< 4 November	6 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. Despite having originally !voted in this AfD before the sock issues arose, I'm WP:BOLDly closing this per the "any reasonable administrator" provision of WP:INVOLVED. Only two articles (which don't include the 'main' nominated one) remain after the violation-of-block ones bite the G5 dust, and even those were created by a sock of the since-indef'd master account. Per WP:DENY, those are being deleted, and then I will create afresh the lot as redirects per the consensus prior to the policy violations being discovered. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beuel Rathaus (SWB)[edit]

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

Short article about a train stop with no sources or indication of significance -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

include in the nomination:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to articles most of these are tram stops not train stops. (Some such as Vilich-Müldorf (SWB) are rail stations.) It would probably be sufficient to merge them into tables or diagram in Bonn Stadtbahn#Lines describing the various routes/lines, but this would be better done by an editor with knowledge of the transport system. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy close~~; none of the "also included" articles are tagged for deletion. Either they need to be removed and this devoted only to the nominated article, or the whole thing needs to be closed and re-opened. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all part of the same transit system and were all created within the past week by the same user, why bother with a separate afd for each? --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it may be appropriate to discuss them in aggregate, User:BigPimpinBrah, you have to label all of them for AFD. Please see WP:BUNDLE for the directions. The notice must be placed on each article, or it is not a valid AFD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 09:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As all but one were now tagged, I have tagged the remaining one and withdrawn my objection on that basis. It is my opinion, seeing as these all appear to be stops on a light rail line, that they should all ~~redirect~~ to Bonn Stadtbahn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. How do otherwise non-notable s-bahn stops deserve a standalone article? 78.105.28.140 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A bunch of unsourced stubs regarding stations that don't meet WP:GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations, this is clearly a case of: If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality or parent company. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all. And yes, I know that is simply an essay and not policy, but it is an interpretation of WP:GNG in circumstances just like this. The info (if sourced) would however merit inclusion in the Bonn Stadtbahn articles though. Liamdavies (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these were created in violation of a block, so I have tagged those with ((db-g5)). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced DBF Repair (software)[edit]

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

The sources are mostly commercial download sites, with one press-release, and one WP:SPS blog. No indication that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (software). Searched for sources, found a lot of spam and noise, but nothing useful Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the fact that the article creator, who I believe to be a paid editor (raised the issue at WP:ANI where she has not replied) states on the talk page "This is a DBF software related article and it was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. Advanced DBF Repair has a place in wikipedia's encyclopedia and there isn't a single line for promotion or any sort or marketing." the sources are either press releases or the usual download sites, etc. I can't find any sources that show notability by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (software). Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 22:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable coverage out there at all. Despite what the creator says, it was reviewed by one AfC participant, and seemingly in error too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 8 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. v/r - T P 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Lugo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor league baseball free agent... unlikely to make it to majors, no independent claims to notability Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 23:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in the Dominican Republic, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While WP:BASEBALL/N does state that a player is "presumed notable" if he/ she plays on a team at the top national level of any country, this is only a rule of thumb, not a policy: a presumption of notability suggests that relevant citations could be found if a person were to thoroughly dig for them... If, however, upon conducting such a dig (as it appears others have now done) with no actual evidence of notability to be found (which it appears is the case), an argument to keep the article solely on a presumption of notability seems to have failed the test of an actual investigation/ examination of notability and therefore the article does not warrant inclusion. KDS4444^Talk 14:06, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humans of Hong Kong[edit]

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

Photoblog with no third-party coverage and no indication of notability -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and seemingly used simply for promotional purposes. --Cantivsto (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article on a non-notable web site. No Google hits of note and no reliable sources in article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like advertising with a breach of privacy in the pictures. The Banner talk 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable website....William 23:54, 7 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. v/r - T P 03:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Poveda[edit]

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

Minor league baseball free agent.. unlikely to ever make the majors.. no claim to notability Spanneraol (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't meet criteria of WP:BASEBALL/N. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played in the Venezuelan League, which is the top league in Venezuela. Therefore, he passes WP:BASEBALL/N per notability criterion 2: "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they...have appeared in at least one game [of] any...top-level national league." Alex (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past there has been much debate over if leagues in Venezuela and the Dominican really count as top level leagues.. I would say no on these. Spanneraol (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are both the top level leagues in their respective nations, per their own Wikipedia articles. I cannot think of any leagues that are of higher rank. Per Wikipedia guidelines, he's notable. Alex (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument could be made, and has in the past, that those countries simply don't have "top-level" leagues. As the summer leagues in those countries are developmental leagues for MLB teams and the winter leagues contain mostly fringe minor leaguers hoping to get more seasoning. Spanneraol (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for that claim includes assumptions and exceptions that are not included in WP:BASEBALL/N. As it is written, WP:BASEBALL/N would include the Venezuelan and Dominican winter leagues, as they are the nations' top level national leagues. The minor summer leagues are not what I would consider national leagues - rather, they are American leagues sanctioned to play and develop players from those nations. In addition, those leagues are a step above the competitive level of the developmental minor summer leagues (which consist almost solely of raw, developing teenagers and players in their early 20s), as they include - contrary to the above claim - numerous major league and high-level minor league players from around the world - from major league veterans to minor league top prospects (a glance at the Dominican league's leader board provides proof of that claim). If exceptions to WP:BASEBALL/N are desired, then one must petition a change in the wording of the rule. But as it is right now, the leagues and players in question fall entirely within the scope of WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't be considering "winter leagues" to be the highest level of competition. That probably should be a discussion on NSPORTS's page (if that dicussion hasn't been had already). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is open to interpretation... "top-level" doesn't necessarily mean the "highest level of competition in a particular country" but could instead refer to the top-level competition in the world.. meaning the top-level leagues would be MLB, NPB, KBO, etc... I wouldn't consider the winter leagues to be top-level anymore than I would consider the Italian League or the Brazilian League top-level. Spanneraol (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we've kept articles on the premise that they played in the weak top leagues of various nations, like Mexico and Italy (see the AfDs for Homar Rojas and Henry Bonilla for examples). That said, I do not think the time of year the league plays should be a deciding factor in whether the league is top level or an article is worth keeping or not. The Dominican and Venezuelan summer leagues, which play a 'traditional' baseball season, are far less talent-laden and competitive leagues than their winter counterparts, which contain numerous major league, high minor and top prospect talents. In WP:BASEBALL/N, the leagues you mentioned are specifically enumerated by name in the rule, with "any other top-level national league" added at the end. That suggests that the "any other top-level national league" does refer to any and all national top leagues not mentioned. Alex (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I recently wrote on the WP:Articles for deletion/Jose Lugo (2nd nomination) page: while WP:BASEBALL/N does state that a player is presumed notable if he/ she plays at a top national level, that is only a rule of thumb, not a policy: a player who has played at such a level may very well be notable, but such a presumption is subject to investigation— and if, after an investigation, the presumption is not met, then in my mind notability has not been established. This appears to be the case with this player. KDS4444^Talk 14:19, 12 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. The discussion has come to no consensus, but I would say that GiantSnoman has made a better argument that makes this discussion sway toward delete. But not enough to push the button. v/r - T P 03:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir Azeman[edit]

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

PROD contested by anon for no reason (why am I surprised). Concern was that article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and that case still stands today. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the subject does not appear to pass NFOOTY yet, there is a case for GNG. The following sources provide substantial indepth coverage of the player, containing interviews and comment beyond routine match reports:

Mahathir's star will only get brighter
Football: A toast to Mahathir Azeman
Mahathir joins Boavista
TNP SSS Profile- Mahathir's hard work pays off
Boavista hand Mahathir one-year deal
17-year-old Mahathir Azeman to train with Boavista
The Success Story of Mahathir Azeman - contains a number of screenshots of substantial newspaper articles about the player, not all of them covered above.

Unlike almost all other young players who have not played senior international football or in an FPL, there genuinely does seem to be a significant amount of coverage about this player in Singapore media (and what I have noted above is only in English), beyond mentioning his name in match reports or briefly noting transfers. Would be interested in @GiantSnowman: and @ArsenalFan700: views on the level of coverage noted above. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A case of WP:BLP1E - the media always get themselves in a brief frenzy whenever a young foreign player signs for a 'big' club, see for example Jack Harper who is a young Scot playing for Real Madrid. Giant Snowman 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the articles discuss more than just the transfer. Would suggest re-reading them in detail please, the four minutes between my post and yours suggests you did not. Fenix down (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ABFing and assuming I didn't read the articles. Are any of them more than "look at this young Singaporean who plays for a Brazilian club"? No, not really. BLP1E, as I have already said. Giant Snowman 14:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I didn't assume you hadn't read them, just that as there are several thousand word of text, I questioned whether four minutes was sufficient time to read them in detail and form a solid conclusion, so no need to get snippy. You kind of support my suggestion by failing to realise that the transfer was to the Brazilian club not the Portuguese one, something that is noted repeatedly in those elements of the sources I noted above that deal with the transfer.

More over, the first source, a reasonably extensive article on the player himself, does not mention this transfer at all. The second source, though related to the transfer, places it in a wider context of Singapore / Brazil relations and notes the player being introduced to senior politicans and diplomats. The third source is another in-depth article on the player and does not mention the transfer at all. The final link contains a readable screenshot (the second one) of a full page article on the player again interviewing him and outlining his career to date, without mentioning his transfer whatsoever.

Now, there may not be enough there to satisfy GNG for you, and that is fine, but to dismiss the sources as BLP1E is demonstrably incorrect, this is clearly a young player who has attracted a reasonable level of in-depth attention, a level which does not necessarily guarantee GNG, but is certainly worth discussion. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A slip of the finger, apologies - I'm actually playing as Boavista on this video game at the moment, will have to resign in shame after this ;)

Let me be a bit clearer then - are there enough sources which cover this individual in great detail, apart from the fact "ooh it's a Singaporean in Brazil"? I don't think there are, and that's why I still think it fails GNG and BLP1E. Giant Snowman 15:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! Personally, not sure that there is a need for "great detail", that's not mentioned anywhere in GNG. There are above a number of sources some of which deal (in detail and including significant interviews with the player) with the transfer, but also a number that deal with his wider footballing achievements without discussing the transfer in any way. These sources are significant in their coverage in terms of their length and with the player very young one would not expect a huge number of interview and I would argue would generally expect less than is available here. I don't think there is any grounds to doubt their reliability nor that they are independant of the article subject. It's a grey area when dealing with young players as when they have never played in an FPL it is easy to dismiss their case, but I'm not so sure here. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"great detail" (my words) = "significant coverage" (GNG's wording). GNG requires there to be in-depth coverage, or to quote again, "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Giant Snowman 16:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is scope to say that, as I have said above, there are a number of significant interviews carried out with the player aside from the significant coverage his transfer garnered. Whereas in 99% of occasions I would agree with you wholeheartedly about non intl / FPL youth players, here I think there is scope for discussion. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya... I still need to look at those. Will be back soon. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Fenix down has demonstrated that the subject passes the general notability guideline, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources even if we disregard the routine transfer news. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't meet NFOOTY and the articles all seem to be about his signing. For right now it looks like BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON, but he may become notable shortly.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - though as has been noted repeatedly above, there are articles of significant length that discuss his career without mentioning the transfer at all. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Fenix post above, player has received significant non-routine coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. TonyStarks (talk) 19:57, 25 October 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have gone over each of the citations provided in the article as it currently stands (see timestamp below for specific time). The first two citations are to links that do not mention the subject of the article anywhere (he may be mentioned somewhere on those web sites, but the links themselves show no evidence of this). The thirds citation is to an article in which his name is mentioned only in passing (i.e., he is not the subject of the article and his mention there is too brief to qualify as evidence of notability). In the fourth citation, again the subject is not mentioned anywhere. The fifth citation actually has a named author— "Shamir Osman"— though the link is to a web page (on "AsiaOne.com") that itself is quoting another web site called "The New Paper" of which Osman is a "user" (not a writer or editor) and which does not give any indication of editorial oversight (which I suspect it does not have)— in my opinion, this means it cannot confer standalone notability. The next citation is only to a list of names (not viable for establishing notability). The seventh citation is again a link to The New Paper, and this time does not give the name of any author, making it further suspect. Given that none of these seven citations appears by itself to confer notability, together they cannot do this either. It seems to me that if the subject of this article were truly notable, finding at least one unambiguously reliable third-party source to show this should not be so difficult. KDS4444^Talk 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't about what sources are presently in the article, but what kind of coverage could be found. Would you do an equally in-depth analysis of the sources that Fenix down has linked in this discussion? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:39, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Egan (baseball)[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about him sticks out. Not notable.--Yankees10 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:BASEBALL/N. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would normally say delete to a free agent minor leaguer, but he's had considerable success at the minor league level, including IN 2013, and there is a good chance he will be signed for 2014 based on his performance - at which point, we could redirect him to the minor league players page of the team that signs him. Alex (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saying you think there's a good chance he'll be signed to a minor league contract is a long way from showing notability and is WP:CRYSTALBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:13, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JeffreyM Consulting[edit]

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

Despite numerous Google news searches including words like "consulting company", "Jeffrey McCannon", "Inc. 500" and "Bellevue Washington", I haven't found anything good aside from some PR and primary links (not even anything third-party). Additional searches at Bellevue Reporter, Bellevue Gazette and Seattle Times provided nothing. Frankly, it seems the most attention and significance they have received was for the 2010 Inc. 500 listing which is good and what was better was that their three-year growth was 1230%. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem they have received much attention since then and therefore there isn't much for an article. I actually also noticed that a user (Michelleruane) has edited the article quite frequently including adding other recognitions the company has received here (I didn't find any of these on my previous searches). As I recall, bizjournals.com links aren't always considered the best coverage but it also seems they have received other Inc. rankings (though not as good as the first time albeit still good). There is some good recognition but I would say wait a little more time to see if things balance out again and if they get some better coverage. Absolutely no prejudice towards a future article when the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Being included in a variety of lists of fastest growing companies is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two collections of news about them [1] & [2] don't include any significant coverage of the subject. In fact most of them don't mention it at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because this is an American company, not Indian, and I haven't found any obvious Indian affiliations anyway. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are probably bot triggered in some fashion. Just look at the URL. You can substitute any topic you want and the India Times site will generate a news collection page for it. For example, I just made up http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Fru-Fru-Dogs and it has a collection. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one article does mention a "FRU" project though so it may have been somewhat relevant despite an error. I think that's a problem I would notice with Times of India sometimes, there would be some inconsistencies. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Louise Bay[edit]

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

This article was PRODded as unreferenced and I deleted it, but deletion has been challenged on my talk page by Richard Nicolson himself, the namer of the bay. I have explained our requirement for reliable published sources; but since this was a PROD deletion I have restored the article and bring it here.

Even if there comes an account, e.g in a yachting magazine, I doubt if that would meet the notability requirement. If the name were officially adopted, so that it appeared on charts, that might be different, though features like capes and bays do not have any inherent notability; but I do not know whether recognition by "the Ocean Cruising Club, the Royal Cruising Club and others" will appear in a published, checkable form, or how much that would count for if it did.

In the absence of any WP:RS, the article cannot stand at present. I would consider userfying it, but would like to give the (new) author clear advice on what sort of sources might be accepted for verifiability and notability. I will post at WP:WikiProject Geography. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V (and WP:MADEUP). From the coordinates given in the article, this appears to be an inlet of the Shortland Channel (about which we lack an article), and I'd be mildly surprised if some explorer or other hadn't previously given it an informal name, though none appears to have stuck—at least, none appears on Canadian topo maps. Personally, I would consider accepting an article on such a feature only if the name were recognized by the Geographical Names Board of Canada. Deor (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to nearby geographical place., as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A name made up by one person claiming it's discovery fails verifiability as well as no original research. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Deor, and WP:HOAX. Creator should be given a final warning. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of athletes by sponsor[edit]

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

Okay, this is my criticism of this list — a majority of athletes (or sportspeople to anybody but Americans) are sponsored by companies if not, get free shoes/bicycles/tires/skateboards, therefore this is more like an indiscriminate list of sportspeople who get free equipment/financial assistance as much as a list of NCAA athletes with sport scholarships and should belong to its respective page, not a list like this. Plus whilst I see the significance of the subject, I don't see the significance of this list enough to be here at all. Donnie Park (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change: I think this is a fantastic idea for a page and would be a great contribution to available public information. Perhaps it would be more interesting (and actually have a chance of becoming comprehensive) to redesign it as a list of high-profile athlete sponsorships, with perhaps a greater focus given to non-sporting sponsors i.e. banks, razor manufacturers. --Cantivsto (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to imply my rationale that these belong to its own (pages of sponsors) page, rather than an indiscriminate lists of people being sponsored by brands and you forgot what I was going to bring up, there are sportspeople sponsored by fast food chains and energy drinks. IIRC, I can remember once seeing a list of people being sponsored by Nike, so why can't belong there not here. Donnie Park (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point, perhaps I hadn't understood you correctly. As it stands, it's a pretty silly article as it is bound to just become an endless list of inanities. --Cantivsto (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically an unsourced list that appears to be original research.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:14, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DelPhi (software)[edit]

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

Specialised piece of software of interest to a very small number of people. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability is presented so this fails WP:N. No citations are given to learn more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inherent notability to science topics. Fotaun (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat challenging target to search for, what with conflating hits from the Delphi method, the Delphi online service provider/forum host, and Delphi Object Pascal. However, the software was the subject of a review in BMC Biophysics, and it gets at least some mention and commentary elsewhere. Springer's Handbook of Computational Chemistry describes it as widely used. Other sources compare it to competing products; I'm reasonably certain that there's more than enough material out there to support an article. That is is a specialized product need not be a barrier to inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – fairly widely used software package outside of the group that developed it (Barry Honig). Mentioned in a number of independent publications (see PubMed search). Boghog (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. With the caveat that someone should watch the article to make sure that it doesn't become a copy-paste/mirror of the current developer's group page, as had happened previously. I'm not sure what to say about current/future growth of the software, since it seems to have been handed off from Honig's lab, to a group at Clemson University. It's been several releases since any real functionality has been added, so I'm not sure if they have plans to develop it further or are simply mirroring the software and documentation, and providing minor bug fixes? (+)H₃N-Protein\Chemist-CO₂(-) 13:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This program is still under active development in our lab and will likely see several future revisions that add significant features to the program. I would also like to add some brief notes about the other variations of DelPhi developed in our lab as well - these have been published in BMC BioPhysics and the Journal of Computational Chemistry so it is not WP:OR. Nwilddev (talk) 15:24, 7 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 as a hoax (WP:G3). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Swords[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. The article was originally written about someone who would have been a significant rugby union and rugby league player, had any of his statistics been verifiable, but they appear to have been made up from whole cloth. (The source given initially by the author was actually a link to the statistics of another player.) As it stands now, the article's only verifiable fact is that a player named Trent Swords once played college football at Augustana College. It may, or may not, be the same Swords as intended in the original article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no assertion of notability and / or as a hoax. The alleged claim of notability (unreferenced) is that he played rugby league and rugby union internationally for South Africa. To be missing from relevant databases e.g. the official SARU database and a RL database is rather odd, as is the lack of relevant GHits - unless of course the claim is nonsense. In which case, it should be removed and we're left with a college football player, failing WP:ATHLETE. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the more I research this, the more I think it is a hoax. I've added the best source I can find - there's also an Aussie judoka by this name, apparently - but not enough for an apparent international player. Giant Snowman 19:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - started searching the other night for evidence of his existence and came up blank, not listed in any St Helens or Gold Coast RL records. Likely hoax. The-Pope (talk) 15:31, 6 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. v/r - T P 03:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Journal of Medical Ethics[edit]

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

Article dePRODded by creator. PROD reason was "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePROD edit summary refers to ISSN and independent sources posted on the talk page. I have examined every one of these sources. The three articles in the Times of India all just refer to a person, adding "(former) editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics", so these are basically only in-passing mentions and may contribute to the possible notability of the persons mentioned, but not this journal. One of the sources is a letter to the editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry and just mentions "The authors are editors of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics". Again, an in-passing mention only. The article in Bloomberg addresses an ethics problem and mentions that it has been highlighted in the Indian Journal of Ethics. The latter journal is mentioned just once in the article, which has many other sources (from interviews and such). Finally, The Hindu reports on a symposium organized by this journal in a short article that talks about some ethics problems and, again, mentions the journal just once. None of these in-passing mentions constitute anything coming close to in-depth coverage that would meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Neither is there any evidence that this journal meets any of the requirements of WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While this journal is indexed on Medline, [Title+Abbreviation] many of the Google search results are rather dubious quack websites such as Mercola.com, as well as Ageofautism.com, and one article in the journal about the polio vaccine seems to be responsible for most of the attention this journal has received. articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/28/polio-eradication-campaign.aspx ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} [3] [4] Jinkinson talk to me 20:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a good coverage provided by The Hindu related to a symposium organized by the Indian Journal of Ethics. (link) This source is entirely dedicated to the symposiam organized by the IJE. Xyn1 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another very short article mentioning the journal once, but no in-depth coverage of the journal. As for MEDLINE, I actually missed that and am quite surprised by it. However, see the notes in NJournals about MEDLINE/PubMed. Coverage there alone is not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So if you couple the coverage provided by the media aforementioned, and that of the indexing by PubMed (with the legit ISSN), shouldn't it be kept? Xyn1 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot speak to anything other than this article not meeting WP:NJournals, but I am sure that it does not meet those criteria. For failing the notability standards of journals this article can be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some other media mentions:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040125/ncr3.htm
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041227/asp/knowhow/story_4139179.asp
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2005-02-09/india/27854215_1_vaccine-trials-volunteers
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051126/asp/frontpage/story_5524910.asp
http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/06/stories/2005120603081000.htm
http://www.island.lk/2008/05/24/features2.html
http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/03/stories/2008060358720300.htm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB22Df03.html
http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/05/stories/2007120552450400.htm NIMHANS is one of the premere research institution of India.

These all are sources across many years. They constantly refer to the Indian Journal of Ethics as the de facto Ethics Journal in India. If you want to see media mentions in google properly, you have to switch to http://news.google.com ; enter the search term and then, under the Any Time drop down menu, select Archives. You will find legitimate media mentions of this journal. Xyn1 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~These are the sources posted on the talk page of the article that I discussed in the nom.~~ See my comment below. --Randykitty (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. There are different from the one being mentioned in the talk page. Xyn1 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WorldCat also lists this journal under its previous name: Issues in Medical Ethics here. Xyn1 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being listed in WorldCat or having an ISSN really is rather meaningless when assessing notability. WorldCat lists anything that is published and an ISSN can be obtained quite easily just by submitting a request. You're right that the sources you posted here are not the same ones as those posted on the talk page, I have struck my comment above. However, they suffer from the same problem as before: they are not about the journal, which is mentioned just in passing. Most of those references concern occasions where "Dr Nundy, editor of Indian Journal of Medical Ethics" is asked for his opinion on something. These sources may contribute to Nundy's notability, but the journal is, each time, just mentioned in passing. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And what about the Wired Magazine article? It does mention IJME in brackets and does not refer to any of its author. Xyn1 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is that? And remember that we need in depth coverage, a mention between brackets doesn't sound like that... --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as explained by Randykitty, and can anyone get this editor to slow down? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 7 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 Nomination withdrawn. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conrado Benitez[edit]

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

~~I don't think this person meets the notability standards. Only two references: a passing mention in one, the other is to another WP page where he's not even mentioned.~~ -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks to all for improving the article. Nomination withdrawn. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a reference to this person testifying to Congress on behalf of Philippine independence. Not sure if that helps establish notability, but thought I'd mention. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the information noted by the users below, I'll take a firm stand on it now. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - as author or starter of this article, and this article has been existing for quite a while now. Plus for above comment. - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable historical figure of the Philippines. Accomplishments and notability include:

He was a member of a committee of seven, dubbed as the "Seven Wise Men" tasked to do the final draft of the 1935 Constitution.[5].
Historian and the author of various books and articles pertaining to Philippine History, including History of the Philippines (1926), a standard history book used "almost exclusively" in public schools in the country.[6]
Several public buildings and streets were named in honor of him among them is the C. Benitez Street in Quezon City where he served as a city councilor, and Benitez St in Lungsod ng Marikina.
1st Filipino dean of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Liberal Arts.
Founded the College of Business Administration of UP and also served as its dean.
1st editor of The Philippine Herald (1920)
Recipient of the Rizal Pro-Patria Award, awarded by the President of the Philippines, now dormant the award was one of the highest state awards. And the Knight Grand Cross of Rizal.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Green Cardamom. I added the first two of the bullet points above to the article. Note though that the "almost exclusively" in the linked source refers not to Benitez' book but to the earlier book it replaced. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I interpreted that as meaning if the one book was almost exclusive, the book that replaced it would naturally be as well. --Green Cardamom (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a complete summary biography. There is much to say about Benitez. It is copied from the book Filipinos in History, Volume 1, National Historical Institute, Jan 1 1996. You can tell by doing a Google Books search on the first sentence (in quotes) and it will return a snippet view of this book. So the source is usable as a cite, but can't link to oocities.org, rather Google Books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:15, 7 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. v/r - T P 03:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in American music[edit]

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

This article is founded purely on speculation and completely violates rule 5 of WP:CRYSTAL. Propose deletion until 2014 when these events actually start occuring Oddbodz (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a 10 Pound Hammer. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging Keep The 2013 in American music article had its usual pre-year AfD a couple months before last year but was kept despite all the TBA items being promotional fluff; same here. Starting it exactly on January 1 would be a little overbearing and there are sourced items here that can be kept, so we at least can maintain a good portion of this article while removing all the 'band maybe making an album but they might end up with a Jonas Brothers breakup situation' fluff and garbage. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Remove the dodgy-rumour-esque release dates and trim. Most of the January releases will happen, and then build it from there. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed everything that's unsourced, but the amount of "TBA" entries is cringeworthy. It's just all too WP:CRYSTAL. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. It's only about 45 days until the end of 2013. Surely, some American music will be released and performed next year. However, 2015 is too soon. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Enough of these dates are set in stone enough to warrant an article at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 12 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. v/r - T P 03:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bellini[edit]

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

Promotional biography of a questionably notable person. The main claim to fame here is that Bellini is the first person ever to have crossed both the Atlantic and the Pacific solo by rowboat, but as discussed at Talk:Alex Bellini, the evidence indicates that his Pacific crossing attempt failed, belying his main claim to fame. Other claims of notability are that he has competed in some marathons (but not necessarily excelled at them), which doesn't really meet the mark of WP:ATHLETE. Article appears to be a WP:COATRACK on which to hang an ad for his consulting company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim of being the first to cross both oceans has been removed from the article (by the article's original author), based on its disputed status. This does not change the basis of this AFD nomination. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of the sources cited don't appear to support the statements made. This [7] ref for the New York City Marathon is labelled 'Official Results', but simply leads to the front page for this year's marathon. This result [8] states that he came 5th, not third (and the name of the event isn't the same as given in the article). The Marathon des Sables website [9] appears not to show past results or entrants (or if it does, they aren't publicly accessible). Unless proper third-party sourcing can be found, these claims will have to be removed - as will material sourced to Bellini's own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply competing, even in extreme events, is not enough to demonstrate notability. This individual has, as best as I can tell, won no events, set no records, nor been the first to complete any significant achievements. The one piece of significant independent coverage is the NBC article about, basically, not successfully rowing across the Pacific; that seems like the sort of "human interest" story that doesn't strongly indicate notability absent other factors. Lastly, at the risk of failing to assume good faith, some of the article's claims seem ... well, rather harder to verify than they should be. AndyTheGrump already noted that the article previously had the wrong finishing position in the Alaska UltraSport 1000 mile event. I'm not able to get the NYC Marathon's official site to cooperate with me for results, but its records are mirrored by several third-party marathon trackers, and I cannot find their name in any of them as a 2000 finisher (even with a stated time that would only put him in the top 7000 male competitors). I agree with the nominator's assertion that this is fundamentally serving as a promotional piece. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Squeamish Ossifrage above, there seems not to be the in-depth coverage from third-party reliable sources to indicate that Bellini meets the criteria necessary to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. While competing in extreme endurance sports is to be admired, it isn't in itself something that meets Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guidelines, and (again per Squeamish Ossifrage), the coverage of the aborted Pacific attempt isn't sufficient to pass more general notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 7 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper also borderline BLP (not really but one could argue). Mike (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a newspaper but the scandal received worldwide coverage hence passes notability guideline. Also the scope warrants its own article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is an essay that says articles should not be about "things with no historical significance whatsoever." But this story, which has gone on for 6 months, has been covered extensively by media, and is the most complex story that local media have covered is of historical significance for the city. WP:NOTNEWS policy says "editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." It meets the Notability (events) guideline. And Rob Ford easily meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a "Major local political figure[] who have received significant press coverage." He is mayor of a city with a population of over 2 million and the over 90 press sources for this article alone shows he has received significant press coverage. TFD (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The previous deletion discussion brought up the point it might be UNDUE, and that concept was quickly slapped down by editors. Your interpretation of the news argument is false. This article keeps an extraneous amount of articles and information out of the Rob Ford page and onto here, a page with currently 95 individual sources. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Ford's admission to smoking crack today, anyone who thinks this article isn't big news is missing the point... CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see anything to change the keep consensus of the previous deletion nomination. Alaney2k (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per foregoing. Writegeist (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is it the title that is bugging some people? Why not just "Rob Ford video scandal"? Abductive (reasoning) 18:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written as a timeline, and the name keeps editors from changing that. TFD (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if converted into a proper article: Why do people always call for AFDs right when things start getting interesting? This is a notable scandal that has really escalated over the past few days. But, I just don't think it should be written as a timeline. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This is definitely a significant current event, so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. I don't see how someone could argue that this is "borderline BLP" either, as moving all the content back to Ford's article would be worse for BLP concerns. Since he just today admitted to smoking crack, there is bound to be an increased interest in this article. A discussion about changing the article title (if that is a concern) can take place on the article's talk page. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call on an admin to close this AfD as a snowball keep. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people always rush to close AfDs early when there's no need? This one had been open for three hours when the above comment was posted. Such comments always suggest to me that the commenter is afraid that if the AFD was allowed to stay open longer, consensus might change! I support keeping the article, as I've just said below, but it really does no harm whatsoever to let the discussion continue a little longer. Robofish (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a WP:SNOW keep on the second nomination of an article where the first nomination was a unanimous Keep consensus. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the proposer even read NOTNEWS. Not one of the four points applies. The content is entirely based on the coverage in the media. The ratio of cites to sentences is about one-to-one. Alaney2k (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably convert into an article - this material would be better handled with an article than an indiscriminate timeline, which does indeed raise WP:NOTNEWS issues. But failing that, keep as an ongoing event that's demonstrated lasting notability and is a legitimate subject for an article. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems early to write it up. That said, I worked on Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy as a non-list for several years. Alaney2k (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is much easier to write it as a timeline, as it is an on-going event, and we are continually learning about events which had not yet been reported. When the event ends, we know all that happened and authors write biographies of Ford, we will have a template for an article. Otherwise we risk the problems of deciding how the content should be presented and continuous re-writing. So far there have been no major disagreements in editing, except by people who believe there should be no article at all. TFD (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, while we're seven months in, the events are still very in progress. A timeline format is necessary. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has received world wide coverage. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This is a questionable article, but to renom an article two months after a snow keep is against WP:DELAFD. I suggest a snow close.Martin451 01:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds appropriate. Anyone contest? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly a significant event. --Ministre d'État (talk) 01:58, 6 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn; no other delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The JBL and Cole Show[edit]

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

Web show of questionable notability, specifically fails the guideline requirements for WP:WEBCRIT. Clearly lacking mulitple "non-trivial published works" that are independent of the subject. LM2000 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I will allow time for editors involved to improve the article.LM2000 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reading WP:WEBCRIT and doing a quick search online for sources which meet that criteria, I believe I can find multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the subject. I also believe that, as WP:ATD and WP:ATD-T say, you should have just started a discussion on the talk page or tagged the article rather than hastily putting the article up for deletion. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been looking for independent sources for this subject for awhile now and have not been able to find any. Do you actually know of any that exist or is this a case of WP:MUSTBESOURCES?LM2000 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here is a list of professional wrestling sources considered reliable and unreliable. Wrestlezone, Bleacher Report, and Cageside Seats are unreliable or of dubious reliability. Some sources linked (such as PWTorch) make passing, routine, or trivial mentions of the show.LM2000 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't this have been discussed on the article's talk page first rather than throwing it straight to AfD? Considering the amount of work Bill has put into the article recently there's no reason to think he wouldn't want to work a bit harder to make it pass WP:GNG. By doing this it gives more work to admins when it could easily be worked out between editors. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the kind of article that will end up back here at AfD sooner or later. The subject really just isn't notable... I don't think that filling the article up with unreliable sources makes it any better than just using Youtube episodes as sources as it did before. As I've said previously, I've been searching for reliable sources which cover this show for a few weeks now and have not come up with anything with noting. Perhaps I could withdraw the nomination for now to see what can be found for sources just in case there are some out there that I didn't stumble upon.LM2000 (talk) 02:04, 6 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. v/r - T P 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soura Pandey[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography. Claim to notability is a song that 'charted' at reverbnation, not a reliable source. JNW (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO since I can't even find the briefest of mentions in any reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think the claim was that the album charted, but either way. How this supposed charting is to be interpreted is anyone's guess. Note also the COI, of course, and that the creator of the article is blocked for having an inappropriate user name. One might add that, given the edits, it was a promotion-only account; the article's main editor's current account seems to be of the same ilk. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 6 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. v/r - T P 03:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanwariaji Mungana[edit]

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

Delete appears to be a non notable temple [[10]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: article has been moved to Sanwariaji mungana. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not going to say that this temple does not merit a Wikipedia article, but its creator has not presented evidence of its notability and none seems available though English-language search. Delete for failing WP:N and lack of verifiable sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 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 Duplicate Afd. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanwariaji Mungana. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanwariaji mungana[edit]

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

Delete appears to be a non notable temple [[11]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:52, 5 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, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Kidman[edit]

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

Notable for basically being Nicole Kidman's sister. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly she is best known for being Nicole's sister, but she has also had her own career which has won some awards and gotten coverage on multiple continents, as noted in sources already cited in the article. (The Sydney Morning Herald article about her second win at the ASTRA Awards commented that she had "cemented her status in the Australian pay television industry" [12].) I think there's enough to pass WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage of HER in a reliable source - check. Author, award winning host, producer... I think the "not inherited" claim is irrelevant. The-Pope (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG pretty easily, actually, bypassing inheritance concerns. I know this is a hackneyed argument, but she's definitely a household name. A Google Archives search gives a good idea of the wide coverage she's received - and those articles are all focused on her, although most of them do mention her sister. Frickeg (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Household name, significant coverage in her own right. No-brainer really. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What are the policy arguments for keep? The article, as currently written, should clearly show WP:SIGCOV, which it does now for Australia, and clearly set off in presentation the fact that she's won Cable TV awards would also make her notable under WP policy standards. So I am inclined to Keep. However, this article, like most others in AfD, needs a clean up, and the nominator was right to bring it up. Most of the times when there is a disconnect between deletion and preservation, the culprit is the article's current content. In most cases in AfD, articles should be brought up to the nominator's standards, which are really all of our standards. Crtew (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not the function of AfD. Articles about notable subjects can and should be improved without dangling them under the guillotine of threatened deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is how WP policies can be made convincingly clear to the skeptics, and this also this how articles do get improved, see WP:Heymann! There is also a WikiProject dedicated to saving articles. This article clearly needed improvement and the nominator, IMHO, was right to bring it up -- It does smack of WP:Inheritance -- even though I believe the article can be improved to convince the skeptics. Most of the arguments being used here are unconvincing to those of us outside of Australia. I'm not criticizing the editors above because when I looked at the article, I too thought it didn't communicate her significance well. When I looked, the article had barelinks -- and that's basic. I would say, No, Arxiloxosm there is NO Santa Claus, and we should all be wrapping our own gifts. Crtew (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually impossible for an article to "smack of WP:Inheritance" since no one has made the inherit argument - INHERIT is an essay that says "don't make this argument during an AfD". That's all. INHERIT was written because people had a history of arguing for keep when there were no sources to support it, they would say "I, GC, believe it should be Keep because this person is famous". It was not meant to trump GNG and discard reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What directly came to my mind without referring back to until now was this quote for guidance: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits."Crtew (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "merit" in the basic/general notability guidelines is simply they have reliable sources that discuss them. We have no special notability criteria for people who do nothing for a living :) But we do allow them in, so long as they have reliable sources about them. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is invalid and a classic logic error. WP:INHERIT is an argument for Wikipedian editors to avoid making during an AfD discussion (it is part of the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). INHERIT does not say that sources should be ignored. Two different things. Further, the INHERIT essay does not preclude the guideline GNG. The only time INHERIT would come into play is if there are no sources to pass GNG and there are editors arguing for keep based on inheritance. Which is actually a rare situation. Nobody in this AfD is arguing for Keep based on inheritance, the article has plenty of sources to pass GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of the biography is covered in multiple reliable sources and has had a successful career unrelated to her famous sister. Article could do with some cleanup though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:27, 10 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. v/r - T P 03:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belal taheri[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person from Iran will be notable in Iran. Sources are not required to be in English, nor expected to be. A Google search of the Farsi name found some sources. However they are marginal and I am unable to find enough to build a case. Perhaps others will have better luck searching Iranian sources. Google Translate makes it accessible for anyone, Google results say "Translate this page". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, subject appears to be non-notable. The author of the article has not bothered to write correctly in English, and even the article's title is not properly capitalized. Since notice of possible deletion, neither have the original author or the subject himself made any attempts to improve the content.--Akhooha (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your attention, i redirected the article and capitalized article's title. Now you can see database references in article too.Faribaghoroghi (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 14 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 procedural close. AfD is not the proper venue for Articles for creation submissions. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunil Nambiar[edit]

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

Notability. There are no reliable sources. Challengethelimits (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was an Article for Creation ... all you had to do was decline the proposal, which I just did. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:56, 5 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. v/r - T P 03:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DataNumen Word Repair[edit]

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

Only references are commercial download sites, most of which simply paraphrase the company's own description without additional comment. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (software) guidelines. I searched for additional sources and found no indication that they exist. Grayfell (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any significant sources offering independent commentary either. Moswento ^talky 09:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, software article lacking RS coverage. A search did not reveal any significant RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the editor that PROD'd the article to begin with, so I agree with what's been said. It's doesn't meet WP:N (software) or any other guideline. Sources are commercial links and just rephrase the article or vice versa. Dismas|^(talk) 17:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage exists to show notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:20, 5 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. Wifione ^Message 04:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matvei Igonen[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 based on a misinterpretation of point 1 (national teams) of WP:NFOOTBALL. This point refers to the highest of level football internationally, which the Meistriiliga certainly is not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming no other evidence of notability shows up, this decision should be either an obvious keep or obvious delete based on the historical interpretation of WP:NFOOTY, particularly its interpretation in recent Wiki-history. I do not know what that interpretation is, but the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football probably do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, Estonian top league is not fully professional and youth international appearances are, by consensus, not sufficient to fulfill NFOOTY requirement of international appearances, these need to be senior. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I stated on the talk page...

Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football.
Matvei Igonen (born 2 October 1996) is a Estonian football player, currently playing for FC Infonet in the Estonian first division Meistriliiga.
Meistriliiga (called the A. Le Coq Premium liiga from 2013 for sponsorship reasons) is the highest division of the Estonian Football Association annual football championship.

To sum it up, he has played for Meistriliiga, which is the highest division and satisfies the requirement as playing for the highest level in his area. NFOOTY does not say the team has to be fully professional although players in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. Technical 13 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For your information Technical 13, Meistriliiga is not a fully pro league so the player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly he hasn't received significant coverage so he fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL as pointed out in the original PROD.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Meistriliiga isn't a fully pro league, and since the player in question hasn't represented his country at senior level either, he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:00, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Warwickshire Motors Limited[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG,- Apart from a mileage dispute (which is barely mentioned) there's nothing to warrant an article. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find anything in the way of sources. Only news archive mention I could find was a mention in a list of companies being wound up. Moswento ^talky 09:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless any coverage is archived and on paper, I haven't found anything despite numerous Google News and Books searches and one minor mention here (including George and Jean Day). There isn't even much to support even with the current references much less some good information on the company. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage found in Hansard already referenced in the article, the 1980 local government report linked to by SwisterTwister, a 1979 statute here, a Commercial Motor Magazine article and appearance in Fleetbook No. 6 : Buses of the West Midlands mentions the company. Given the time period of operation, this gives me confidence that the subject can be be demonstrated notable by further offline sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another NN bus defunct company. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 8 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. Wifione ^Message 04:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox of inaction[edit]

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

No sources given, can't find any, don't think there are. Paradoctor (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, possible original research. I can't find any sufficiently detailed references under this name, although there are a few refs that seem to mention something similar in passing, and I can't see a duplicate on List of paradoxes (although that's a long list). It's possible the paradox has another less obvious name, and it's the sort of thing you expect to find medieval philosophers arguing about, but the absence of any referencing on the article leads me to think this might be derived from original research. Therefore, I would urge the article creator to explain where the idea comes from, so that its notability can be better evaluated. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find references about the concept as presented in the article: even if the expression "paradox of inaction" is sometimes used in papers etc., it does not seem related to the article topic. I agree it looks and quacks like original research.--cyclopia ^speak! 13:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic article, no sources, and per WP:OR. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. Also, googling seems to hint at the suspicion that this is one person's hair-brained idea. Needs to be published in a journal or something before Wikipedia. --Cantivsto (talk) 02:33, 6 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. Wifione ^Message 04:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos E La Cruz[edit]

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

One of a long series of spam articles on TV chefs seeking U.S. publicity. Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs are pretty bad (unreliable). Doesn't seem to pass GNG on life achievements otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:56, 7 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. v/r - T P 03:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonor Espinoza[edit]

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

One of a long series of spam articles on TV chefs seeking U.S. publicity. Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Refs look unreliable, through a Spanish speaker would be better suited to judge that. Doesn't seem to pass GNG on life achievements otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move & Keep. Her surname is Espinosa not Espinoza (which is the article title at present). You can get a better idea of her with the correct name: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Publications are mainly in Spanish but she's been at the centre of a revival of Colombian food since 2007 and has been mentioned in NYTimes, USA Today, Conde Nast Traveller etc in that regard. AnonNep (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - thank you for the name catch; but mere mentions do not constitute the requisite substantial coverage for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if "mention" was used above in the sense of "trivial mention" or "significant mention". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The guidelines do not require sources to be in English. Newspapers in Colombia are acceptable, she is obviously more notable in Colombia where she lives and works than, say, the United States of America (to pick a country at random). Sources include: [13],[14] ("renowned chef"), [15],[16]("one of the most recognized chefs Colombia"), [17] ("Conde Naste says one of 82 best restaurants in the world"), [18],[19],[20]("Two of Colombia's most recognized chefs, Leonor Espinosa and Carlos Yanguas")(government website),[21],[22]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep, it's well sourced and notable static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject clearly passes WP:BASIC, having received significant coverage in reliable sources. See several of the sources provided above by User:Green Cardamom above for examples of those that provide wp:sigcov. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 12 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 Philip Segal. v/r - T P 03:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs End (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Unable to locate any professional reviews or other coverage. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only news coverage I could find was a mention in a list of VHS releases. Apparently not notable. Moswento ^talky 09:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Apparently not notable: Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, IMDb lists 2 but neither looks a reliable source. Can't find others. Could redirect to Philip Segal without any loss of information. Philip Segal is currently short of references but more may be found (e.g. in the scarily detailed world of Dr Who fandom). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Philip Segal. In expanding my own searches, I was only able to find the same TV Guide review as did Rob Sinden. If we had another one or two, I would switch to a weak keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:39, 12 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. Wifione ^Message 04:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'Artagnan Collier[edit]

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

An exceedingly minor candidate for Mayor of Detroit from an exceedingly minor political party. Sesel (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to go against both WP:SOURCES as most of what I see are articles written by this person and the most obvious is violation of WP:POLITICIAN Maybe if they win! TomKoenig (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Detroit mayoral election, 2013. He is on the ballot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was on the ballot; today's election is only between two candidates, and this one polled under 100, only a tenth of a percent in the primary. Nate • (chatter) 12:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was on the ballot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibara (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the ballot does not satisfy WP:NPOL, it's quite clear about that.TomKoenig (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete In addition to the minor candidate status being in direct conflict with WP:BIO, the article itself is written more as a campaign piece than an informative entry. To restructure it in a neutral fashion that conforms to WP:NPOV would require a rewrite not warranted by the lack of Notability.Endeavor51 (talk) 20:29, 6 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. Wifione ^Message 04:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claudius Xenophon[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources which support the existence of this person in the manner described. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weakest of keeps I found some evidence this person exists [23] So that would seem to imply passing WP:NPOL as he would be a holder of statewide/province office, although there isn't a time range on the applicability of that guideline.... There are some other hits on google books like this one which gives the same date as this article but basically explicitly states nothing is known save the name. Strong candidate for merging with other governors of Britannia Inferior if they have articles due to lack of notability individually... Sailsbystars (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is discussion in The Archaeological Journal in 1883 explaining how the years of his service was narrowed down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just there are some sources here which qualify. Squareanimal (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard work for Roman Britain would be Anthony R. Birley, "The Roman Government of Britain" OUP 2005. He covers Claudius Xenophon on 345-6. There are apparently three inscriptions (two more or less identical milestones and a Vindolanda inscription) that mention him. I'll correct the article this weekend if nobody else does. N p holmes (talk) 13:40, 8 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. Wifione ^Message 04:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Ultra (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 April 2014.--Jockzain (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable - not enough independent press coverage to make it special. Fails NFF miserably at this time ES &L 00:32, 6 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.