The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer (Swiss band)[edit]

Killer (Swiss band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The band fails WP:BAND. I tried to search information at de.wiki but, although it is not a stub there, there is no indication why the band is notable either. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Two albums on Bellaphon Records, and I found a few news items, e.g. [1], [2]. I suspect that more coverage exists in Swiss sources. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - their Allmusic discography confirms they meet criteria #5 of WP:BAND Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plentiful coverage in German-language sources: "Crown Kocher" + "Killer" In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 8 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Smith[edit]

Melinda Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Australian poet, no indication of coverage in independent, mainstream sources, no coverage on Google Books. Major claim to fame (likely minor and not notable) "David Campbell prize". Still, I am always happy to be shown that I am wrong, so if anyone can dispute this and provide good sources showing her notability, please do. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete same findings as nom. Also it claimed she won the David Campbell prize twice (2006 and 2011), but the source shows only once (2006) so I corrected (unless there is an error in the source but we can only report what the source says). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same findings as nom. Checked Australian news sources, no mention at all. Highly dubious.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments by Paulknight34b:

Thank you, you are right about the David Campbell prize reference. Added further detail about the reach of the bus program and the significance of the Writers Showcase, as well as adding a quote from the review of First... Then... by Peter Pierce, editor of the Cambridge History of Australian Literature, in Canberra's mainstream daily The Canberra Times. Also added Australian National LIbrary Catalogue and Google books references for the books, and extra awards. Hopefully the article better reflects: the degree of public reach her poetry has had, mainstream and quality critical attention to her books, her place in the Australian National Library Catalogue, and the other awards and plaudits she has earned during a successful and continuing career as a poet.

Poetry in Australia is not a very mainstream activity in terms of pop cultural impact, and the sort of exposure and recognition in terms of third party commercial publishing support for - soon to be - four books, government funding, awards etc. that Melinda Smith has achieved is only reserved for very few practising poets, so if Australian Poetry in the modern era is to be regarded as notable at all, then a career such as hers is about as recognised as it gets... Putting it another way, if Melinda Smith does not count as a notable modern Australian poet, then essentially we have none.

Some other independent critical sources regarding Melinda Smith's work:

• ‘Melinda Smith writes with exuberance and verve in a variety of forms, old and new. She is personal, opinionated, quirky, and you never know what a poem of hers will do. It is like some firework of unknown make and provenance, spluttering into incandescent life with more than a hint of danger’. John Whitworth (author of Writing Poetry and editor of the Faber Book of Blue Verse )
• “[T]he work of a poet who…deals directly with life as it is. She takes the reader on journeys into the past, through childhood, and across relationships. Humour is lightly relied upon to arouse a sense of memory, [for example] in ‘Wheels’ where ‘at sixteen, humans grow a car / and never leave the road again’. Her poems have a tenderness of expression and … use the transforming power of imagery to connect with her readers: ‘The trees are trying to forget / but their bones are black with remembering’.” Geoff Page
• “No Bed” and “Discretion” included in The Quadrant Book of Poetry 2000-2010, anthology edited by Les Murray, 2011
• The poem “A birth” was selected to be printed on free postcards and distributed throughout Australia in September 2010 as part of the national ‘Get Reading!’ promotion. http://melindasmith.wordpress.com/resume/

--Paulknight34b (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paulknight34b - do you have information on what publications the first two quotes are from (John Whitworth and Geoff Page)? They look like book reviews and reviews can count towards notability. Being anthologized in the Quadrant Book would count towards notable if there were multiple independent book reviews of the anthology that mentioned Smith in the reviews. The free postcards, we would need to see independent press coverage discussing this in some depth to show it was significant. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:39, 17 September 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) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete lack of reliable sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a weak keep, based on having mostly primary sources, but hopefully this can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't actually said how a notability criterion is met, I'd expect an admin to do this in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 8 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under 21 League of Ireland[edit]

Under 21 League of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable defunct amature football league. Not at country's highest level and has not received significant media coverage, failing WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as non-notable. May merit a mention on a parent article, but definitely not sufficient notability for separate one. GiantSnowman 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnotable event.RRD13 (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 5 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 01:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanbaenda[edit]

Nanbaenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:FFILM. Very brief mentions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete temporarily per being TOO SOON, or Incubate per deletion policy. Spoken about through 2010 and 2011, sources are available which were not used in the current stub.[3][4][5][6] Despite that coverage, we can allow undeletion or recreation once this thing begins filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:28, 5 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) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional films[edit]

List of fictional films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this article for deletion over a month ago because it is just a very broad list that does not offer any useful information. I withdrew the nomination because many editors argued that it could be fixed and I wanted to give them a chance. However nobody has even edited it in over a month. JDDJS (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The previous discussion was not withdrawn by the nominator - it was closed in the usual way. That result was no consensus and, as there was a reasonable amount of argumentation at that time, it is too soon to start it all over again. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." As for the topic, it seems reasonably notable. See Movies about the Movies, for example. Warden (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin said, and I quote " I think the idea of giving the article a month or so to see if its obvious issues can be addressed is a good one. If not, another AFD can always be opened." I gave the article more than a month, and nothing changed. So I opened a new one. And techinically it was labled as "no consensus, but that was only because I suggested to wait a month. Otherwise, it would have been relisted. JDDJS (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting would have been better because the people in the first discussion would not then have to repeat themselves. There was no consensus to set an arbitrary deadline for the article. That's your own idiosyncratic idea but Wikipedia is a volunteer project and you have no authority to make such demands. Warden (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you have no authority to impose an arbitrary time frame for renomination. Reyk _YO! 20:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Warden's description of the previous AfD is misleading, perhaps deliberately so. The nomination was withdrawn by the nominator, just as JDDJS says, and the close explicitly endorses renomination after a month or so. Reyk _YO! 01:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding of "withdrawal" is that the discussion is closed early because the nominator withdraws. This is not what happened in that case. Discussion continued and the AfD was closed after 8 days in the usual way. The issue therefore got a reasonable amount of exposure and there's no reason for another go-around for so soon. I didn't notice the closer's editorial comments and it's no surprise to see that BK endorses the idea of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. And, of course, neither the closer nor the nominator did a stroke of work on the topic during the month. All the nominator seemed to do was put a clean-up tag on the article and mark his calendar to try again. But AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Warden Why would I bother editing an article that I want deleted? I don't support the idea of having such a broad article. However, if other editors were willing to put in the effort to improve the article, then I wouldn't bother arguing it (even though I would still disagree with it.) And as to reply to your other comments, first of all I am not saying that the article should be automatically deleted because a month passed. The point of the deadline was to see if all the editors that said the article could be fixed, would actually try to fix it, and nobody made any attempt to do so. Therefore, the argument that "it can be improved" that was used a lot in the last discussion is not really valid anymore because they had a chance and didn't even try. Second of all, your comments are very close to being personal attacks, which you have already been warned about. JDDJS (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your idea seems to be that you sit in judgement on the work of others, without having to do any work yourself. But our deletion policy is that editors contemplating deletion should first engage with the topic by searching for sources, reviewing the article in detail and engaging with it on the talk page. Alternatives to deletion should be investigated per our editing policy. When I perform this kind of activity, I rapidly find relevant sources such as Film within Film and other articles which touch on this such as story within a story and list of parody films. These indicate that there is plenty of scope to develop the article per our editing policy. And, per WP:SEP, "Every user participating in such a discussion, especially the nominator, the closing admin and the one(s) providing sources, should feel responsible to fix the article..." Warden (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not call WP:BEFORE "policy". It is not policy; we have been over this many times. Reyk _YO! 20:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BEFORE is part of WP:Articles for Deletion which defines the process: "This page explains what you should consider before nominating, the steps for nominating, and how to discuss an AfD". Notice the word "should". Warden (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_88#Is_WP:BEFORE_obligatory.3F, where consensus was that it is not a policy. You even said it wasn't. The major objection to WP:BEFORE in that discussion was that it is frequently used as a weapon to attack AfD nominators, just as you're using it in this one. Reyk _YO! 00:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That discussion was not closed with an agreed consensus. The editor who started the discussion - TreasuryTag - did so because he had been the subject of complaints that he wasn't following the process. That editor was subsequently banned. Warden (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion fizzled out, but with consensus clear that WP:BEFORE is not policy. By my count it's something like 33-13 in favour of "not a policy". Would you like me to request a formal evaluation and close by an uninvolved administrator? And I'm not sure why you think an editor's banned status has any bearing on WP:BEFORE's status. If that were so, I could go around looking for things that now-banned inclusionists have objected to and elevate those to policy. I'm sure you wouldn't like that. Reyk _YO! 21:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking more closely, I see it was User:Basket of Puppies who was flouting WP:BEFORE in that case. That user was banned too. Warden (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup/trim appropriately per my comments in the prior AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I waited over a month for the cleanup, but nobody made any edits at all after the previous AFD. JDDJS (talk) 12:50 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Delete - This list is completely arbitrary, and it contains little encyclopedic value. It is no different than "List of fictional fast food chains" or "List of fictional addresses and phone numbers." If a fictional film has enough relevance to the topic, the most it needs is a redirect. Something like an article about fictional things that later became real or an overall article on fictional films, provided there are actual sources about the topic, would be fine, but there is no value in a plain list without any restrictions or relevance. TTN (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep popular subject of popular culture. Yes it would be nice to find some encompassing discussion somewhere to add in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is an interesting topic and I do not know where else you could find such a list. However, I think the list should be re-arrenged by source and not by type of film. Iwalters (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have an argument that's not WP:LIKEIT? JDDJS (talk) 20:12, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Andrée Beauchemin[edit]

Marie-Andrée Beauchemin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. nothing in gnews, and gbooks merely confirms her role or her making comments as a goverment spokesperson. nothing about her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 September 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) 00:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Like most permanent ambassadors, she attracted significant coverage in reliable sources due to her prestigious and influential position.[7] In 2000 she caused a minor controversy in Cairo when she painted her official residence (a former palace) pink, an event which was was reported on by the Cairo Times. The coverage doesn't appear to be on-line, but is described here. Several sources, including that one, describe her important role in the Omar Khadr affair when she was High Commissioner to Pakistan. She's also published scholarly articles about international relations.[8] Pburka (talk) 02:21, 23 September 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 5 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Static Revenger[edit]

Static Revenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Almost unsourced promotional article with a strong suspicion of COI and a smell of sockpuppetry/meatpupptry. The Banner talk 00:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article should not be deleted because it has a "promotional tone" and that it might've been made by a sockpuppet. If there is promotional tone of the article, fix it. 和DITOREtails 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL, I tried. But the two were constantly reverting me. The Banner talk 21:37, 5 September 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, KTC (talk) 00:43, 13 September 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) 16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi, how do i fix this exactly? I edited yesterday (September 27, 2013) after reading and following many of Wikipedia rules i.e. added citations, external links, etc. Can someone please review and let me know if this is ok now? If it needs more, ill add more. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldaqp (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to fail WP:BASIC. There may be numerous sources about his work, but apparently not about the subject himself. -- Trevj (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added references/citations 'about the subject himself' Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.50.103 (talk) 22:23, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 5 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kallos[edit]

Benjamin Kallos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Yet another article about an as yet unelected candidate in the New York City Council elections, 2013. As per WP:POLITICIAN candidates are not notable just for being candidates, but this article is promotional in nature and does not make a particularly substantive claim that he passes WP:GNG for anything else. In fact, while this article was created over a year ago, it was already positioning his campaign for a city council seat as his primary claim of notability, right from the very first day it was created, even though at the time he was still only a declared candidate for the primaries. As always, he'll be entitled to a Wikipedia article if he wins his seat, but is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to New York City Council elections, 2013 per the precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Guerriero. The associated issues have been hashed out and discussed in detail. Unless they are otherwise notable for something other than their council run, candidates should be redirected to the article for the election for which they are a candidate. In this case, New York City Council elections, 2013. Stalwart111 04:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Help me here -- my understanding is that if an article meets GNG (not yet sure whether this does, as I would have to take a deeper look at the refs that exist and could be added), that's it. It meets our requirements. It matters not a jot whether the person would otherwise meet a subsidiary, alternative notability criterion. Are you asserting that if this person meets GNG, they still should not have an article? --Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy combination being invoked here is WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E - he's received some coverage in reliable sources but really only with regard to his election campaign for which, having not been elected, he isn't yet notable. The general consensus has been that candidates not notable for anything but their candidature should redirect to the article for the election in which they are running until such time as they either pass POLITICIAN (by being elected) or are no longer subject to BLP1E (by being notable for a 2nd something). In this case, I don't think he would otherwise be notable for his web development work so his candidature remains his 1E. Thoughts? Stalwart111 03:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts: 1) wp:politician is of no moment, and need not even be looked at, if this meets wp:GNG. There is no merit to the argument that the article should be deleted if it does not meet wp:politician, if it otherwise meets our GNG criteria. 2) Do you think it meets GNG? At first blush, to me it appears to. 3) Precedent has severely limited value at AfD, though it can be looked at. See wp:otherstuffexists. 4) And even the discussion in the AfD pointed to was all over the place. 5) As a common sense matter, there is much in this article that is RS-supported and of interest to people looking him up, which would be lost to our readers by a bare deletion or a bare redirect. I see little benefit in that. 6) As to the application of BLP1E (is an entire election campaign, for example, what is meant by an "event"? And what of all the coverage of events outside of his campaign, taking place as part of his background prior to the campaign and covered by RSs? And what of all the coverage of discrete individual events within his campaign, which though they fall under the heading "campaign", are individual events? ... and if so, doesn't it fall into the exception if there is more than brief, temporary coverage), there is little consensus on this, as best I can see, as reflected in the discussions here and the related failed effort to garner consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a matter of "precedent" (bad choice of words on my part) so much as WP:COMMONOUTCOMES and fairly long-standing WP:CONSENSUS. There are many, many examples of single election campaigns (fought by otherwise non-notable individuals) being considered "one event" for the purposes of WP:BLP1E. Such a view might have failed to gain consensus on that talk page but it would seem to have general consensus in practice at AFD. Different location, same priciple as an example beyond the NYC elections. Stalwart111 23:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia_talk:Candidates_and_elections isn't a great place to look for evidence that there's a lack of consensus around political candidates; all of the discussion on that page is dated 2006, and you'll find that Wikipedia consensus on pretty much anything is very different in 2013 than it was seven years ago. There are a lot of different venues where consensus can be and is established, and a lot of lessons that have been learned over the years about why our processes and policies and practices have had to be revised and tightened up — so you'll find that consensus evolves over time, and there isn't just one place you can look to find a complete record of every discussion that's ever taken place on a matter. You have to look at policies and precedents, at past AFDs on similar topics, at various WikiProject talk pages and in all kinds of other places — so the fact that one specific talk page that hasn't been edited in about seven years didn't fully establish a consensus against unelected candidates doesn't mean that a consensus against unelected candidates hasn't been properly reached in other venues.

And strictly speaking, WP:EVENT does not place a time limit on the duration of an event — an election campaign is considered to be a single event, not a series of discrete individual events that would make a candidate notable for multiple events rather than just one. The fact that it's an event that unfolds over several weeks or months rather than happening entirely in one single day does not render WP:EVENT inapplicable. (It's not a perfect parallel, obviously, but competing in a reality show does provide a useful example of the distinction: is a person who competes on Season 3 of America's Best New Whatever notable for one event, Season 3 as a whole, or does the fact that the season unfolds as a series of distinct episodes over 13 weeks mean that they're notable for 13 separate events instead? The answer is the former; the whole season is one event, and a person doesn't become notable for it unless they either win it or can successfully establish additional notability before or after that event itself.) That said, I still don't particularly like applying the BLP1E test to political candidates, but for a different reason: all an unelected candidate has to do to escape BPL1E is to run for office a second time.

It's also important to understand that local media have a public service obligation to cover local politics — which means that every candidate in every election will get some form of press coverage, and thus if the ability to demonstrate that the candidate has garnered media coverage were all it took then Wikipedia would have to keep an article about every single person who ever ran for office at all whether they were successful or not. I've often had to explain in AFDs that there is a difference between being able to demonstrate a person's notability via sourcing and being able to demonstrate their existence via sourcing, and that Wikipedia is not interested in the latter. We can source the existence of every person who ever ran in an election (or even in a primary race). We can source the existence of every person who ever wrote a book. We can source the existence of every single DJ on every radio station. We can source the existence of almost every single person who ever opened a restaurant. We can probably source the existence of almost every person who ever organized a bake sale for their church. And on and so forth — but that doesn't mean that they're all notable enough to be covered in an encyclopedia with an international audience and a "potentially forever" timeline.

So, in fact, virtually all of our notability guidelines for people apply additional criteria to help us further distinguish notable from non-notable people in the same field — and the base criterion in most cases for politicians is that they have either (a) actually held office, or (b) gotten enough coverage for other activities that they can get past another notability guideline (e.g. the ones for writers, businesspeople, sportspeople, etc.) A person whose candidacy somehow breaks out to become national or international news may potentially become more notable than the average candidate, but most unelected candidates for most offices are notable (and sourceable) exclusively in local media, and thus don't cross the bar.

In this case, what we have is an article that's sourced almost entirely to coverage of his campaign for a city council seat; even his prior legal and web development work is not sourced to coverage that clearly demonstrates his notability for any of it. Sometimes it gets mentioned in passing within the context of the campaign coverage, sometimes it's sourced directly to a primary source such as the website of an organization he was involved with, and sometimes it's sourced to news briefs which aren't long or detailed enough to get past WP:GNG's substantial coverage test, and in one case it's even sourced to a link that completely fails to even mention his name at all — but none of it is sourced to coverage which demonstrates that any of it would actually get him into an encyclopedia if he weren't also a city council candidate. So no, what we have here is not an article about a person who was already notable enough for an article and then also threw his hat into the ring for a political office — we have a campaign brochure for a person whose candidacy itself is the notability claim, and a rule which says that simply being a candidate is not enough of a notability claim for a person to keep a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 6 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, Euryalus (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Overwhelmingly meets GNG. Which is all he has to meet (wp:politician, like all other subsidiary alternative notability requirements, is wholly irrelevant is the subject otherwise meets GNG). And the GNG coverage, while it started when he was 15 years of age, began to heat up five years ago. And it covers all manner of "events" that preceded the 2013 primary, so BLP1E does not apply -- both because this is not one event, and because coverage extends over a number of years. Plus, as a matter of common sense -- there's no logic to deleting an article with three dozen refs worth of info, and related text, covering a series of positions and accomplishment over the years -- and those dozens of refs are not even close to being exhaustive.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a redirect to New York City Council elections, 2013 should be the appropriate outcome (at this time). The statement by Bearcat does a good job explaining why redirects are appropriate for unelected candidates. Just being in the news or on the ballot does not equate to meeting WP:GNG's substantial coverage test. If this page came up for RfD when it was originally created, the sole question was (and should still be), is the subject notable before the run for office, and I doubt there would be little controversy with a redirect to the general election page (despite the many interesting RS things the subject has done over the course of their career), and elections are presumed to be WP:BLP1E (even across multiple years). Many of the older (pre-election) reliable sources are not about the subject or his career. However, since winning the primary election of the Democratic Party in 2013, a redirect seems to be a temporary (less than a month) solution. Councilmembers for most major cities are presumed to meet WP:GNG (see WP:Politician) and winning the Democratic primary is tantamount to winning the general election. Enos733 (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a person meets GNG, it does not matter whether they meet wp:politician. He meets GNG. Coverage of him is clearly substantial. This is most assuredly not the case of someone "just being on the ballot".

And "just being in the news" is what GNG is all about. All the refs are about him, to the extent they are used as refs. Refs do not have to include sources primarily about the person (though that is nice), if there is sufficient coverage. And he even has refs solely about him. Detailing his career. That's why the article is nearly completely about his career prior to the recent race. And by no stretch of the imagination are those RS-sourced refs a part of BLP1E, however broad one's interpretation.

And BLP1E states: "Just being... an unelected candidate for political office ... such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Such is the case here. As reflected by the three dozen refs in the article, and those that you can find by google. And the coverage that BLP1E says we should look to is not (though you suggest otherwise) limited to coverage before the election. We don't punish a person who otherwise meets GNG by deleting articles, just because they are running for office.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Among the membership of the New York City Council, 90% are Democrats and every seat in Manhattan is held by a Democrat. The hurdle for Kallos was the September primary, and having won that he should win by the 2-1 margins that have been characteristic of council races in this part of New York City. Regardless of the election result, there are more than enough reliable and verifiable sources that are about Kallos to satisfy any objective Wikipedia notability standard, with substantial coverage in independent sources that is indisputably about him. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now, no prejudice against recreation after election, per established practice for unelected candidates who aren't named Donald Trump. From the lead: "On September 10, 2013, he defeated Micah Kellner in the New York City Council election primaries. He will be the Democratic candidate for the 5th New York City Council District, representing Manhattan's Upper East Side, in the 2013 general election.[3][4][5][6][7][8]" Quoting myself: Timbo's Rule 14. "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. (March 2012)" Carrite (talk) 05:09, 12 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pakeman[edit]

Peter Pakeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In short, the Peter Pakeman topic can be covered sufficiently in Cornell Big Red. The highlight of Pakeman's career seems to be the induction into the Cornell Athletics Hall of Fame,[9] and Cornell VIP Award - Peter Pakeman. While he played in the Canadian Soccer League with the North York Rockets in 1987, it does not contribute much to his biography in that there doesn't seem to be much else to write about that with regards to his life events. The article itself visually is hard on the eyes due to so many words using upper case first letters, which seems to try to show subject importance through formal event name dropping rather than Pakeman's life. Resume-like information is not a basis for a biography. The topic has not received enough coverage about Pakeman's life for the topic to be handled as a separate, stand-alone biography page. Fails WP:GNG. Nice photos, but they do not appear to be free license photos. The article was listed at COIN. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The article looks impressive, but when you drill down there's actually very little there. GiantSnowman 10:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article was blanked, but I undid that edit. He doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

===Deletion Request by Author===

If deemed suitable, appropriate permissions can be obtained for any remaining articles or photographs directly or indirectly related to this article. Pages will be wathed for further comments. InPerpetuity (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

===

Thank you for the opportunity to write the article and to have it considered. Request for deletion by authorInPerpetuity (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please do not blank an article while under discusison. Also the edit history of the article show no proof that you are the author, only that you are a contributor. Indeed, the original author is named Xave2000 (talk · contribs), not InPerpetuity (talk · contribs) -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment concerning the COIN and related VIP award sandboxed article, it seems that editors 205.207.78.4 (talk · contribs), InPerpetuity (talk · contribs) and Xave2000 (talk · contribs) are highly linked together. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not think this subject meets the notability rules as linked above by GiantSnowman. The article also has the COI problem which I brought up at the COIN board. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 01:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG failure, college notability only and the sources provided do not indicate any significant level of coverage outside of Cornell publications. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Xave2000 (talk · contribs) has blanked the article. This activity seems suspicious, are InPerpetuity (talk · contribs) and Xave2000 (talk · contribs) the same person? -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 08:36, 10 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 Mathematical Sciences Publishers. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involve (journal)[edit]

Involve (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. Not really familiar with math journal, but this looks non-notable to me. May as well have a full debate on its notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mathematical Sciences Publishers, where it is already listed. This looks like a serious peer-reviewed journal with a good editorial board and published by a small but reputable publisher. But I am having a hard time finding a policy-based argument for keeping the article. I was unable find evidence of indexing in any selective index. There is an interview with the founding editor at maa.org, but it is the only news article I could find. The journal seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals notability criteria. It looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Involve journal seems like a reasonable search term, so a redirect is preferred over outright deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It's indexed in MathSciNet, but that doesn't count as selective — they try to index all mathematics journals. I don't see any clear evidence of passing WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As said above, doesn't meet WP:NJournals, but a redirect does no harm. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 8 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Soth[edit]

Lord Soth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional character. All of the sources in the article do not verify notability, as they are not independent of the creators of Dungeons & Dragons. A cursory search on the internet did not give any evidence of the existence of good independent sources on this topic which cover it in depth. The importance of this topic within D&D is irrelevant to notability unless it can be demonstrated that there are independent sources which provide significant coverage. Simone (Claritas) 14:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Lord_Soth in 2004 was closed as Keep, under very different standards. --Simone (Claritas) 14:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; or possibly Merge [somewhere]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw, for now, due to nom's questionable participation in AfD per Wikipedia:Ani#Recent_contributions_by_User:Claritas -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - major villain and plot element over multiple media for 30 years plus. I'll take reference 2 as an review-type reference plus the Gamespy one. There should be more out there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A character featuring heavily in a large amount of popular books and one of the most well-known characters in his fictional setting. That's normally enough to be considered notable. There are any number of characters with their own article whose only claim to fame is being featured in a series of books. ··gracefool☺ 03:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Web Warlock (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Keep voters: sources are needed. The article's sources are all currently primary. It needs secondary reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Green Cardamom, why do you need to resort to lying about sources? The gamespy one is unequivocally secondary. I can understand that others may have a different interpretation of the ref #2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all the sources are incredibly weak and problematic. They do not demonstrate notability. GameSpy is a two paragraph summary about a game (not about Lord Soth who is mentioned in passing) and.. what else? If this topic was actually notable we would see discussions about Lord Soth not only in a gaming magazine in passing, but outside the world of gaming culture. Has it ever been discussed in academic literature for example? In the NYT or Wired magazine for example, as an independent topic of discussion, not just passing mentions as a game element? Also, see WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL ("resort to lying"). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green by that logic there should be very few articles at all on D&D topics. The notability requirements are not nearly as high as you are making out. They only have to be reliable secondary sources, not academic literature or big-name journalism. ··gracefool☺ 06:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True though the quality of the source matters when considering what counts as "significant coverage" and "multiple sources" of WP:GNG. Currently we have one source, GameSpot, that mentions Lord Soth briefly while reviewing a game; and another listing D&D villains in The Dragon magazine. What seems to be confusing here is that Lord Soth has been featured in many notable works. However the question is if Lord Soth is independently notable, and for that it needs significant coverage about Lord Soth. That's more difficult to achieve and these two sources alone are very weak to make that case. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for past precedent see Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Literature: "Characters and locations from books are often deleted, unless a large amount of information is written on a character. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (proposal)." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that he appears in multiple adventures and adventure settings and two storylines (Dragonlance and Ravenloft) in D&D. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which NO ONE outside of the D&D franchise has found worthy of discussing in any fashion let alone a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Dragonlance characters. There doesn't seem to be anything showing true significance in the real world, so an article is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki to some fansite that would love this kind of trivia. So far the only third party sources provided even mentioning the subject are from a single appearance in one video game talking about his appearance in that video game. As far as the world, even the gaming world, cares, his contribution and to the D&D franchise (let alone the real world) is the level of a non-entity. Merging all of the primary sourced in universe content to the suggested target article which is already suffering from the same issues of only in universe primary sourcing is like shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. I dont see that we loose anything with a delete. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the ed Holte source we have a whole paragraph about the character in context of the D&D milieu! Merging now with that content will provide a solid basis for third party sourcing for List of Dragonlance characters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see four independent sources for this character: the Computer Gaming World article, the GameSpy article, Ravenloft FAQ interview, and this book. The Computer Gaming World article and the Ravenloft FAQ interview seem sufficiently in depth, and the book and GameSpy article add to the material. Cas Liber also has a point about ref 2--as a retrospective over many games and by multiple authors, this is effectively a review article. The topic looks marginally notable. The article needs editing in an out-of-universe style, but this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A marginally notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mark viking, Casliber, and gracefool. BOZ (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Having a few references is not enough; if so, then practically every single fictional character is notable. It's only in certain sets of articles that editors put together so much original research and plot summary and then throw in a couple of mentions, arguing notability. (You guessed it, the 20th century novel is not that genre.) I see no reason not to merge this into a main article--seriously trimmed. Marginally notable? Redirect then, and reintroduce it as an article if some real sources become available on Lord Soth, like from real books or journals. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You can actually find that sort of pretentious literary analysis too in papers such as Narrative Voice and Variations on a Non-Player Character in TSR's" Ravenloft" Universe. Warden (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A recurring major villain in a substantial fictional universe. We routinely keep such articles - see Darth Vader, Darkseid, Dukat, &c. It is our editing policy to retain such material by finding alternatives to deletion such as article improvement. Warden (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAP and to compare status of Lord Soth to the status of Darth Vader is one of the most hilarious thing I have seen in a very long time. Thank you for making me laugh even though it did mean I had to wipe up the coffee that I had spit on the screen!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OSE explains that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides". The authors who created this character and use it in their work get onto best-seller lists. Their work is therefore mainstream and substantial. These villains are all melodramatic and low-brow, of course, but this is no bar to inclusion because Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note According to this something posted by User:S Marshall on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vecna page, Simone is a new sock puppet for User:Claritas. Someone that is in a voluntary restriction against participating in AfDs. The discussion here confirms the community's view on Claritas' AfD restriction. Web Warlock (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not a sock, though "it's complicated". Drmies (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Colonel Warden. bd2412 T 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unusual history, while much is in-universe the appearance in multiple works and campaign settings over decades with a steady stream of different references and improvements suggest that Lord Soth is a notable part of a very large and old gaming community and likely had more coverage including this the rights issue that is briefly touched upon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "one of the greatest villains in D&D history" sounds notable to me. Reliable sources talking about the character have been found also. Dream Focus 09:22, 11 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 astrobiology. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astrogenomics[edit]

Astrogenomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTABILITY - a neologism with just over 100 unique Google hits, most of which are database listings of the paper it's from, or other uses of the term (website names, email addresses) Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to astrobiology. The caption of the lead image there seems to be on this topic (though not this name), so that article already has relevant info on astrobiological genomics, and would be a better location for further information than a separate article. Chris857 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Chris857. This does not have enough reliable third party coverage for its own article. However I am not adverse to recreating in the future should it be discussed outside of the narrow field.Martin451 21:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As nominator, I'd be fine with redirect instead of deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 8 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural societies[edit]

Cultural societies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is mostly a procedural delete as I have no idea how to research whether these kinds of articles are notable. The article was created by a new editor. A speedy delete per A7 was requested by a now-blocked sock. This kind of subject doesn't qualify for A7, so I had to reject it. In my view, the article doesn't really say anything or have any value. It certainly has no sources. Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems like clumsy original research to me. Is the author trying to explain a particular context for the use of the word "society"? DICDEF? Not really sure, but without some clarity as to what this is supposed to mean, it serves little use. Stalwart111 15:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : it looks like WP:original research, from what I can understand of it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 8 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz At the Theatre[edit]

Jazz At the Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Album lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Only references are shops and a discog listing. A search found no good sources to show notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the fact that this is a new article created by a newbie editor who needs time to learn the ropes and improve the article as well as his editing skills until I learn I invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamstone (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 September 2013‎
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish independent notability of the album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:15, 2 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of information, so the article should be deleted. Keep it if more information and better presentation could be made, otherwise I admit to delete this page. — ITeachThem (talk) 11:48, 5 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 Portal:Contents/Lists. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists[edit]

List of lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are already List of lists of lists and Category:Lists. GZWDer (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to have been created as a navigation tool to help find lists on WP. There are already complex lists and categories for this. A list of all lists sorted by title does not seem like it would be very useful. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Portal:Contents/Lists, which is a much better organised list of lists. This page has existed as a serviceable redirect for years, there's no reason to delete it. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:45, 27 September 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Portal:Contents/Lists, per DoctorKubla. List of lists is a reasonable search term and the portal looks like the best organized among Portal:Contents/Lists, List of lists of lists, List of lists, and Category:Lists --Mark viking (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as above, to Portal:Contents/Lists. Article namespace shouldn't be used for articles which are primarily for Wikipedia navigation. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:38, 11 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. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Fields[edit]

Sam Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass the WP:HOCKEY requirements. does not appear to have the coverage necessary to justify a BLP. Article was copy-paste moved from AFC project space. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The nom is incorrect. This player easily passes WP:NHOCKEY with 140 games played in the Central Hockey League and another 72 in the West Coast Hockey League, both professional minor leagues. Dolovis (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no the nom is entirely correct. As you are well aware but routinely ignore Dolovis, WP:HOCKEY and WP:NSPORT only presume notability on the basis of arbitrary statistics. And in this case, the player is an utter fail of WP:GNG. I can't find anything resembling non-trivial coverage. And none should really be expected of a player who appeared only in bottom-of-the-barrel leagues. Resolute 23:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Resolute sums it up pretty much perfectly. WP:NHOCKEY only presumes notability. You need to still be able to back it up by meeting GNG. And I can find no evidence that this player does so. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to those who want to throw away WP:NHOCKEY:

This article meets the standard for inclusion because is does "provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria" as required by WP:NSPORTS. Fields meets criteria #3 of WP:NHOCKEY for having played 217 games in fully professional minor leagues. The reason that we have NHOCKEY is because a consensus of editors have decided that an ice hockey player is to be presumed notable if he has reached certain milestones in his career. This player has reached and surpassed that established criteria. The article is now well sourced to verify this player's professional career and accomplishments. By virtue of NSPORTS, it can be presumed that additional sources exist which would be located with a proper search of non-internet hard-copy sources (if one has use of a microfiche reader and access to newspapers and magazines from the period he was active). But time is in short supply for all of us editors, which is why the standards of WP:NSPORTS exist. Dolovis (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why it would be necessary for this person to meet the GNG if he already meets NHOCKEY. NSPORTS states "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." The "or" looms large here it would seem to me. Nowhere is it stated that GNG must be met in addition to NHOCKEY. I would bet dollars to donuts we could find NHL and/or Olympic players who meet NHOCKEY while failing GNG, probably quite a few, yet I doubt we could reach consensus to delete any of them. I also fail to see how deleting the page would further the interest of the project as a whole. In any case, there seems to be agreement that he does, in fact, meet the requirements of NHOCKEY. If GNG must be met regardless of NHOCKEY then what is the purpose of NHOCKEY? Rejectwater (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q2 for more information on the relationship between the sports-specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. From their inception up to now, the consensus view for these guidelines is that they do not replace the general notability guideline, but simply provide some buffer time to avoid deletion until it can be established if Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are met, by finding or failing to find appropriate sources. isaacl (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for providing that link, I had been unaware of that information. I was reading the guideline and looking right past the FAQ box. Rejectwater (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q2 goes on to state: "For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics" (i.e. the criteria of NHOCKEY which establishes the presumption of notability as decided by a consensus of editors knowledgeable on the topic). Dolovis (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have persons in mind you would like to compare him to? Rejectwater (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other persons to compare him to would be professional ice hockey players who have played 5 years of minor professional hockey in North America. Do you require a list of names, and if so, how many names do you want? Dolovis (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any would suffice, at least to start. As long as it is other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics. Rejectwater (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who played in the 1990s in major cities, I'm certain there are reliable sources available covering the teams for which he played, so it's not necessary to look at other contingencies. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 3 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I wouldn't advocate for users to create articles on players who have solely participated in lower-level leagues (i.e. ones below the AHL and ECHL), I am not in favor of deleting such articles once they have been created. This player meets NHOCKEY and his presumed notability has not been rebutted. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 23:18, 11 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 defaulting to keep. The previous AfD which was discussed only shortly before this renomination had been running for 30 days two weeks, and I cannot find any new arguments in this discussion. De728631 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad al-nikah[edit]

Jihad al-nikah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete : As consensus was not reached in the 1st debate, I think that it's normal to continue discussions. In my opinion, this article is very subjective and is related to a "crazy" and anonymous fatwa that is not subject to an encyclopedic article. Wikifan115 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. : Subject is noteworthy and has achieved lots of media coverage from main stream media outlets which have not retracted their stories. Subjectivity of an article is not a reason for deletion; instead a pov label should be attached. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. : Weather or not the fatwa that started this off was crazy has no bearing on notability.--Auric talk 20:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is not subjective, it is notable. It is covered by the international media. Relation to some crazy or anonymous fatwa is not a criteria for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a violation of WP:NEO. It simply doesn't have wide coverage in the media; it's a rarely used term which only popped up recently due to a small number of online authors attempting to popularize it. It doesn't have wide usage in the media and the notion that this term has any staying power is unproven. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone even searched the exact term? One hit on Google news, our article. General search brings up all of 1,630,000, that is not a lot. And as near as I can see, this is Sex Jihad? Which means this is still a WP:Neo per the previous deletion discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Sex Jihad, and someone renamed it recently. But it is transliterated into english a number of ways (the current name probably comes from one I picked among the many), there are many articles discussing it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding these "many articles" with the standard means. It's also worth noting that the Persian version of this article was created on September 21st while the Arabic version was created on September 23rd, both after the creation of this English article - though in the case of the Arabic article, the title is for the specific fatwa from a specific Muslim cleric and all sources just discuss the fatwa of that specific cleric, not this neologism. The Persian article has a combination of info on homosexuality as well as Iranian President Rouhani's comments on the matter; all sources on the Persian version don't seem to relate to what's being discussed here on the English article. I have to be honest, it really looks like a lot of grasping for straws at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles in English are under "sex jihad" though some of the early ones use various spellings of the jihad al-nikah. This article in policymic.com gives a good overview of how the coverage developed and spread. Also the article Wikipedia article is about the same subject, just with more emphasis focusing on the alleged fatwa, it also mentions the Tunisian minister's recent comments.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge per Mezzo Mezzo and Darkness Shines. This article better belongs to the one who gave out the fatwa - since he denies it, it should be on his page as it is unclear in it's origin. I note one result on Google Scholar - and even that is a passing reference. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG, hoax/propaganda, or what have you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, what has changed since the last discussion, which ended with a no-consensus close? Are we to continue relisting this one until we get the "correct" answer? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Given the long list of reliable references which directly discuss the subject, there really isn't a question. A rewrite is probably in order, though. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 20:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this nomination was made just 4 days after the previous nomination was closed as no consensus. It's generally considered bad form to renominate a page for deletion so soon after the closing of a previous nomination. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 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 Wikipedia:Citation needed. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

Citation needed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Almost all of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, coming from Wikipedia itself. Of those that aren't:

• ScienceBlogs makes no mention of [citation needed] outside using it in the title.
• Grist.org only passingly mentions the xkcd comic in an article suggesting that people fact-check a debate. It literally just says "citation needed" after a sentence, with a link to said comic and that's it.
• The Globe and Mail dedicates only one sentence to the xkcd comic.
• The Variety source dedicates one sentence to a sign reading "citation needed" at a rally, but says nothing about it being a Wikipedia catch phrase.
• The Deutsche Welle source doesn't mention "citation needed" at all, but only shows it in a picture.
• The New York Times source only mentions it in passing, too.

And the last two sources are just works named after "citation needed".

In short, [citation needed] does not seem to be notable on its own. All of the sources mentioning it do so only in passing, or only as a "hey, look, we can use Wikipedia terminology!" way on an article that says nothing else about [citation needed] itself. Some of this may be merge-able to Wikipedia, but most of it doesn't have much use. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So... ^{[citation needed]} needs citations? Haha. Sorry.182.55.86.32 (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 20:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nominator. Those sources aren't enough. Google news just shows articles using it, but not saying anything about it. (Well, expect for the couple that were about Citation the racehorse.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good deal of coverage from multiple different secondary sources over time. — Cirt (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you even read my dissertation on how the various sources in the article clearly are not good coverage? Most of them don't even say anything about Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cirt. Sorry, Hammer, your essay is TL;DR. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying "keep" because you're too lazy to see my explanation that the sourcing in this article is terrible? Really damn helpful there. Come back when you can actually be arsed to !vote properly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for rushing through this AfD; I do deserve a trout slapping. In any case, Hammer, you are correct. Delete. The sources are very fleeting; there is not much of significant coverage of this topic outside of Wikipedia. I would agree, as noted below, to a redirect into a Wikipedia essay. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wouldn't exist were it not for the meta aspect. Nominator has shown without a doubt that it does not meet notability standards. Inanygivenhole (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed. Nice bit of sleuthing from TPH - I did my own search for sources and found only trivial mentions. However, the term is a valid one to put in the search box, newbies and visitors must do it all the time, and going to a redlink is going to make people think Wikipedia is broken. So for usability reasons, with a bit of WP:IAR thrown in the mix, it should go to the project page that people might well have wanted in the first place. Just for giggles, we could redirect to fact.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment if I am not mistaken, mainspace->anything redirects are considered improper. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Ritchie333. Great compromise; I definitely agree something other than a redlink should come up when people search for the term. Simple_butpowerful 20:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: The article's earliest edits were redirects to other relevant pages, for the purposes of removing the redlink, so it makes all the more sense to redirect. Simple_butpowerful 20:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed. "Citation needed" is a bona fide meme, according to Know Your Meme. It's a nice history, but I wouldn't consider the site a reliable source. The meme has lead to the phenomenon of Wikiffiti--citation needed stickers being placed on dubious public assertions--as reported in Make, The Boston Globe, reason.com, and boston.com. There is also a book with this title. Together, these sources show that the [Citation needed] is verifiable in reliable sources, but not enough are both reliable and in-depth to pass notability per WP:GNG. But the topic warrants a merge into the main article on this topic, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-M. I agree with Ritchie333 that Wikipedia:Citation needed is both the best article at WP on this topic and the most useful target for our users. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a precedent for article space-to-Wikipedia space redirects? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Redirects to project space for a big list of them, for example, HotCat. --Mark viking (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe keep? Perhaps. Articles of this sort generally leave me feeling a bit uneasy as it feels a lot like navel gazing, however a search of Google scholar suggests there are sources out there about the subject. I can't see many of them, but of the ones I can read, they treat the subject as a mechanism of Wikipedia rather than "a slogan for denouncing implausible or unsubstantiated claims" in pop culture [10] [11]. Though I can't see this paper, I suspect it might be useful and given the fact it was delivered at WikiSym 2012 if some enterprising editor wants to get in touch with the authors they may be able to talk themselves into a free copy. The material is relevant to reliability of Wikipedia so alternatively the article could be merged there. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources found by Nev1 barely mention "citation needed". Anyway, this is just another non-notable term - the only difference is that Wikipedia uses it, and gasp - we're Wikipedia too! Perhaps redirect to Reliability of Wikipedia. A redirect to template space or Wikipedia space would violate CNR rules. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rules, schmules. The page gets 1500 hits a month. That's a lot of redlinks. This is one of the unusual cases where redirecting from article to project space is okay, because it's a widely used search term, and it would benefit the usability of the encyclopaedia to ignore any policy restricting that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 12 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 Ri Sol-ju. I have gone with the majority here that suggests there is consensus that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. A discussion of which article should be the merge target can follow. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ju-ae[edit]

Kim Ju-ae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Merge/redirect to Kim Jong-un for wp:toosoon and wp:blp. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ju Ae suggesting this proposal ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect per nom; could be speedy close and start discussion on talkpage (or just start merging) considering consensus at other AfD discussion. Ansh666 18:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect; Notability is not inherited. This child is notable for no other reason than being the child of Kim Jong un. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince_George_of_Cambridge's notability is entirely inherited yet we have an article so there are clearly exceptions. This child is a de facto princess given the fact her father inherited his position and no change to that system is expected in the near term.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (from WP:Notability (people)). This one doesn't - her existence is only rumoured, and WP:NOTINHERITED kicks in here because she isn't discussed in any way apart from her parents. Ansh666 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the person's existence is, in fact, doubtful (something I would acknowledge as possible but dispute as not a reasonable doubt) then that rationale should be cited as opposed to WP:NOTINHERITED which makes exceptions for hereditary monarchies of which North Korea is more or less a form. I have not, in fact, "voted" here but believe that WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP are overused in deletion discussions.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to mother Ri Sol-ju. While still a baby I think it would make more sense to expand on it there, at least until its known if the baby exist and is a heir, still a rumor only. Lot of other rumors concerning Ri Sol-ju. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to the mother's article, per Green Cardamom. Jonathunder (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Other stuff exists is not a good argument to have an article on a child we know nothing about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the mother, make some mention of them in her article. Notability is not inherited. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As pointed out by Brian Dell, Kim Ju-ae is the only known child of Kim Jong-un and since power is passed on to the children in North Korea, this would make the child the de facto heir apparent unless a male child is perhaps born one day. Referencing to the agreed redirect in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ju Ae is not a good argument since the other page was only one sentence at that time. Michael5046 (talk)
• Weak keep with poor sourcing. Redirecting to either Ri Sol-ju or Kim Jong-un doesn't tackle the content fork issue. The subject's notability is only likely to increase over time, so perhaps the most practical thing to do is retain the article. Deletion/redirection would probably be followed by creating/reverting by others as more sources become available. -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 1 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 5 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 Walter Emerson Baum. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Schofield Baum[edit]

Edgar Schofield Baum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Could find no evidence of notability in article or Google. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redir to Walter Emerson Baum, his father, a notable artist. Enough evidence of son's activity to deserve a redirect and section in father's article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found this article from the Morning Call, some significant coverage (potted bio) in a book about his father (see p. 216), another article from the Morning Call that discusses this Baum's name being a tribute to a certain Mr. Schofield, another article on an exhibition of the Baum artists' work, and another about an event honoring this Baum. Certainly worth a merge to the Walter Emerson Baum article at the very least. --Michig (talk) 10:30, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sparling[edit]

Peter Sparling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established, and I couldn't establish it. Seems to be promotion by single-purpose account. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per WP:PROF#C5 -- the holding of a named chair at a major institution is notable in itself. The Dance dept. at UM is a major department in the field. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As well as the news pieces already cited in the article, his performances have been reviewed multiple times in the New York Times: May 1978 Oct 1979 Oct 1980 Nov. 1981 Jun 1986 Oct 1996 (not counting additional brief announcements). I think he passes WP:GNG as well as (by having a named chair) WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:03, 11 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 Alexis Nihon Plaza. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Alexis Nihon[edit]

Welcome to Alexis Nihon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm saddened to say this, about what seems an interesting project, but aside from the Montreal Gazette article (and its various reprints) we do not (yet) have enough WP:RS to satisfy WP:NOTFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've de-orphaned it by adding it to Alexis Nihon Plaza as a See also. If deleted it could certainly be added to the main article as a brief mention, given that Gazette news ref. The article creator also appears to be in a conflict of interest, with some WP:PEA and (self-)promotional language, which would need to be pruned, if kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

No Arabic WP:RS at all, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Incubate. The film was released to the internet four weeks ago and did receive coverage in Montreal Gazette.[12] I cleaned up the article's format and addressed its tone,[13], but one source does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NF. We can allow it back into mainspace if (or when) it receives more media attention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Alexis Nihon Plaza. Not enough sources to meet notability requirements, but warrants a brief mention there due to the Montreal Gazette piece. -- Trevj (talk) 11:22, 1 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 5 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ourmedia[edit]

Ourmedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged as lacking notability since 2008. Basically no independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is actually a for-profit entity, as of 2007.[14] It doesn't own infrastructure uses Internet Archive for hosting. Business model changed over time, appears to be a small organization and not great coverage by the media. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:22, 5 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. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Octavian (Rome character)[edit]

Gaius Octavian (Rome character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Rome (TV series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details and original research better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is typical wiki nitpicking. Even having this discussion is embarrassing and wasting people's time. Burzum (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Burzum has a point because Octavian was a notable person in the real world and so this cookie-cutter nomination is even more vexatious than usual. The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Rome Season One: History Makes Television which has an entire chapter about Octavian. Warden (talk) 13:53, 25 September 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) 03:27, 5 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 and recreate a redirect to Benicàssim#Festivals. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artevalencia[edit]

Artevalencia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm concerned that this does not meet the notability guidelines - it appears to be an annual art show centered only in the Spanish town of Benicàssim, population 10,000. If I read the article correctly, it is in its inaugural year. At best perhaps a redirect to the article Benicàssim perhaps? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that the show represents the Valencian Community, population 5.1 million. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of attained notability for this event. Any notice that it receives when it happens in this and in subsequent years can be noted at Benicàssim#Festivals. AllyD (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 26 September 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) 03:26, 5 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 01:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Miniature Pinscher Services Inc.(Imps)[edit]

Internet Miniature Pinscher Services Inc.(Imps) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wonderful organization, but this is essentially an advertisement written by a COI account. No reliable sources, nor do Google searches yield much additionally. JNW (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The USA has over 1 million small non-profits who do great work. Most of them are not notable by Wikipedia standards. This org has only one reliable source, the 1999 AKC Gazette article. If there were more newspaper and magazine articles like this it would help in determining notability per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:49, 27 September 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) 03:24, 5 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 Airwolf. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Santini[edit]

Dominic Santini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no reliable secondary sources to establish the independent notability of this fictional character. Notability of the series does not confer notability onto the individual characters. Tagged for reference improvement for six years but those sources don't exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Airwolf; there is a cast section, but no character section there. Character is not independently notable but a brief character bio would be appropriate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google News Archive shows coverage in sources in many languages, over multiple decades, for the character, many of which appear to transcend the actor who played him. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Google news archives show many mentions of the character that certainly establish its existence but not the sort of secondary sources upon which an article that discusses the character in real-world (not in-universe) terms necessary to build and sustain an article. The idea that the character is somehow more significant than the actor who portrayed him is ludicrous on its face. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While there are many Google News hits, I can't see any that could possibly be used as reliable sources. They're all fleeting mentions. Character is not notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 28 September 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) 03:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Airwolf. Fictional character has a lack of real-world notability, but could be a search term which would be a useful redirect to the series itself. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:04, 13 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Waxler[edit]

Morris Waxler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. A former US FDA functionary, and now independent consultant. Made some news testifying about concerns of the LASIK eye surgery technique. Whereas the controversy may (or may not) be notable, Waxler is not notable for his involvement in it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete --- another WP:COATRACK. Plenty of content on the LASIK article already. I note that the same user created this page as Dean Andrew Kantis. I assume good faith and that there are not WP:advocacy, non NPOV, UNDUE, etc. etc. issues here. Lesion (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick google news search turns up multiple results. Not only results in relation to his Lasik controversy, but some results that date back to 1998 about his career and work.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps if Mr. Khalid would be so kind as to expand the article indicating Waxler's other notable accomplishments with citations to these sources he has found, we could better evaluate his statement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 19 September 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 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) 03:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Morris Waxler is a notable person. A search for Morris Waxler at google returns 44,000 results. Dr. Waxler was recently interviewed for the September 27th edition of the Dr. Oz Show, which has an audience estimated at 3 million. Dr. Waxler was chosen because of his expertise in regard to medical device issues, notably the excimer laser. His petition to withdraw the approval of the excimer laser used for LASIK is controversial and had created wide discussion. Dr. Waxler has been interviewed in a variety of prominent media sources, including: Good Morning America ^[1] MSNBC News ^[2] ABC News Hindsight 20/20 ^[3] and Canadian TV Global News 16:9 The Bigger Picture ^[4], which is considered the Canadian version of 60 minutes [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdavis101 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Rogerdavis101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Merge into LASIK. Coverage of Dr. Waxler is tied entirely to his testimony and views on Lasik surgery, and without this there is no notability as best as I can ascertain. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 9 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 active rebel groups. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of rebel groups that control territory[edit]

List of rebel groups that control territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An unnecessary duplication of List of active rebel groups. Created as a Content Fork, after a change in criteria at List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition. Following the addition of Bangsamoro Republik to those articles, a consensus developed that the criteria for inclusion needed to be reinforced to exclude groups that temporarily control land during a conflict but which are not regarded as 'sovereign states' in multiple verifiable sources. This article is an (unnecessary) attempt to bring together entities that would now be definitively excluded from those pages. In addition to duplicating an existing page, the criteria for inclusion are fairly arbitrary and unclear. Finally, there do not seem to be any reliable sources which collate these entities together into a list elsewhere. Although List of active rebel groups is currently a very poor list, this would still be a more appropriate article to develop this content in. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a duplicate of List of active rebel groups, and I didn't create it as a place to put rejects from List of sovereign states. In fact, there's little overlap with the latter list (or even rejects from that list), because most of the rebel groups listed here haven't declared independence (many are explicitly non-separatist). This is a topic that, as a Wikipedia reader, I've been wishing was covered for some time. I think the criteria are relatively clear: "controlling territory" is also one of the criteria in List of sovereign states. This is a list for entities which fit that criterion but have NOT declared independence and have not sought international recognition as separate sovereign states.

If you feel like it would be better to include this content within List of active rebel groups, I have no problem with that, but I don't think it should be deleted without at least merging its content into that page and redesigning that page in such a way that it's easy to see which rebel groups have clear territorial control and which don't. If your concern is sources, they can be added, though almost all of the content is supported by the associated Wikipedia articles as linked to within the table.

GeoEvan (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - the connection to List of sovereign states may be a coincidence. The criteria are arbitrary: what do you mean by 'rebel', 'control' and 'territory'? It's by no means clear. It doesn't duplicate content but does duplicate the aim of List of active rebel groups, which is what I meant. Of course sources are important, but it's not my particular concern here; it's an unnecessary, arbitrary duplication. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Territory" and "control" are both used in the criteria for List of sovereign states. If you think they're arbitrary and unclear, perhaps you should take that up on the talk page for that article. Likewise, "rebel" is the implied criterion for List of active rebel groups. I'm not sure why you would argue that this list's criteria are unclear when there's already consensus to use them on the two other pages you linked to. GeoEvan (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of sovereignty, they're well-established concepts discussed by multiple reliable sources. By contrast, on this list, they're an arbitrary collection of qualities which have never been collected together elsewhere. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a requirement for Wikipedia lists? That the specific criteria have been gathered together elsewhere? The concept of a rebel group controlling territory is definitely used regularly in individual cases. GeoEvan (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent> BTW, I'd have no objection to the content of this list being merged into list of active rebel groups. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep, or merge with list of active rebel groups, and reformat list of active rebel groups to fit the better designed format of this list. this list provides an important and easily comprehensible overview of notable rebel groups, which is similar to the aim of the other list, but the other list is comparatively poorly formatted, so this list being merged into the other list's format would be a loss, as this list is more informative and easier to read. However, due to similar aims, the other list can easily adopt this list's format, in which case a merger would be beneficial. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:52, 27 September 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) 03:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with list of active rebel groups, per HighFlyingFish.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 5 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 01:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calore umano[edit]

Calore umano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nek's third album seems to have not receive any coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Even if this album did chart, the lack of significant coverage would prevent this from being a notable-enough topic for a Wikipedia article. The article fails the guideline of WP:NALBUMS in my opinion, but lets hope to god we can change that consensus from delete. Even the notability of the singer, while having some other albums that have done commercially, has also appeared to have been questioned. 和DITOREtails 23:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 September 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, 26 September 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) 03:15, 5 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 01:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In te[edit]

In te (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nek's second album In te seems to have not receive any coverage in reliable, secondary sources, other then his primary bio that is cited in the article as of this time. Even if this album did chart, the lack of significant coverage would prevent this from being a notable-enough topic for a Wikipedia article. The article fails the guideline of WP:NALBUMS in my opinion, but lets hope to god we can change that consensus from delete. Even the notability of the singer, while having some other albums that have done commercially, has also appeared to have been questioned. 和DITOREtails 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 September 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) 01:39, 26 September 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) 03:15, 5 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 Nek discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nek (album)[edit]

Nek (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nek's self-titled debut album seems to have not receive any coverage in reliable, secondary sources, other then his primary bio that is cited in the article as of this time. Even if this album did chart, the lack of significant coverage would prevent this from being a notable-enough topic for a Wikipedia article. The article fails the guideline of WP:NALBUMS in my opinion, but lets hope to god we can change that consensus from delete. Even the notability of the singer, while having some other albums that have done commercially, has also appeared to have been questioned. 和DITOREtails 23:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason of deletion. This article is about first album of Nek. Please leave it alone. Nicolas Love (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response from nominator. Um..... What the Fuck? I obviously know that the article is about Nek's first album, but we're not deleting it because of what the topic is about. We're planning a delete due to its lack of notability. Please come up with better arguments next time. 和DITOREtails 23:56, 24 September 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) 01:40, 26 September 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) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nek discography. I found one AllMusic review at 3 stars, but that's not enough to show it passes notability guidelines. I know that it's a little tough wading through sources since self-named debut albums tend to get hidden under an avalanche of false hits, but I can't really find anything. I have no problem with userfying the data if someone wants to do that, but I can't find any coverage to show it passes notability guidelines. On a side note, please don't curse at the other editors, EditorE. It comes across as a little more hostile than you probably meant it to be. Remember, be civil to one another. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 6 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Memory Foundation[edit]

Internet Memory Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged as not showing sufficient notability for over a year. The references are all to their EU funding source(s) basically. I'm not convinced those are independent enough to pass WP:GNG. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of the larger and older web archiving organizations. It archives important collections[15] like the National Archives, CERN, etc.. The EU funding doesn't mean they are owned by the EU, it's an independent non-profit. It would pass WP:NGO. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, someone keeps creating articles about EU projects using very promotional and jargon-filled language (probably cut-n-paste from the proposals). It does not disqualify them per se but makes it harder to filter out the ones that are truly notable, and write articles in more neutral normal English about what they do. Let us work on this a bit and see if there are enough sources to justify. W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I looked up some books and scholarly papers, and it seems to qualify. Tried to remove some of the future tense promotional language. Still hard to guess what really happens there vs. the many other sites are listed under those research projects, but the projects are millions of Euros each, and are still going on nine years later. W Nowicki (talk) 00:08, 8 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 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necker Cup[edit]

Necker Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG after good-faith search for independent sources. —me_and 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 September 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) 01:50, 26 September 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) 03:13, 5 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.