is an important data point about "how the world works". It does not and need not be a complete theory of everything. If the article was titled "Corruption within the AFP" that would be different. But it is not, nor is it intended to be such an analysis. It is supposed to be a clear, complete, unbiased review of the facts of this one case. Any discussion of its significance to the AFP belongs on the AFP page. But providing the full details of this case would clutter the AFP page and put undue weight on this incident. Yet the details of this event are important for people to be able to make up their own minds as to its implications. Tuntable (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who sez this is an "important data point"? We have standards for deciding that, judging the notability of events, and this is failing to meet those standards. We do not include every court case so that people can "make up their own mind about the implications." -Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to agree with Tuntable. But the article needs a copy-edit and perhaps even complete rewrite session.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly needs work, but first lets get past the delete arguemnt. Tuntable (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, the way this article is currently written it's significantly failing the BLP policy. I'd prefer to have the article deleted and an unencumbered version be written as this one is just plain wrong at this time. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on how you think that it fails BLP, and what improvements you would like to see. That was not the original issue cited by Nat Gertler. (Renaming the article to focus on the event rather than the person might certainly be a good idea.) Tuntable (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let's start again. I had (& I believe User talk:NatGertler) have misunderstood WP:CRIMINAL.

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

I would agree with that. Martens himself does not warrant an article, but the incident does. As previously suggested, the article should be renamed. (I cannot see any other article that it should be merged with.) Tuntable (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read further in WP:CRIMINAL:

Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event

As I stated in my initial AFD submission, the event lacks persistence, which both condemns the inclusion of the article on its current subject and causes strong notability problems on the incident as a subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013 series)#Tahan. I have considered the argument that the subject has notability outside the context of Big Brother, but the article is almost entirely on her participation in the program. On the other hand, there is considerable coverage of her in the list. There is no clear consensus here but the compromise redirect option should satisfy most of the concerns because most of the content is already in the list article, while we at the same time we follow the usual precedent of not having a separate biography for participating in a reality program. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tahan Lew-Fatt[edit]

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

The person in question is not notable enough to warrant an entire page dedicated to them. The majority of information on the page has been copy-pasted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan and doesn't need a separate article. TameImpalaFan (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being on the duration of Big Brother for 100 days which translates into about a 100 episodes is noteworthy. Even moreso is holding the record for being saved the most times by the public and generally being a popular public figure as a result. Tahan has attracted attention even before for her unique background and has been profiled in several newspapers for reasons unrelated to Big Brother. She is also the first person from the Northern Territory to make it to the finals of the Miss Universe Australia. UpendraSachith (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Delete~~ (No need to !vote twice). Being on Big Brother doesn't necessitate a whole article for any housemate, let alone one that didn't even win the show. All information about the housemates can be found here in a handy little article: List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013 series). The page in question has literally copy and pasted the information from the above page.

Tahan also hasn't attracted attention prior to Big Brother outside of some local newspaper articles which are very flimsy evidence to suggest any sort of fame or notability. "Several newspapers" is incorrect as it was one website that contained this information and was tabloid journalism - not a genuine, respected news source. These articles were written in a clearly promotional tone and aren't a proper representation of an actual proper newspaper.

I see no reason that this page should be kept as there is already a relevant page containing all of this information already. The only compromise I can see is merging the very small amount of extra info to the housemates page. If the actual winner of Big Brother (Tim) that has had a prior media career and is more well-known and well-liked than Tahan doesn't necessitate a whole page dedicated to him, then why does Tahan need one?

Also for what it's worth, I am a huge Big Brother fan and have followed every single episode and continued discussing the show since the season finished. I can tell you with absolute confidence that Tahan has basically been completely forgotten since Big Brother ended and has slipped back into obscurity, further proving that any sort of so-called "fame" was very, very short-lived.

--TameImpalaFan (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the statement that she has the record for being the "most saved housemate of all-time" is incorrect. Camilla from Big Brother 2006 holds this record, so this incorrect statement should not be taken into account. Not that it even warrants a whole page being made for someone or proves any notability or popularity anyway. There were 6 nominees each week this year, so Tahan had an 83% chance of being saved, as opposed to Big Brother 2006 which had only three nominees each week and a 33% chance of being saved. Camilla's was a much tougher and greater feat, and she deservedly holds the record for this.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've suspected as much that you are a Jade fan. The vigor with which you sought to remove the article is indicative. Tim should have a page, but it's not my duty to make one. UpendraSachith (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect UpendraSachith. I couldn't stand Jade. It's irrelevant who I like or dislike anyway.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan. I have reviewed the sources provided at Talk:Tahan Lew-Fatt and they do not meet the requirements outlined at WP:BIO. Several appear to be press releases, not intellectually independent of the subject. In any case, I am not seeing sufficient depth of coverage to merit a stand-alone article. As a reminder, neither being a fan nor pointing out other stuff are good reasons to !vote to keep or delete a particular article. VQuakr (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what intellectually independent means. It means the article isn't copied word for word from another article. And NT Times is not affiliated with the subject so for all intents and purposes it is independent of the subject. UpendraSachith (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the definition at WP:GNG rather than yours, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The show is notable, but notability isn't inherited. She's not automatically notable because she has a recurring role on a television show. She doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT, at least not yet. At the very least, the unsourced copypasta that comprises the body of the article has to get in shape. Once it's gone, there isn't enough left for an article. The sources are superficial and are mostly about her role on Big Brother. Grayfell (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BLP1E (the suggestion here) surely doesn't apply to someone with an established modelling career, features in multiple magazines, televised appearances as a grid girl and articles in several newspapers who then goes on to feature (prominently) in a highly rated reality TV show. That the article needs work is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. "Significant coverage" does not mean "intellectual or academic significant coverage" - features in men's magazines (no matter how vapid or "lowest-common-denominator") still count toward significant coverage. She's probably the only one of the contestants this year who was "partially notable" before her appearance. The additional coverage, prior to her appearance, gets her past the BLP1E issues that are usually problematic for reality TV participants, I think. Stalwart111 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: I guess I'm not seeing it here. "Vapid" coverage can indeed be an indicator that it is trivial in nature; and while I am not positive that the multiple local stories on the subject aren't intellectually independent of the subject, they certainly are not intellectually independent of one another. WP:PAGEDECIDE seems to apply here - there is not enough verifiable information to significantly expand on the paragraph already written at List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2013_series)#Tahan, so why muck around with a stand alone article? VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "vapid" I mean "not particularly intellectual", which is how I would describe coverage like that in Zoo Weekly. But that doesn't mean it isn't significant coverage. Insignificant coverage would be a passing mention of her in a list of grid girls. That's not what we're talking about here - we're talking about interviews and feature spreads in magazines before she ever appeared on Big Brother. We "muck around with a stand alone article" because she is notable enough to justify one. There's plenty of argument that being on television every day for the better part of three months is more than enough "significant coverage" to justify an article but that argument with regard to reality television participants is usually killed off by WP:BLP1E. In this instance, we're talking about BLP3OR4E. Even if we consider the pre-BB coverage in the NT News to be one source for the purposes of WP:GNG (which is the accepted standard anyway) we still have to contend with coverage like this from 2008. I just can't see any way that we could consider 2008 Queensland coverage, 2012 NT coverage and 2013 BB-related coverage to not be significant coverage. It's long-term coverage in multiple sources not connected to each other and about different events/issues. Stalwart111 08:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."

"Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event

All of the non-Big Brother sources are for NTNews.com.au, which appears to be a local newspaper, which significantly gives undue weight to any perceived notability. This is on par with an article on a local sport teams results or something like that. She had no prior fame. Some small-time modelling gigs do not denote fame.

Big Brother selects housemates which people do not know about. That's the whole concept of the show. "Ordinary people" are chosen. These are all puff pieces designed purely from a promotional aspect and do not in any way represent actual news or any notability.

As I've said before, the majority of the page has been directly copy-pasted from this article. When you take away that information, there is nothing left for the article to stand on its own. The tiny amount of extra information can be easily merged with the description on that page. There is simply no reason why there should be a stand-alone article. TameImpalaFan (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've significantly misinterpreted that policy. That section is aimed at excluding gossip and tabloid rubbish and preventing someone from building an article only on tabloid sources. Neither the NT News or the Courier Mail are tabloid sources and the articles from each certainly aren't "tabloid style" articles. Feature spreads in national magazines are not "small-time modelling gigs" and your attempt to downplay things because they disagree with your personal POV is telling. Your personal opinion that "Big Brother selects housemates which people do not know about" is exactly that - your personal opinion - and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary is actually true given Tahan was well-known in men's magazine and motorsport circles and Ben was a regular on the Brisbane stand-up comedy scene. Even if it were true that the producers of the show favoured unknowns, that would still have no bearing on a discussion about notability here. That it would be a short article or even an article no longer that what exists elsewhere is irrelevant. Stalwart111 07:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the claim that "All of the non-Big Brother sources are for NTNews.com.au" is total rubbish, as evidenced by sources provided above and in the article itself. Stalwart111 07:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being realistic is not "downplaying" as you incorrectly put it. If anything, you're waaay overstating any sort of notability. The "other sources" that you refer to are not relevant. One is from a Bebo account of her sister. That has absolutely no place on a Wikipedia article. The other is talking about her mum, and is only a few paragraphs long. The absolute definition of a puff piece. Journalistic fluff. Appearing in couple of photos in a men's magazine are totally meaningless too. Cover model, she certainly ain't.

And the concept of Big Brother isn't opinion. How utterly ridiculous! It's a well-known fact that they take unknowns. That's why they had a Celebrity Big Brother - to differentiate from the regular Big Brother that contains "ordinary" people. Ben was not a "regular" on the stand-up comedy scene. This was eventually proven to be false. At most he had a few amateur spots and was featured in a review.

Your reasons to keep this page are flimsy at best. TameImpalaFan (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Please learn to indent.)

In citing the Courier Mail piece about her and her mother you're acknowledging that your original claim about all sources being from the NT News was a falsehood, and you're confirming my suggestion that coverage in multiple sources (independent of her appearance on Big Brother) exists. Cover model she ain't? Some would disagree. As I said, even if I agreed with your assessment of the producer's intentions, that still would have no bearing on this discussion. The only "well known fact" here is that we use Wikipedia's guidelines to determine notability, not the unverified personal opinions of editors. Arguing that an unknown producer's supposed preferences should be used as evidence that someone isn't notable would have to be about the flimsiest argument of all. Stalwart111 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where did I mention the "Bebo source"? - that's total rubbish (both the source and your claim) and it should be removed (both the source and your claim). Lucky we don't rely only on the sources currently listed in the article but on what is available. Adding available sources is, again, a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. Stalwart111 10:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Courier Mail article wasn't about Tahan, it was about her mum, therefore it's irrelevant. All the relevant ones are from NTNews.com.au and they're all fluff and nothing more.

Yeah, she appeared on a cover - POST-Big Brother. A lot of female ex-housemates have. It's basically a tradition. It doesn't mean anything until it becomes a regular thing, e.g. Krystal Forscutt from BB06. I'd even say that it's in their contract to be allowed one Zoo magazine appearance after they've finished as well, so by that logic you'd be creating pages for every single ex-housemate that had a one-off appearance on a magazine cover. Your whole argument relies on the idea that she was somehow notable before Big Brother. She wasn't. End of story.

The concept of Big Brother just further proves her total lack of notability prior. They wouldn't choose her if she was famous, because then she would be given an unfair advantage in the competition, people would recognise her immediately etc. It would hurt the show and the public image of the show if they chose someone famous after establishing the shows concept for TEN YEARS, so they certainly wouldn't risk that. The fact that she wasn't recognised until people started digging around for a few modelling gigs just proves my point even more.

The Bebo source was one of the very few sources listed on her page, so I just assumed you were including that with your argument. Sorry, if you weren't, but you didn't exactly make it clear now, did you?

--TameImpalaFan (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what? The subject need not be the focus of coverage. You're just not getting it and I'm done explaining it again and again. Your arguments for deletion here are entirely unconvincing, especially given they are based on personal opinion, not policy. That you don't seem to understand where the Zoo Weekly material came from speaks volumes. This AFD is a waste of time and I'm done. Stalwart111 11:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to convince me whatsoever, therefore I'm "just not getting it". Nice cop out, but stay on topic please.

I've explained my points enough and I'll leave it up to the mods to make a good decision.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan. Hard to find any decent coverage not pertaining to her Big Brother appearance. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:47, 23 November 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 Peter Laufer#Books. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Rejected[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Veggies (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Books by Peter Laufer. Apparently the author of this article is attempting to create a unique article for every book written by Laufer. This is ill-advised as WP:NBOOK will make some or most of these difficult propositions for standalone articles. However they will have enough sources together to justify aggregating them under a single article with a sub-section for each book. This book for example has these sources: Democracy Now, C-Span, Washington Monthly, Orlando Weekly. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Laufer#Books. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Laufer#Books - Essentially, the book is better known through him and doesn't stand out by itself as notable. I found several good links in Google News in addition to others here and here but I think it's better to simply redirect to the list of books. My thanks to the article creator's contributions though. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 23 November 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 Replace content. with a disambiguation page (search results) Sandstein 18:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grewal[edit]

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

This article has stumbled along for years as a succession of unsourced stubs. Reliable sourcing doesn't appear findable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ since notability is unclear and content is unverifiable. Also pinging @Sitush:, our in-house expert on the subject, to see if there are any available sources, or merge/redirect targets. Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some digging. James Tod does mention the Gherwal and it seems likely that this article is based on that (eg: the 36 royal races claims are often reliant upon him). The problem is, Tod is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot. Grewal is obviously a last name found among Indians and some people would argue that the article could be turned into a list of people who bear that name and who have a Wikipedia article, a disambig page of sorts. That approach assumes, of course, that we have some such articles - it is quite often found that contributors add last names to people without actually having any evidence that it is applicable. In fact, there is one example of that apparent original research in the article right now (Gurnam Singh has become Gurnam Singh Grewal). - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page but with a complete rewrite. Grewal is a common enough name and is gotra of the (Sikh) Jat people but there isn't much written about it as such. We can turn it into a list of people who bear the name using sources such as this and this, mentioning briefly that it is a gotra. We'll need explicitly to state that the appearance of someone's name in the list does not mean that they are of that gotra (WP:BLP with regard to religion and caste). There is at least one notable Grewal who doesn't have an article yet - J. S. Grewal - good writer who is often cited. NB: As suspected, Grewal as a Rajput community seems to be based on Gherwal but the only sources for that are people like Tod and Henry Miers Elliot, who are not reliable and don't even agree with each other. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 10 November 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into disambiguation page for people with that last name (with an additional link to Jat etc), as User:Sitush suggests. Whether this is done through deleting the current page or not is essentially immaterial. Abecedare (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a surname dab page, or as Dickens would say, "Please sir, I want some more Grewals." Clarityfiend (talk) 12:10, 23 November 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.