< 26 October	28 October >

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School of Community and Health Sciences[edit]

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

I do not believe this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to City University London. If not, rename, as this is far too generic a name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On reconsidering, rename back to St Bartholomew School of Nursing and Midwifery, under which name it is best known and which is far more distinctive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(if kept) Rename to School of Community and Health Sciences, City University, but should we be having articles on individual university departments in every university? I know er have some, but should it be universal? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a rename and merge. LT910001 (talk) 23:50, 14 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to City University London, or source independant articles that substantiate the school.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally I'd follow Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges and recommend a redirect to the parent institution, but in this case the rather bland name covers and is also a redirect for the former schools of nursing at St Bartholomews and Royal London Hospital, which have a long history. I have added a couple of references, though nothing yet that makes a cast-iron case for distinct retention. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/possible rename I have added a couple of book references that indicate the St Bartholomews school as a pioneer in institutional nursing training in the 1860-70s. As such I am inclining to a keep though possibly not under the current generic title. Would it be better to hold the substantive article as "St Bartholomew School of Nursing & Midwifery" (where there is currently a redirect) and just note the forward merging and departmental naming? Alternatively/in addition maybe just copy the early institutional history into Nursing#Nursing_schools. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 19 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , and rename , probably as AllyD suggests-- I agree about the historical importance of the school. This is not an individual university department, but a school within a university offering various degrees. The organization and history of this and other London medical institutions is complex enough that it is best to cover each part separately. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 3 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) 22:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust[edit]

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

Unreferenced, very little content and context and does not establish notability. Sports guy 17 23:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust is a major NHS institution. It features in various parts of Wikipedia's rather chaotic portrayal of the NHS. This article needs expansion, its true. But it is only one of about 150 featured on the list of NHS trusts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Next to none info .... @Sportsguy17: - You might want to shove the rest up.

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice. The article was barely five minutes old when it was nominated, and a cursory search of the internet shows there's material out there. I'd rather see the article get some time for improvement (rather than improvement by AfD). That said, if it sat at a stub like that for any more than a week, it should go to AfD. Likewise, if this AfD ends in keep and the article goes more than a month without being able to get it into good shape, then I would support a second AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NHS Healthcare trusts are large regional organisations that are almost by definition notable. If there is truly nothing remarkable to be said, such an article should be merged to the nearest most appropriate (e.g. "NHS mental health trusts in the East of England") but actual deletion seems excessive. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has created a myriad of stubs related to this all of which (iirc) lack references and are uncategorized. It's putting me on tilt a bit having to go through and tag all these, especially considering the author's intent (seems to me at least) is just to rely on other editors to do their work. Requesting an appropriate template for a warning or block be placed on this user. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: yes, this editor has gone about his project the wrong way, creating a raft of fairly dreadful stubs, but the NHS trusts are notable, and there's scope for articles explaining, at the least, the family tree relationships between the many mergers of trusts since they were created, the acquisition of Foundation status, the hospitals and other services provided, and lots of redirects from the previous names and the hospitals themselves (if not covered in individual articles or sections of town articles etc). I've just spent two hours cleaning up a batch of these stubs, but more work needs to be done including invention of a decent infobox template instead of the strange mess they've copied from some other article where they found it. PamD 10:47 am, Today (UTC+0)

Comment Thanks, Pam. You did a lot to improve these and generally help my sanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs)

Keep -- It is a poor stub. However NHS Trusts are certainly notable. It may be that the premature AFD tag actually prevented this being turned into a decent article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but educate the creating editor of this and so many other NHS Trust stubs that this is not the best way to work. Unreferenced stubs shot out with machine gun regularity are the bane of so many areas of Wikipedia. An NHS Trust is inherently notable. Many of them also have substantial media coverage,m often highly negative. None of that is included, and it ought to be, and as WP:RS references. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP. I think everyone else has expanded on this point above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that healthcare services in England should be covered in Wikipedia and doing so is clearly in accordance with policy eg WP:NOT. Having it at trust level for the NHS seems the most practical - coverage by region or other geographical split runs into all sorts of difficulty and England (pop 53 million) is too big for anything other than a broad overview. Individual facilities may be very small. The NHS poses especial challenges because of incessant reorganisation, but there are problems with coverage of public bodies as a whole regarding which Wikipedia guidelines are very unhelpful. British media rarely cover the subjects in the way that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) envisages, and we have even had editors argue that any source produced within the public sector or written by somebody employed in the public sector who is writing in connection with their employment does not count as independent and cannot be taken into account for notability purposes. Including only reports of complaints, criticisms and human interest stories does not provide the basis for encyclopaedic coverage. But then even very large multi-national corporations with turnover in the billions often fail the tests if based in Europe, and are kept because common sense prevails. --AJHingston (talk) 11:41, 1 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linden Chuang[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO; we do not just create articles about everyone who works on every TV Show (InFocus doesn't even have an article). Of the six sources, he is mentioned in the first, but is not discussed in depth, they just mention his name. The second doesn't mention him at all. The third, an IMDB profile, is quite brief indeed. The fourth is just a Vimeo Channel, the fifth mentions him as the winner of a prize from an organization (Adventist Media Network) which does not have a Wikipedia article. Additionally, the creator of this article seems to have a connection with its subject, given sentences like " He has kept a number of reptiles as pets over the years." and "In his spare time, he enjoys playing basketball and watching Formula 1." Jinkinson talk to me 23:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Per WP:GNG. The awards are not significant enough for WP:ANYBIO, since they have connection to Seventh-day Adventist they are not independent markers of notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Awards are within-organization type things that do not carry sufficient significance; positions are not inherently notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Utah, 2012. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fuehr[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of an apparent politician. Creator Jonmoffitt is a single-purpose account. bender235 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you guys help me fix the page? Bob is running for congress in Utah's 4th district. He ran for congress last cycle in Utah's 2nd district. How can I make the page meet your criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.1.115 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple: add reliable sources that prove Fuehr's notability. --bender235 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/offer for userfication - I'm willing to adopt this article for userfication on the off chance that he might get some press coverage in the next few months as the political campaign season starts heating up for congressional races. I have found precisely one reliable source about this candidate. Based upon the biography, it seems like there might be some additional sources to build this article, but typically members of boards of directors or trustees don't get into the limelight and usually only get mentioned in passing as a part of a list of other board members. Some potential reliable sources may also not be on-line. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Utah, 2012. A redirect is the most appropriate outcome for a candidate for a national office WP:POLOUTCOMES. Any relevant information about the subject should be added there. Enos733 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shamal Akrayi[edit]

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

Poet of unclear notability. Only sources of the article are self-published works. bender235 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG with present sources. 1st is just a collection of poems. 2nd and 3rd are subjects's self published sources.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the current sources create even the slightest sense of notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 4 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. Mr.Z-man 04:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DbNinja[edit]

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

Non notable software product. This is an advert for which the CSD was declined. The article was created by an editor whose name appears on the official website as the creating software company. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 07:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Munoz[edit]

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

Beauty pageant of unclear notability, article is scarcely sourced. Article creator Cmunoz329 seems to be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a bunch of sources (more than currently in the article) but they struggle with a connection to the subject and/or local news, mostly the former. The charity itself is non-notable no reliable sourcing. None the less, this is the type of beauty queen article that could be a candidate for keep since she won multiple competitions and is doing other notables things with the non profit. Please return when enough reliable secondary sourcing is available. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ivory Knight. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gravelle[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 20:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria for musicians. PK T(alk) 13:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources; no notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this person satisfies WP:MUSICBIO at this time. I would have suggested a redirect to the band's page but it too appears headed for deletion. Gong show 15:03, 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 merge to St Jude storm. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 01:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013 United Kingdom storm[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - this article should only be recreated after the event takes place if it meets the criteria at WP:EVENTCRIT. The storm hasn't happened yet (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and the only effects of it so far are a few cancellations of transportation services - hardly particularly notable. Oddbodz (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOWBALL Keep - This is not a WP:CRYSTAL event. Effects are already being felt, and we've already had a possible death. The storm will happen in the next eight hours. The AfD should run for a week, failing a speedy close. This AfD is premature and a waste of everyone's time. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personally, I think this is too soon, and I dislike how editors compete to be the first to create articles based on every semi-notable news event. However, WP:CRYSTAL makes an exception for events based on scientific predictions, and this fulfills that criterion. It also has adequate sourcing to establish notability. Policy seems to indicate that it should be kept. If it blows over and turns into a non-event, I'll change my vote to delete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment this is no more than a bit of Autumnal weather where I live, it was worse yesterday (Sat. 26). There is hardly any wind and light-moderate rain. It really is too soon to call this one. The creation of the article was WP:Too soon, and so is the AfD.Martin451 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I actually held off creating this one until it was clear that it was almost certain to happen, and that the first effects were beginning to be felt. Mjroots (talk)
Merge and speedy close to St Jude storm. Martin451 22:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged. Mjroots (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Floquenbeam per G7. (Non-admin close.) Stalwart111 00:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheboygan Daily[edit]

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

Non-notable online newspaper. The article is merely an advertisement created by the owner of the website. There is no independent coverage offered to demonstrate notability of the website. only (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree it's non-notable, I do agree The Sheboygan Daily should be deleted from Wikipedia. I vote in favor of its deletion. Asher Heimermann (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should've been G11'ed upon creation (above rationale was from creator of page and the owner of the website). Non-notable website. Full disclosure that AH & I have had conflicts in the past regarding their promotional editing patterns here. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've deleted this as a WP:CSD#G7; AH is the only substantial contributor to the page, everything else is AWB edits, category sorting, tagging, and vandalism, so I think "sole contributor" is a reasonable approximation here. I need to go, so if someone wants to close this, that's cool, otherwise I'll be back in a few hours to remind myself how to close an AFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Bigović[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per Sputnik, WP:NFOOTY failures, no FPl or senior intl apps. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing out there that would suggest significant coverage, fails WP:NFOOTY. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: All fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shrevin[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTDICT. Note that most of this article is a cut-and-paste of Sri with the only novel addition being:

SHREVIN is a name of sanskrit origin meaning DIVINE. It is given to male boy. It is pronounced as Sh as in Shiva, re as in real and vin as in win.

Ordinarily this is an obvious case that can be dealt with by undoing the cut-and-paste and redirecting the page to Sri, but such actions have been undone and the latter page itself has even been moved to Wikipedia:Shrevin (sic). So it would be good to have the consensus established at AFD once and for all. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This edit as well as this one appear to have copied content from Sri without so much as an edit summary, which is a problem for Wikipedia:Copyrights (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). As Abecedare notes, the only other content is a single sentence, the content of which appears to be disputed. (The dispute, in a nutshell, seems to be whether 'Shrevin' is a variant of 'Sri' or a variant of Shervin.) Ordinarily I might suggest merging the salvageable content to Sri, but given the controversy and the total lack of sourcing, I don't think there is any salvageable content. Cnilep (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 04:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wirral Bus Route Number 1[edit]

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

Bus routes are rarely notable and these articles have no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:Notability -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support all - none of these bus routes have anything that makes them worthy of an article. Oddbodz (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- we deleted bus route articles en masse some montha ago. They are difficult to maintain and NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found some coverage in sources, but nothing more than just said where the bus route went. Why people enjoy writing descriptions of routes when maps do it far better is beyond me. I wouldn't apply this to bus routes generally, some such as London Buses route 108 are probably notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8Delete per nom and above. aycliffe^talk 21:51, 1 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. No policy backed arguments for this article's preservation have been presented. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Arizona Ethnic Arts Network[edit]

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

No references and insufficient claims of notability. (Website is now defunct and the organization may have ceased to exist.) RJFJR (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm not quite sure. I can't find any evidence that it still exists, but could the article be allowed to stay seeing as it did exist once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas85753 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --It could have a WP entry even though its defunct IF it received notable media coverage during its lifetime. It does exist, per this 2010 list of Arizona orgs. And this one too. And this and this. But I see no indication that the organization was/is in any way notable as there seems to be zero news coverage according to my Google News, Google News Archive and Google Books searches.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frank Thomas (outfielder). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Thomas[edit]

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

Pointless DAB page - only contains 2 entries which are already listed at Frank Thomas. Plus, the musician's page doesn't even show him as being named "Frank J. Thomas". Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already well listed at Frank Thomas, no need to add the middle name initials. --///EuroCarGT 15:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and incomplete disambiguation. Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the baseball player - as was the case from 2007 until April 2013 when it was converted into this dab page despite no evidence that the musician had a middle initial. PamD 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Cristo Masters[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of this being a notable sporting event. The anecdotal nature of the "controversy" section is indicative of this, and internet searches come up negative. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything anywhere about this. I expect it's a joke. Thincat (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This looks like a club competition, possibly a regional one, probably for amateurs; I may be wrong, but I am reinfoirced in myg view that it is NN by none of the winners having an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search yields nothing of significance on this tournament; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 07:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable event. Possible WP:HOAX even....William 22:09, 1 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. Delete. No reliable sources are brought forth by the keepers to provide evidence that this outfit is notable; consensus is clear. I am discrediting three SPA editors (not a vote anyway). Drmies (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SynapseIndia[edit]

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

Article about an Indian IT outsourcing company that seems fairly well referenced at first glance but is sourced entirely to news releases, references about trademarks and details of the company's activities, including its location in Google maps and addresses. The only tenuous claim to real secondary coverage is this article, which isn't even exclusively about the company. Being one of "1218 companies worldwide" is likewise tenuous at best, and the claims about being member of communities or programs such as Drupal or Microsoft certification programs are not indicative of notability. Google returns mostly self-generated content, blogs and other non-reliable sources. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Multiple independent sources has been cited to establish notability, and they are not trivial.
The reference to the trademark of the company is very much authoritative, is legal and has been provided by U.S. government.
The local address of the company has been supported by its listing in Google map, which also indicates the correctness of the address and company's existence, as Google maps do not show places which does not have verified addresses.
Reference to Microsoft certification validates the points mentioned about the company.
The page is very much as per the guidelines mentioned by wikipedia on Help:New.
Also this page is neither promotional nor does it matches with any reason listed on wikipedia's Articles for deletion page.
If there is any specific issue with the page that shall be edited, but a list of recognition supported by external references does not seems to be an issue.

This is contested by the creator of the page. Mridu 18:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:42. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another IT outsourcing business advertising on Wikipedia. Article says nothing that would make this business worthy of remembrance in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has references from a couple of government sites. Not every other company can manage to get it. The notability may not be highly prominent but seems good enough to continue the page on wikipedia. I agree on the PR references, but Octane does not seem to be a website publishing paid or non paid PRs. Recognition of British Airways grant can be removed, as the supported reference seems from a PR site only. Rest of the content on the page seems fine. Partnership with Amazon, Microsoft, CloudMark and Drupal shows promising advents. Pallav Jagoori 09:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Pallav.jagoori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: They are a massive company in India. Keep on the grounds of international significance and work with large multinationals. Upon clicking through their links, they've just set up their references incorrectly (linking to their own page- big no no). I'll see what I can do to reset their reference links to support the wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbrubeck (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page is not being used to advertise or market the business. More source information should be added but the page is not seriously violating any rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcdemory95 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Marcdemory95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Based on the points mentioned by various wikipedians, I have updated the page to remove PR reference and links to our own page, trying to get the page content inline to WP:42. Mridu 15:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the only third party coverage is this passing reference the company only has 200 employees. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Ihcoyc said, a run of the mill company, that is not notable, it is not reported as significant subjects of news coverage. ///EuroCarGT 15:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately wiki has been made into a personal advertisement ground, there are 1000s articles like this that need t be deleted. Subjects need to understand you have to be already be notable to have an article here and not try to become notable based on self advertisement on wiki.--Nlfestival (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Indeed SynapseIndia had only 200 people when this reference was published in economictimes, but have grown since then. Thanks for your comments, I'm working on to make the page more authentic. As agreed by Kimbrubeck, SynapseIndia is a notable company, but probably have not created the reference link properly and I'm working towards making it more inline to WP policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you keep stating that you are working on that, and yet no third party coverage of any significance has yet been provided. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A couple of references from prominent newspaper has been provided. Partnership with Amazon & Microsoft, in combination with having a registered trademark with United States govt. It seems that this company is notable.

User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I have noticed your edits on their page and you had been removing a couple of references that they have added. Is this an another edit war you are involved in? Shakil Chikodi (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC) — Shakleon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

i would suggest that you read WP:RS to understand why i removed the unreliable sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the "references from prominent newspapers that have been added" include a trivial passing mention that the owner is in his third office, but actually nothing about the company and certainly nothing significant.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article can be made more straight forward by removing texts like - "one of the few", and there is too much usage of the company name in the recognitions' list. Also, the recognitions are not all recognitions, it also mention partnerships hence the heading can be modified. The page otherwise doesn't seems to be promotional or an advertisement. With the kind of references they have provided, it certainly does not seems to be run of mill either. The business as I have researched about it, before participating in Afd, seems notable., referring to WP:BEFORE, WP:NNC and WP:SIGCOV. It doesn't seems to violate what Wikipedia is not and also as per WP:B2B, it should be given a benefit of doubt.Srirudra (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you reference B2B, which despite being an essay, contains the following: An article about a business can be saved from non-neutral language by being rich in verifiable facts about the business itself. An article that is poor in facts can't be helped at all, and ought to be deleted.. There is nothing verifiably notable about the subject, and if you researched it surely you were able to come up with some significant coverage that could establish notability. So far though, despite the many assertions that the subject is "OK", nothing has been added to the article that could possibly save it from being deleted. WP:BEFORE is my responsibility as nominator - if I had found sources and coverage we wouldn't be having this conversation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn). (Non-admin close.) Stalwart111 00:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of power stations[edit]

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

Easily fits as ((Power stations)). List of electricity sectors could also be used in a template (example). Reh man 13:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists and templates go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a list of lists it is quite OK. The title could be changed to "Lists of power stations" or similar. Thincat (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, which states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, as nominator. I was not aware of WP:NOTDUP. My apologies. Reh man 23:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under under criterion G3. (Non-admin close.) ///EuroCarGT 16:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MPK software[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax: zero references, zero search engine/mobygames hits for any of the games, and at least one game is listed on a platform that didn't even exist at the stated release date. Kolbasz (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the above. WP:BURDEN on the creator to supply WP:RS. No problem with it being re-created if these do exist. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I tagged it for CSD because I came across it without a an AFD template, but found it in the page history. If the speedy is declined the AFD can be restored. James^x12345 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non notable video game development, may not meet WP:NVG and WP:NCORP, not reliable sources and sources to primary, secondary sources. ///EuroCarGT 15:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lace Wig Bible[edit]

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

this is not a notable book, refs dont indicate this is more than a routine manual. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not very strong to show notability per WP:NBOOK. Juicymagonline.com is OK (but not really a review) the rest are unreliable (the Dallasblack source is tagged "Advertisement"). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this passes notability guidelines. It's fairly well laid out from what I can see on Amazon, but having a potentially good product doesn't make something pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable books generally have reviews in the New York Times, or the New York Review of Books, or a lifestyle magazine such as Women's Wear Daily, or a relevant scholarly publication (such as Science), per criteria # 1 of WP:NBOOK. This has nothing from any criteria. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid arguments either way here, but there is a majority in favour of keeping, and we've already been here for over 4 weeks. Michig (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Union Movement[edit]

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

Obscure local party which never cuncurred in any national election, just in 2013 Rome municipal election in which it took 0,16% votes. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. First source is a press release in a website owned by the founder of the party, the second source is purely routine (a list of candidates in a municipal election). Cavarrone 07:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - THIS from www.romatoday.it/ indicates that the party is running a full slate in 2013 Rome City elections. Coverage of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections is the sort of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I suggest that Movimento Unione Italiano would be a better name for the piece rather than the English translation, by the way. HERE is another listing of the Movimento Unione Italiano slate. This is not a "party" created by three guys in a bar on a slow Thursday, this is a real political entity in the largest city in Italy. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the party run in 2013 Rome municipal election and according to final results it obtained 0,16% of votes without electing noone. 48 candidates, 2000 votes: about 40 votes per candidate... In this election there were more than 50 local parties without any national weight, do you want create articles about Uniti X il centro storico, Roma Risorge, Lega Italica and every 0,x% local party which run in a municipal election without obnaining any attention by the press (your "sources" are just listings of candidates, pure routine) nor results of any weight? Cavarrone 18:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, not to be rude, but "48 candidates, 2000 votes: about 4 votes per candidate" is not possible. Carrite (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops... fixed! Cavarrone 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question: yes. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but based on which policy/guideline? With respect, your argument still reads like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Are your above linked listings of candidates (in websites which host the same listings for all the running parties) something minimally close to the significant indepht coverage which is required by our guidelines? Are you able to provide any independent and significant coverage about this party, the story, the leaders, the youth section (if existing), what they did in these years, what they are doing now, what they will do? What about WP:NOTDIRECTORY? How we can write an independent article about a political entity in the blatant absence of independent and significant secondary sources? Maybe I am missing something, but if you are right it would mean that we have no notability bar for political parties and that barely existing is sufficient for having an article on an encyclopedia. Cavarrone 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quick google search turns up several mentions of the party, and 0.61% in a national capital is by no means that bad for a new party. I think, comparing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Nazi Party, the qualitative difference lies in between A): a serious party, presenting numerous candidates, holds press conferences, has an office, conducts a regular election campaign, but isn't very successful (keep) and B): Two guys and a Facebook account. (delete). --Soman (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of other stuff, do you have a single significant, independent and reliable secondary source which relies to the activity of this party, which covers a press conference of one of their leaders, or which expresses the concept that this is "a serious party"? Getting 2000 votes in a city of over 2,7 millions people (0.16%, not 0,61%) isn't by no means an impressive result, especially in a municipal election which had the partecipation of about 50 other obscure, "one-shot" local parties (all af them "presenting numerous candidates", "having an office" and "conducting a regular election campaign"). Cavarrone 04:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this image illustrates well that it is a party that had a seemingly well-financed election campaign, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=634561219904788&set=a.169658599728388.45078.169643403063241&type=1&relevant_count=1 . That won't do as a source in article mainspace, but it does give a hint on the character of the party. Combined with having run a full slate in the election, I'd say that provides for the argument that this is a serious party (as opposed to a frivolous basement project). Other coverage http://www.lenovae.it/contro-limmobilismo-il-movimento-unione-italiano-decide-di-agire-ecco-come/ , http://www.eur.roma.it/index.php?id=27&news=9850 , http://www.asca.it/news-Roma_comunali__Alemanno_presenta_il_Movimento_Unione_Italiano-1278239.html , http://www.ventonuovo.eu/?p=15704 , http://www.iltempo.it/politica/campidoglio/2013/05/19/bandecchi-fa-un-partito-e-sceglie-il-centrodestra-1.1139914 --Soman (talk) 02:32, 19 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be lots of references to this party, seems to be a legitimate concern. Most sources in Italian so hard to tell.
Delete. There is only one mention of this party on the site for ANSA, the Italian press agency, and that is a routine summary of the 2013 municipal election result. I used to be an election judge, and I can tell you somebody will vote for anything. There are people in every precinct in the U.S. who vote for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. We don't even bother to count those kind of votes. So, please everyone, stop making them. KlingonHeaven (talk) 07:53, 19 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient references. EWe should be relatively inclusive for political parties--it is reasonable that any party on the ballot in a major election will be a subject that someone might reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 3 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. This close is without prejudice against the article being re-created at a later time, once notability can be established. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GraduRates[edit]

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

I looked for, but did not find, additional coverage about this company. The sources originally provided were:

Telegraph story with a passing mention
Guardian article with five paragraphs about the company
This is Money article with two sentences about the company along with a mention
Independent story with one sentence about the company and two sentences quoting its founder
Independent story which doesn't mention the company
CKGSB blog with a brief mention of the company

The Guardian article looks like in-depth, independent coverage. Is it enough? —rybec 05:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Whatever may have gone inot newspapers is probably recycling a press release. TOO SOON: having been launched a few months ago, I doubt that it has become notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Keep as stub. Meets requirements but requires more editing/info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.225.77 (talk) 16:54, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 19 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indepth coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and possibly userfy. This is a nice article and it has very good sources, from notable newspapers. However, the company is still new and there wouldn't be much to build on the article. The company seems to be serving a "gap" audience which is good and I wish them luck but it's a start up article. Absolutely no prejudice for a new article when the company is better known. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schon Properties[edit]

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

A division of a company which has no article of its own? Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of an article about the parent company is not a valid argument for deletion. Instead, an article about the parent company could be written. We have a biography of Nasir Schon, one of the founders. There is plenty of coverage in English news sources, and as the Schons do business in Dubai and Pakistan, significant coverage in Arabic and Urdu is highly likely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic corp-spam. Fits well under wp:g11 -- Y not? 20:20, 23 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R.C.X.[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 03:21, 20 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Macross#Variable fighters. As no one here could agree on the merge location, I've chosen what seems likely the best spot for this information so as to prevent relisting this a second time. If the community would prefer a different location, editors are completely allowed to choose somewhere else on their own without coming to me first. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VF-4 Lightning III[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Macross through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And a motivated editor might want to nominate Category:Variable fighters for renaming to indicate that it's all about Macross. - Dravecky (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Macross Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I archived this article with a list of the contributors to Wikialpha. Mathewignash (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all the other contents of Category:Variable fighters to Variable fighter. Individually these are not notable, however the concept is, and these are plausible redirects (also, redirects are cheap). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 23 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have relisted this to allow further discussion on which article this should be merged to - the consensus is to merge to content, but no consensus on where to merge it has been found yet.PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional spacecraft#Macross. I agree with The Bushranger: the entire category should be merged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grover C. Robinson IV[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL. local politician; no other particular notability Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN....William 00:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; we almost always delete BLPs of local politicians. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zero arguments have been presented to show how this article passes WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parkside Avenue[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:69.122.92.152, whose rationale was: "Articie is about a tiny, minor street in Brooklyn that fails WP:NTSR and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Guidelines. Parkside Avenue has no unique features, did not become synonymous with a major industry or organization, nothing notable ever happened there, and was never mentioned significantly in any books, films, shows, etc. Having one measly local subway station named after it (which was actually named for another street when it opened) certainly does not make it notable since we don't have articles on every single street that has a station serving or named after it and they're meant to serve the surrounding area, not just the one street they're named after." I am neutral and not watching this discussion, so if you want me to get involved send me a ping. Ansh6 6 6 02:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A street that it was decided to build a subway station on, the Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line), is certainly notable. Subway stations are not built on insignificant streets. And this street, the entire southern border of Prospect Park (Brooklyn), is not "tiny" as the anon claims.--Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. It needed cleaning up, which I did, per WP:HEY, but that is never a reason to delete. This is a perfectly notable street; note the landmarks and transportation hubs on virtually every corner. It may not be famous outside of NYC, but it's notable. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edits do not prove any notability. Almost every street in New York has a point of interest like a school or hospital and at least one bus stop at one of its intersections. Being the border of a notable park also does not merit notability, especially since the southern border of Prospect Park is only a 1/2 mile long.
Delete. I'm not convinced that notability is inherited from the subway station. Yes, not every street gets one, but getting one doesn't necessarily make a street notable. I don't see what makes this street otherwise notable; can sources be found and provided that prove notability beyond "WP:ITSNOTABLE because..."? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Park Avenue is an example of a notable street. Perhaps Park Avenue is being confused with Parkside Avenue for which there seems to be little to say about. Soranoch (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, evidence of meeting WP:GNG, no notable residents, or mentioning in any mainstream media, for this 1.5 mile-long street. This is just another case where people think a street is automatically notable because it has a subway station named after it (as a matter of fact, the station was not even called Parkside Avenue when it opened in 1907). They do not always serve notable, well-known streets. If that were the case, we would have 400+ more street articles saying something like "179th Street is a two-block long street in Jamaica, Queens served by the F train" or "Saratoga Avenue is a one-way street in Brownsville, Brooklyn served by the 3 train." Stations are meant to serve their surrounding area, not just the one street they are named after (not everyone who uses the Parkside Avenue station actually live or work on Parkside Avenue). This is proven by the fact that many stations, including Parkside Avenue, have entrances/exits to more than one street, a few are named after the neighborhood they serve, not the streets they are accessible to, and some do not actually have an entrance/exit to the streets they are named after. We had a similar AfD for 20th Avenue, another non-notable street in Brooklyn that has two subway stations serving it, in January. It was redirected to Brooklyn streets#Numbered Avenues, which has an entry for it in its chart. In this case, however, I can't find any other article that mentions Parkside Avenue except the subway station, which would not be appropriate at this time due to a naming conflict on Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line). The Legendary Ranger (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned, there is sufficient encyclopedic material for any street in a large city-or at least any street that has any special feature, such as the location of a subway station. I know we have often not accepted these, but it's a mistake; just as we accept even the smallest village, we should accept these also. Park Avenue is not merely a notable street, but a famous street, which is fart above the notability standard. WP is not limited to the famous, or it would be a very small encyclopedia. The other streets mentioned here would also make adequate articles--I think it likely that there are a good many literary references to Saratoga Avenue in Brownsville.. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article was written only after admin JHunterJ moved the page Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line), only to have it be moved back by Vcohen. I would personally say keep, though the "subway station makes it notable" argument is a fallacy. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 22:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My move of the station title to the base name per WP:PRECISION and the subsequent move of it back to create the article on the avenue solely to justify the qualifier on the station article has no bearing on the keepability of the avenue article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A subway station is not a unique feature. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mass transit stops are very common features in every major city the world like New York, Tokyo, Paris, etc. They alone don't make streets notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.209.43 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not argued that a subway station makes a street an automatically notable one; in fact, I believe otherwise. Rather, I argue it's notable because (a) it has several landmarks such as medical offices, schools, etc., (b) it bisects a world-famous park, and (c) it's a transportation hub, as shown on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority map. These are the sorts of properties that would make a street notable. I also point out the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Street (Manhattan) was an example where we have kept a very similar steeet. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Bushranger's accurate analysis. No sources were provided to prove notability, the arguments about an inherited notability of the street are not convincing enough. Cavarrone 05:58, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of books related to Buddhism[edit]

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

List of books that is not maintainable in a manner that would meet NPOV because of the potential for a vast number of possible entries depending upon the inclusion criteria, with no way to restrict the list in a neutral manner. Ronz (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Difficulty in maintaining an article is by itself not a good reason for deleting an article, per WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. On the more positive side, it is possible to maintain list-based articles through standards like MOS:LIST, which encourages list entries to be WP article themselves, i.e., have notability. Indeed, the nom recently cut this article down to a modest size by retaining only the books which had articles on WP. One could flesh out the article by including books mentioned in Category:Buddhism studies books or Category:Buddhist texts. There exist articles such as List of environmental books based on this criterion which seem maintainable. With no policy based reason to delete and a proposed way forward, I see no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I said specifically it could not be maintained in a manner where it would meet NPOV. While yes, being unmaintainable is a problem, it only calls for deletion when it fails major content-related policies such as OR, NPOV, or NOT. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Since notability is a criterion uncorrelated with particular POVs regarding Buddhism, I assert that requiring notable entries would help maintain a neutral point of view. --Mark viking (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to propose viable and neutral inclusion criteria, fill an article from that inclusion criteria, and get agreement that the resultant article meets NPOV, then they should do so. I expect a title change would help as well. In other words, start a brand new article from scratch. Meanwhile this one should be deleted.

Let's be aware articles such as these suffer unbalance due to WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROMOTION. The article was not maintained for these problems to date. Nor is this problem addressed by simply making the list only contain notable entries. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "List of books related Buddhism" is a vast topic. To give an idea, LibraryThing which is a site where members list what books they own and has 1.7 million members, there are over 1000 books tagged Buddhism, about 1000 Zen Bhuddhism, 736 Mahayana Bhuddhism and so on (there are dozens of sub-categories of Buddhism]. The list topic is way too WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As Ronz points out these open ended indiscriminate lists are honey traps for publishers and authors who are promoting books through social media, and serve little practical purpose for end users, since there is no distinct criteria for list inclusion other than "a random list of books some anonymous Wikipedia editors think are great". I agree other indiscriminate lists like this exist but they are equally problematic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:12, 10 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't know what's going on with the recent editing which means the list currently has 2 entries, which would be grounds for deletion if that was the stable version (lists must be above a certain minimum length), but it's currently a poor duplicate of Buddhism#Bibliography, which is grounds for deletion. You could redirect there, but "List of books related to Buddhism" seems a slightly non-standard article title. There's an argument for breaking that bibliography out into a separate article, but no reason to have a bibliography in 2 separate places. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However I entirely disagree with the reasons the other editors give for deletion. WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is clear that being susceptible to damage is not reason for deletion. POV issues can normally be fixed through editing (hence they are not grounds for deletion), and many articles on controversial topics are correctly maintained. As yet nobody has provided evidence that any version was biased, so deleting for POV violation is hardly justified. Providing bibliographies on topics is a normal part of the function of an encyclopedia. Providing a list of notable books is also totally valid, providing the list has more than a couple of entries. Writing an encyclopedia involves choosing what information to present and what to omit, and working on bibliographies simply requires the same procedures that go into editing any other article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right there a lot of lists of books similar to this one. Concur with a CFORK rationale for deletion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are big bibliographies on WP about other topics, so the vastness of the literature isn't necessarily a killer. I suggest that there needs to be some sort of focusing, a selected bibliography about a certain topic or set of topics within Buddhism. This implies an editing matter, not a notability matter. As it stands, this promises to be an unmanageably large list, i.e. "indiscriminate." Carrite (talk) 03:28, 19 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to books on Buddhism and including only notable entries. We can't become an endless list of buddhism books in the world, but we can list notable books on the topic. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of this sort limited to notable books are easily maintained and are no different from any other list. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy-deleted under criterion G7. Choess (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

River Usk copy-editing)[edit]

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

No longer required by editor who created it.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh | Buzzard| — 01:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of W.I.T.C.H. characters (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Phobos[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_W.I.T.C.H._characters#Part_I_villains. There's nothing out there to show that this character merits their own article at this point in time, if ever. I'd say merge, but it looks like the section already has as much information about the character as is appropriate. Any additional information would just make the section too long. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 20 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbbb (talk • contribs)
Redirect to List_of_W.I.T.C.H._characters#Part_I_villains per TokyoGirl79. This character fails the WP:GNG and is not notable enough for his own article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim made about real world notability, no external references. Possibly leave a redirect and merge into List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. LK (talk) 03:50, 4 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. Michig (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton by Hilton Liverpool City Centre[edit]

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

Not notable - there are many individual Hilton hotels in the UK and there is nothing in the article to suggest that this hotel is "special". Crookesmoor (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not special at all; yet another Hampton Inn among many Hampton Inns only special for not carrying the word 'Inn' in their brand (the Lennon Airport location is fine as just a quick piece of text in that article; this one just another link in the chain). Nate • (chatter) 05:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing remarkable about this hotel. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage about the hotel. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- another NN hotel. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Htm2pdf[edit]

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

Non-notable software, the sources that are listed are either from the software's website itself, or are blogs. Legoktm (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The Internet is full of "convert from file format X to file format Y" websites, we possibly can't list all of them in Wikipedia, as very few of them — if any — are actually notable. --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 16:23, 22 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply isn't notable. No coverage or other indication of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got the same search results as the 4 above me. No notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. Mr RD (talk) 12:12, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Nice[edit]

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

The article was poor, but is now plain destroyed. Please use WP:TNT to help this article out of its misery. The Banner talk 23:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the plainly disruptive addition of 117 "citation needed" tags, so at least the article is legible now. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some better searches to eliminate accidental juxtapositions of these words:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources in Dallas Morning News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Village Voice, but all seem to be passing mentions. I'll keep looking. Banner, do you have a specific policy or guideline (one presumes WP:MUSBIO) that you think this fails? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My first concern was the state of the article at this point but I have also concerns about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The Banner talk 12:30, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:39, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. No apparent charted singles or albums during his rapping career, no significant coverage about his rapping career. Now he works A&R for recording labels, which doesn't even pass WP:GNG, particularly with no significant references primarily about him. And the article is full of puffery and attempts to demonstrate notability by association; once that's removed, there's very little left, most of it unsourced, including any claim to notability. Risker (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code Red (death metal band)[edit]

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

The only remotely reliable source present here is this, a news report that makes the barest passing mention of the band in question. The rest is cruft: blog posts, track listings, fan pages and the like. I don't see how this fits WP:BAND criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamtmirror^Talk reply: What about Sick Drummer Magazine Article? ^[1] For those who don't know the drummer of this band is the 1st and ONLY Romanian drummer present on Sick Drummer Magazine. I recommend you to search for this magazine online and see that, there are the most important drummers in the metal world, all over the world.

What about Maximum Rock Magazine ^[2] one of the oldest publications in Romania in rock?

What about Metal Hangar 18? ^[3] There is a festival lineup there confirming band's presence.

Also, I wouldn't consider no3.ro, iConcert.ro or metalfan.ro "fan pages", those are very well known websites with info/concerts/reviews/interviews.

Putting 12 references on the page (trying to confirm actually every sentence there I just thought it will help the credibility on what is written there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamtmirror (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Regardless of the credentials of "Sick Drummer", may I point out that their text is an exact copy of Code Red's MySpace profile? Hardly an independent source there.
- As for "Maximum Rock" and "Metal Hangar", claims that they may be reliable sources are unsubstantiated, and in any case, their coverage of Code Red is basically trivial.
- no3.ro is a blog - as the site operators acknowledge.
- This is not in-depth coverage, and I see no indication iconcert.ro might qualify as a reliable source. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid the sources in the article do not seem reliable enough to demonstrate notability. I can't find anything better, which leads me to believe that these guys fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 09:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 9 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:01, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources just aren't there to support an article. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is clear; I note that the book is not even in WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Marketing for Professionals[edit]

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

The sources are mainly the authors or colleagues. Eg Search Engine Journal, used more than once, has as its deputy managing editor Murray Newlands.[1]. This[2] is by a colleague. Growmap[3] is some sort of marketing blog. [http://www.bloggingtips.com/2013/09/25/successful-marketing-centrifuge-business-success/ is by the other author. The entire article reads like a promotional piece. Online Marketing: A User’s Manual by the same author is no better and is also clearly promotional. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not very good as noted by nom they are not clearly independent of the subject and/or not reliable publications. Of course a book on Internet Marketing will have its own Wikipedia page so we need to be particularly mindful that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:34, 17 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable according to WP:BKCRIT The book has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The R Music Group[edit]

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

The subject is not notable and, the article, having been created by an affiliated entity and edited only by SPA IPs, is wholly promotional. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and fluff. Non notable advert. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 iCarly (season 7). (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IShock America[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources show this is a notable television episode. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to iCarly (season 7) which has cast, main credits, broadcast dates, and episode summary, as non notable, unless someone can find more sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A racist message posted on a website shortly after 9-11 is not notable. Also the case in the second paragraph is under a deleted Law in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Act - Section 13 was removed from the lawbooks by the Canadian Parliament Summer of 2013. The removal of the law cancels any claim of notability [4]. There is no other "notable" action attributed to this group other than making a single post. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it gets passing mentions in the media when mentioned with other white power groups. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure on this one yet. AfD #1 contains some of the typically sparse "keep its notable" votes typical of the Wiki-Prehistoric Era of 2007, but the nominator claim OF "The removal of the law cancels any claim of notability" is deflected by notability is not temporary. If it was indeed notable once, and it prompted legislation (since repealed) to be passed, there may be a case to be made for an article on that event and not the website itself. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. This organization suffers from the same problem as the completely unrelated organization SafeMinds, which I nominated for deletion a few weeks ago--namely, that while reliable sources mention it, they just mention it, they don't discuss it in depth, as LibStar pointed out. Might also consider salting. Jinkinson talk to me 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per what Tarc said and per "The Canadian media described the tribunal's decision as a 'landmark ruling' on hate and the Internet." Landmark rulings are the stuff of which encyclopedic notability is made. Edison (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My initial reaction is the same as Tarc's. I certainly presume the nominator is acting in the good faith, but its a single purpose account aimed at removing coverage of this group.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary. Unlike Milowent given the combination of the nominator's username and editing history, I can't help but see this as a bad-faith "scrubbing" attempt; a variation on WP:OWB #72 seems at play here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge/Redirect The org seems to only have the notability of being a defendant in a landmark case, whereas the case itself is quite interesting but doesn't have an article. Perhaps Edison, Tarc, Milowent, and The Bushranger would be willing to accept a merge/redirect to an article about the case itself. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If such an article existed, then yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Whether or not the case was interesting, the law has been deleted. The article then becomes prejudicial - like small-time charges where there was no conviction or a conviction that gets overturned. Overall the point is moot. In The Warman v. Lemire case - the Tribunal itself ruled that the entire Act was unconstitutional [5]. That was the last case to ever be prosecuted under Section 13 in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Using Wikipedia to further paint Richardson and Kulbashian (unrepresented defendants fighting an uphill battle) in an unconstitutional court/law is a bad faith move. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - By this logic, Prohibition in the United States should be deleted. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Prohibition was an era in US history that was full of events. This case was a shortcut to soiling someone's name when there was no REAL legal recourse. There was no criminal case. It was a back door to constitutional protections. Aside from the Kangaroo Court case, there were no other actions carried out by the website or its alleged operators. In fact, there is no REAL information to indicate that Kulbashian or Richardson were ever the actual operators of the site - All evidence was circumstantial and the respondents never took the stand according to the decision WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No information about this event being an actual group. CECT was a website run by 2 people. The decision was not landmark, under an unconstitutional Act where there was no right to a lawyer, no rules of evidence and 0% chance to win a case as a respondent [6]. The only landmark case under Section 13 would be a respondent who actually won. This is the reason the Canadian Parliament voted to kill the law a couple months ago. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator, your vote is presumed (I've struck the "delete"). You are writing as if you are someone with knowledge of the subject outside published sources, how are we really to know what the truth is, outside published sources? Many people have been wrongly convicted in history, that doesn't make them non-notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Aside from an Administrative court case which has since been scrapped, there are no other notable actions WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 20:19, 22 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Canadian fascist group has RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in independently published sources. The landmark legal decision against their ISP adds to the notability case. Carrite (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now Toronto is a free street corner trash-rag tabloid [7]. The website has received nothing more than passing mention anywhere. If the decision against their ISP is landmark (arguably for a kangaroo court), that deserves it's own page. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient referencing. If there were further developments in the case or its related law, that should be added. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberated Syndication[edit]

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

Tagged as lacking notability since 2009. Basically no independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The triblive coverage says "Launched in 2004, Libsyn was one of the first companies to offer cheap, fixed-rate online hosting for podcasts -- audio or video broadcasts that can be downloaded onto an iPod or enjoyed online. Wizzard Software, a tech firm based in Bloomfield, snapped up Libsyn last year for $15 million in stock." The rest/most of that article about Wizzard Software. Even the title of that piece is misrepresented as it's actually "Pitt grads create podcast powerhouse with Wizzard" (emphasis mine--the emphasized part was left of out of Wikipedia.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve or delete. Did a little research and this is interesting. Evidently there was a company called Wizard Software that was around since 1995, and was publicly traded on AMEX under the symbol WZE. They tried to do speech recognition longer before Siri. After a bunch of re-orgs and renames through the years, I think they are now "FAB Universal Corporation" of all things. Libsyn was one of several minor acquisitions along the way, during the time they created a "Media" brand to do podcasting, along with Switchpod.com and Blastpodcast.com. Perhaps worth a line or two in that article. The surviving company is still traded as NYSE: FU so there should be plenty of sources for all those 18 years. One SEC-published annual report said they had a billion podcast downloads in 2007. Normally a merge into the parent company would be appropriate, but since there is no such article yet, not sure what to do. Either move this to the current name and evolve it to cover the whole history, or just delete this one and hope someone creates the new one. Agree this article is not worth saving. W Nowicki (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I started an article on the combined company in my user area. Quite an interesting (and complicated) history. There are a fair number of wikilinks to Libsyn or Liberated Syndication so if you delete, it is easy enough to add redirects. Not much to salvage from the old article. W Nowicki (talk) 19:33, 18 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FAB Universal when that article is ready. My thoughts are whilst LibSyn was a real enabler for the early podcast shows back in the day, it was really a behind-the-scenes hosting company that never gained significant coverage in mainstream media. It's a shame to see this article never got past stub status, and it seems unlikely as this service was in its prime 5 years ago. Big props to W Nowicki for working on the FAB Universal article in their userspace - that's really great! --Breno ^talk 12:01, 4 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--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

João Fernando Salazar e Bragança[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography. No claim of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Augusto_Salazar_e_Bragança. PROD removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have the same comment as for an earlier Afd for another family member: the family as a whole might be notable -- there's an article on Spanish Wikipedia, but no sources, so it's hard to say. In any case, I couldn't find any indication of notability for this individual.--Larry (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any sources for this person on Google or Questia. He is mentioned in three other WP articles about 3 other family members, all of which are unsourced just as this one is. Maybe these should be considered also: Pablo Salazar e Bragança, Macrina Salazar e Bragança, Patricia Salazar e Bragança -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 17 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Gooch Juengling[edit]

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

Local politician with no notability, despite the references. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a politician, however. And aren't sources the whole reason if an entry considered credible or not? Kbabej (talk) 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an appointed city council member for a city of less than 8,000 people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the non-local references are about other people. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable--MLKLewis (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. No out-of-universe notability apparent. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into either Features of the Marvel Universe or Atlantis in popular culture. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish real-world notability for an indpendent article, however it is within the scope of either of those articles and, as part of the groups arranged in those, is worthy of mention. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. If this is merged, where can we fit this page's media appearances? Besides, we need to list the inhabitants of Atlantis somewhere. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:37, October 24 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There may be material from secondary, third party sources to show notability and to restructure the article around. That said, keeping a plot-dump, and a poorly structured one at that, just to have a place to mention/list the TV and game appearances of the location and/or list out the inhabitants is not a tenable position. The secondary adaptations could be mentioned with in Atlantis in Popular culture. Also, there if this is to be merged elsewhere, it seems valid to go into both Features of the Marvel Universe and Atlantis in Popular culture. - J Greb (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe or Atlantis in popular culture. I don't know which is more applicable. Maybe it should be merged to both, and redirected to Features. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters. Michig (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gogo Dodo[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters. While the mention in Journal of Popular Film & Television is fairly small, he is the only character specifically mentioned by name from Tiny Toon Adventures. I don't get what "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary." is even trying to say. Are you trying to say that since there will be no future episodes that the article can not be expanded? Or are you saying that because nobody has asserted that they might expand the article that the article should be deleted? If it is the latter, then okay, I assert that there will be future improvement in the article. Yes, I'm personally disappointed in seeing this nomination. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters as the logical place for a character who's not independently notable. Merge (or even redirect) is much more suitable than deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters. Fails the WP:GNG. Not notable enough for an independent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters. The title should remain as a redirect, and the history should be preserved. However, there is not enough content for a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evoor Damodaran Nair[edit]

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

I PROD'd this but the prod and my removal of peacock and weasel words was reverted by the page creator. I can't find anything on this guy in google - I'm not saying sources don't exist, but if they do they aren't in google. This is poorly sourced as it is. Perhaps someone with more experience in sleuthing out Indian sources can find something, but I can't even establish this man existed under this name using my resources, let alone establish notability. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 19:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The Google Books reference appears false, as a search does not find a reference to Evoor Damodaran Nair in that book - or at least that portion available via Google books.
This article was rejected at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evoor Damodaran Nair, but exactly the same text was pasted into main-space. I was posting a question about that at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Articles_created_in_main-space_despite_being_rejected_at_Articles_for_creation when Tikuko made this nomination. Arjayay (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing false about the book reference (ISBN 9788126009350 published by the eminently reliable Sahitya Akademi - it's not a "Google Books reference", but a reliable book reference found by the Google Books search engine) which says, "... and Evoor Damodaran Nair are some of the prominent Thullal dancers who have worked long to popularise Thullal." Google Books varies in what content it displays according to various factors that seem to include the reader's location, how many people have looked at it recently and a great deal of randomness, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my comments "appears false" and "or at least that portion available via Google books."
However, from your quote, this appears to be one name at the end of a list, a "trivial" reference which does not prove notability. WP:BLPNOTE requires "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Arjayay (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Express (Transformers)[edit]

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

Not a notable fictional character. The sole reliable third-party source devotes one sentence to it. The rest are either primary or unreliable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, merging as desirable, to List of Autobots. Insufficient real-world notability for a stand-alone article but within the scope of list and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you were to redirect it, a better place would be List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters. Mathewignash (talk) 13:30, 20 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters. Not notable independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that he squeaks by after User:Struway2's research. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archie McLeod[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in the Irish Prenier League and holds a goal-scoring record that still stands. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The LOI is not currently fully-pro and never has been fully-pro JMHamo (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS. Like all the irish footballers nominated in the last couple of months, he has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football or received significant non-routine coverage for any other activity within football. No indication that the goalscoring record (which is unverified in the article) has received any significant non-routine coverage, though if this could be shown it could potentially be grounds for a weak keep. The individual does not inherent notability from his notable relatives. Perhaps there is more of a need to look at these AfDs as a group rather than individually? Far from vandalising WP, there seems to be a large amount of non-notable irish footballers present on WP. Fenix down (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 19:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL non-failure, having played for Partick Thistle in the Scottish top flight before he left for Ireland. Always assuming it's the same Archie McLeod.
The Daily Express of 31 August 1933 reports Partick Thistle signing centre-forward Archibald McLeod from Parkhead, (can't do a URL, sorry). The Glasgow Herald (2 Sept) mentions Partick having signed a centre-forward called McLeod from Parkhead; and the match report on Monday has the new centre-forward A. McLeod playing. And I can't find any mention of a McLeod at Derry City in the Irish Times before the 1934/35 season, but the name appears regularly as a goalscorer during and after, up to 1938. Obviously this is inconsistent with the WP article's claim that Mr McLeod left for Ireland in 1932. I've asked Cattivi whether he could confirm them as the same person or not.
Given that Mr McLeod left the Scottish League for the Irish League (not the League of Ireland) for the money, it does make one wonder about the relevance of the "fully professional" concept when applied to a different era. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Emms/Wells ISBN 978-1-899468-66-9 Scottish League Players' Records 1890/91 to 1938/39 page 169: Archibald G. McLeod Parkhead Juniors/Glasgow Ashfield 1933/34 Partick Thistle 3-2 1934/39 Derry. Cattivi (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Emms/Wells book is the definitive work on appearances in the Scottish League in the relevant period, so if they say the Archibald McLeod who played three times for Partick when they were in the Scottish top division whatever it called itself in 1933/34, is the same one who played for Derry until 1938/39, then I'd definitely keep. Thanks Cattivi for the information. I'll add it to the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joer jamaica (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway's research. Passes WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair enough on a technical NFOOTY pass, but I am not sure that 3 apps is enough for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Struway's research. Definitely meets NFOOTY, and the fact that we have a source above means it meets GNG, I'd say. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:40, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks to me like he holds a significant record. Has also been mentioned due to this record in national media, e.g. here and here, ~~where it also makes the claim he is the grandfather of Doctor Who star David Tennant.~~ Cattivi has also demonstrated this player to have made appearances to meet WP:NFOOTY so it looks like we are all done here. C 679 16:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To clarify a point, which Fenix down already said, McLeod does not inherent notability from his notable relative. JMHamo (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a key part of my argument, it stands apart from this. C 679 17:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Magic: The Gathering storylines. While Jclemens has a valid point about licensing, this only applies if any redirect from the previously merged articles would be kept. A deletion of this article would result in a deletion of any redirects here, too, so this is not really a concern. In any case, a merge as suggested by The Bushranger circumvents that particular problem. The sources that come up in the link posted by Jclemens go to "Jeuxonline", a wiki-type site and not an RS, and GX-MOD, a discussion board and not an RS either, so independent notability is not established. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plane (Magic: The Gathering)[edit]

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

This topic does not establish notability independent of Magic: The Gathering through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the sources to be out there, and for a single article on settings in MTG to be a reasonable content fork. I think we're cutting too much too fast: nearly every article on MTG except the main one has been nominated for deletion in the last few weeks p b p 21:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge up into Magic: The Gathering storylines. This is not Middle Earth which has been the subject of many critical reviews and analysis; this is all based on primary sources. As such, there's very little that is really need at this level of detail; clearly the concept of Planes is important to the franchise's fiction, but the individual planes are just excessive in-universe detail. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note As far as I understand our licensing rules, deletion is not a legal option, since other articles (e.g. [8]) have been merged into this one, unless all such other merged articles are deleted first and no content is retained. As such, I believe this should fall under a Speedy keep criterion, since the nomination fails to address that issue, although only criterion 2e seems to apply, and that badly at best. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This note is not correct. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your response is not helpful. If it's not correct, please explain why deletion would be allowable under our licensing policies. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please support your note with specific references to relevant pages, policies and guidelines preferred. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm with Flatscan here. If article A were merged into article B, we cannot delete A unless we delete B (or some other clear attribution to the authors of the merged material is given). But I don't see why we couldn't delete B. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- And on the merits of this list, we'll really have to look at each included plane. Here's a bit better Google News Archive search for Ravnica [9], which shows quite a bit of non-English coverage spread over years, although I am unfamiliar with most of those websites so cannot comment directly on their reliability. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Magic: The Gathering storylines if not kept, as this would solve the licensing problem Jclemens identifies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Magic: The Gathering storylines. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic: The Gathering storylines; seems to fail WP:GNG for a standalone article. N2e (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swizzz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Three times deleted as Swizzz and six times deleted as SwizZz and salted and now recreated again as Swizzz. A plethora of refs looks good at first sight but an examination of them reveals that many are to the same sites - some sites are possibly not reliable, including YouTube links, and reviews on download sites. In view of the numerous previous deletions, I'm asking the community to decide whether or not this article meets WP:Musicbio. I have no vested interest in the outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Citations that discuss him already in the article include LA Weekly, HipHopDX (5x), XXL Magazine (5x), Complex Magazine, AllMusic, Refined Hype, DJBooth.net, and Respect., among others. Also the YouTube video is on the interviewers official YouTube account, so it may be used, and there are no reviews to download sites as the nominator falsely claims. He meets multiple points of WP:MUSICBIO, including #1 (coverage in reliable sources as already mentioned), #4 (Funk Volume 2012 Tour and the respective documentary made about it [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and #5 for releasing two albums on a "important indie label (Funk Volume) with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." You failed to do WP:BEFORE, and realize that just because new users over created an article a few years ago, does not mean someone that actually knows what they are doing won't come along and make a good one, after his notability has clearly been established. STATic message me! 04:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Flooding an article with bad sources (shops, blog, download sites) does not make him notable. Sources above claimed to discuss him most merely mention him, none are indepth. He does not pass #4 as Funk Volume making a documentary about Funk Volume is not independent. Does not pass #5 as Funk Volume does not have a roster of many notable artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are incorrect, the documentary is being made by a third party company. Again, there are no blogs used, and iTunes only is used to support retail releases for the singles/projects. Also wrong about the coverage, the LA Weekly source covers him very significantly, he is mentioned about 6-10 times, with multiple paragraphs discussing him throughout the piece. The majority of the sources also either significantly discuss him or only discuss him. Also how does Funk Volume not have a roster of notable acts? Dizzy Wright, Hopsin, Jarren Benton all are clearly notable, and those are the only other artists on the roster. Might want to pay more attention and actually take five seconds to review it before voting. STATic message me! 04:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How important are LA Weekly, XXL (magazine), Complex (magazine), and Funk Volume, all with a plethora of sources. Perhaps they should come under closer scrutiny too, I have looked at some of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that LA Weekly, XXL and Complex are not notable or reliable sources? That is preposterous, they are all major publications. Their articles might not be in the best shape, but most magazines don't have incredible articles. Along with Funk Volume is a very clearly notable independent record label. STATic message me! 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that the articles about them may not meet WP:NMAG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is just a lack of WP:BEFORE again I guess. Even if they were not notable for their own articles, that does not make them significant reliable sources (along with HipHopDX, AllMusic and DJBooth.net), which are all considered significant reliable sources (WP:ALBUM/REVSIT) when it comes to music. So again, the significant coverage in well-known third party reliable sources is there. STATic message me! 16:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets look at your claims of sources discussing Swizzz. allmusic, [16] [17]. Makes a joke of your claim, doesn't discuss anyone, let alone Swizz. Its just a listing. All it does is verify he was featured on some tracks. Complex, [18], just a reblogging of a blog reposting Funk Volumes video, not reliable and not independent. Doesn't discuss Swizz, just a passing mention, "For "Funk Volume 2012," he brings along Dizzy Wright and SwizZz for a little something to warm up fans before heading in to the new year". DJBooth. Not reliable. Their staff reviews are but not everything on their site is. Just a paragraph announcing a single, not substantial. HipHopDX. [19], coverage of Hopsin, him talking about himself with only a passing mention of Swizzz, my label-mat is going to be on the tour. [20]. A song with no discussing Swizzz. [21], The title gives us a clue. "Hopsin & Dizzy Wright Featured". Passing mention of Swizzz, "SwizZz is also working on his next project", that's it. [22], just a posting of a song. [23], a short review. Going on theres similar. Coverage about others that merely mentions him. Reposts of videos.

One short hiphopdx review is not enough. The next best of a bad bunch is the LA Weekly piece but even that does not have substantial coverage of Swizzz. Half a paragraph on him, a paragraph on a joint mixtape focusing on Hopsin. Mentions are not indepth coverage.

The documentary? "Funk Volume is set to release a documentary entitled Independent Living: The Funk Volume Documentary." [24]. Nope, not independent.

The label? Dizzy Wright, Hopsin, Jarren Benton. That’s three, not many. And founded in 2009, a history of only a few years.

Might want to pay more attention and actually take five seconds to review it before commenting. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong again. Complex Magazine is not a blog, so what if they post news that begun from the FV website, that not does not mean anything. Most news begins from the artists website, FaceBook or Twitter for any musician. DJBooth.net is considered a reliable source for music articles at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, where is the discussion that says other stuff on their site is not? WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES is about sources for anything when it comes to music, not just for reviews, the sites that are not reliable for other information have notes indicating that. Two of the five HipHopDX sources significantly cover him, with a long paragraph written about his single in this source. He is also covered in depth in the LA Weekly piece along with Funk Volume, no matter how you wanna downplay it. Of course they are the one releasing the documentary, just like how any label releases an album, DVD, or a book, but they did not personally shoot it, but obviously they are going to be the ones that release and distribute it. XXL and the other sources that covered it are all not affiliated with Funk Volume in the slightest, so they are all independent third party reliable sources from the subject. Funk Volume is they are a notable independent hip hop label, with notable artists, and is notable in its own right, which is obvious by its article. So yes he does meet criteria #1, 4 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO as I have pointed out. STATic message me! 01:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wether or not you agree with my characterisation of the Complex post, the video is not independent and the post does not have non trivial coverage of Swizzz.

Just because some of a source is good for some things (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES was created to look at what sources are appropriate to use for album reviews) doesn't mean there is a blanket pass for all things hosted by them. EG. MTV also host mirror copies of wikipedia articles, clearly not a reliable source. Things should be looked at on a case by case basis.

You say Two of the five HipHopDX sources significantly cover him. You've linked to the one I called a short review. What's the second?

It looks like we are not going to agree on which are substantial and on some which are reliable. Maybe we should leave it there. You thing there is enough coverage. I think there is not enough coverage.

They are releasing the documentary so it's not independent. The other sources provide coverage of Hopsin and Wright, only mentioning Swizz in passing.

I don't deny Funk Volume are notable but that’s not what WP:MUSIC asks for. "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable"

So he doesn't meet #4 and 5 and we disagree on #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, wrong again. WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES and WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE were two different pages, which were then merged into one, but the sources that can ONLY be used for critical reviews are clearly labeled so if you view the page. So you are saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? You don't say. Point is, it is not a short review, and the other is the coverage of the tour/documentary, just because they only mention the most known/mainstream artists of FV in the title means nothing. They do not have the space to list them all in the title. Every single source I mentioned in my opening post is reliable, among others in the article and others available outside of the article, there is really no arguing against that. Again not true, every mention of the tour mentions every Funk Volume artist equally. If Wright and Hopsin were the headlining acts, it would be different, but SwizZz was also an equally headlining act on the tour, which is clear if you actually read the sources, rather than just their titles. If you actually look up the definition of "few" like I did, it means three or less, Funk Volume has been operating for five years, five > three in case you did not know. Along "with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable", see (Hopsin, Dizzy Wright, Jarren Benton, Kato). So again yes he meets #1, #4, and #5, you just do not understand WP:MUSICBIO, or common spelling for that matter. STATic message me! 05:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"every mention of the tour mentions every Funk Volume artist equally". What a complete and utter load of shit. With that bald faced lie I can't see any point in trying to discuss this with you. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, but it is true if you actually read the sources. STATic message me! 15:12, 22 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete He is not quite notable yet. Though it is a nice article, maybe you should incubate it until he has a charting song/album or receives significant coverage. Koala15 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote due to new found coverage. Koala15 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Koala15: Not that much coverage, but he does also meet points 4 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, also an update along with all the coverage mentioned above, which again includes LA Weekly (probably the most significant of them all), HipHopDX (5x), XXL Magazine (5x), Complex Magazine, DJBooth, and Respect, he was also significantly profiled in the newly released October/November issue of XXL the majority of the article is not printed here, but it is proof that it exists. The physical version profiles every member of the label. STATic message me! 00:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well in each source i have seen he is primarily mentioned as a featured artist in a song or in a article about Hopsin or Funk Volume, but i could be wrong. Koala15 (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Koala15: Even if the article is primarily about FV, if you check the LA Weekly article, there are multiple paragraphs that discuss him, he is probably more discussed there then Jarren Benton or Dizzy Wright. Also at least two of the HipHopDX sources are only about him, as is the DJBooth source, which is a reliable source per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Not to mention as I stated in the above discussion he meets #4 and #5 of WP:MUSICBIO. #4 for "received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." He was a co-headliner on the The Funk Volume 2012 Tour which took place in North America, Australia and Europe and the respective documentary made about it. Coverage: XXL, HipHopDX, XXL, LA Weekly, HipHopSince87, The New Zealand Herald, BallerStatus, and #5 for releasing two albums/mixtapes (Haywire with Hopsin was also released for retail sale) on a "important indie label (Funk Volume) with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." Also he was discussed quite a bit in a recent HipHopDX x Hopsin interview. Im not saying he completly shatters any doubt of notability, but there is just enough to pass WP:GNG and definitly is enough to pass #4+5 of WP:MUSICBIO, if not also #1, which frankly there is enough coverage in reliable sources to meet #1 of WP:MUSICBIO too. STATic message me! 00:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and this website [25] has enough information about him and his article has enough references and information and it passes WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 16:03, 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Burgos[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as this particular person does not seem to have received any notice outside of the WP:FRINGE ufology community. jps (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, and then redirect the remaining redlink to Luis Burgos Flor as a partial name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a non-notable UFO "expert". I have no problem with the suggested redirect to the article about the painter, a different person often referred to by this name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person known only for fringe pseudoscience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G5. Shii (tock) 15:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Gilbert (Art)[edit]

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

WP:JNN Non-notable person, probably the same as blocked User:Alexandre Gilbert and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. Jane (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article should be speedy deleted. IP socks of the author persist in removing the speedy delete template. JohnInDC (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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