The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid schedule[edit]

Liquid schedule (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 academic topic. Article summarizes non-peer-reviewed paper with zero external citations. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only a summary of an article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Google Scholar search shows about a dozen instances of the phrase being used in this manner, but they are all by the same author, Emin Gabrielyan. This indicates that the term is one coined by a single scholar, and has not been adopted by the broader field in which they work, and therefor is a non-notable neologism (and perhaps a COI - page was created by User: Gabrielyan.) Agricolae (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Agricolae. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 8 September 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kimball[edit]

Paul Kimball (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 meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:FILMMAKER, appears to be an article written by a COI account. All the titles in the "Media" section are linked to YouTube videos, and "Redstar Books" is Kimball himself. LuckyLouie (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Obviously written by the subject themselves or someone connected to them. Reads like a resume and I'd be surprised if there is anything verifiable available. General rule of thumb, if notability cannot be established beyond primary sources, should be deleted. Too many articles end up getting kept these days based on primary sources alone. Laval (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not every source needs to be considered for notability. Primary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, see WP:PRIMARY. Not every source in the article is primary. Sources for WP:GNG notability include Halifax Daily News, EastLink TV, Coast to Coast AM - likely more. COI has not been established, but even then it's not a reason to delete. It does read like a resume and marketing and needs help from an experienced Wikipedian. The alternative is punish the newbie alienating them from Wikipedia (pun intended). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coast to coast is clearly unreliable (famous for it), and it is being used as a primary source here. This [1] is a borderline advertisement for his new show. I don't see any independent coverage from secondary sources on EastLink TV. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EastLink TV is in-depth coverage by a reliable secondary source, acceptable under WP:GNG. Coast to Coast is a reliable for determining the popularity of a UFO expert, in fact it is one of the most reliable sources on that question. It is unreliable for other things - reliability is within the context of the fact being checked. I don't see it as primary, he is a guest on the show (unless he works there or has some connection to the station). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and solicit assistance from experienced editors to clean up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a rationale to keep the article. Would you like to clarify, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources? I'm finding plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources for this documentary filmmaker. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just link me to a google search. If you want to claim GNG pick a specific source. For example, the NYT piece [2] doesn't actually give any realy coverage of Kimball, it just says, "The last of his friends to whom I spoke was Paul Kimball, a filmmaker who lives in Nova Scotia. He met Tonnies online about a decade ago; they corresponded for six years before meeting in person, when Kimball came to Kansas City to interview Tonnies for a documentary. They ended up becoming close, even collaborating on a play (swapping drafts via e-mail) that was staged at the Boulder International Fringe Festival. " The rest is about them talking together and says some things he said, this is trivial coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources include:
• Daily Times, The : Aztec to premiere UFO documentary / Film...‎

$2.95 - Daily Times - Aug 22, 2004 "I think the documentary puts Aztec in a positive light," Ramsey said. ... County's high desert landscape and film producer Paul Kimball telling the story of Aztec. Water tunnel documentary is available‎

• Halifax News Net - Oct 16, 2009

Stevens co-wrote the series with Paul Kimball, a documentary filmmaker who grew up in Dartmouth and has established a reputation as one of the country's ... Cyberspace When You're Dead - NYTimes.com‎

• New York Times - Jan 5, 2011

The last of his friends to whom I spoke was Paul Kimball, a filmmaker who lives in ... when Kimball came to Kansas City to interview Tonnies for a documentary.

• Daily Times, The : UFOs: Symposium to 'unveil the truth'‎

$2.95 - Daily Times - Mar 20, 2004 ... alien life on CNN to change their opinions, said Paul Kimball, producer and director of two UFO documentaries, "Do You Believe in Majic" and "Aztec: 1948. Tonight'sTV; Complete daily listings in Spectator TV‎

• The Spectator - Apr 28, 2004

Filmmaker Paul Kimball's one-hour documentary looks into the existence of a secret agency called Majestic 12, which some believe was created to cover up the ... Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT story mentions Kimball only as a friend of the subject of the story. The others are variously local news about a UFO film screening and a mention in a local "Halloween" themed filler story. Hardly the serious, in-depth coverage required to meet WP:FILMMAKER.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT stories doesn't just mention Kimball. It has paragraphs about their relationship, collaboration, the authors discussion with Kimball etc. And this is just one of the sources noted above. Here is the actual content:

"The last of his friends to whom I spoke was Paul Kimball, a filmmaker who lives in Nova Scotia. He met Tonnies online about a decade ago; they corresponded for six years before meeting in person, when Kimball came to Kansas City to interview Tonnies for a documentary. They ended up becoming close, even collaborating on a play (swapping drafts via e-mail) that was staged at the Boulder International Fringe Festival.

Among their shared interests, it turns out, was the relationship among technology, consciousness and mortality. Their play, based on a science-fiction story Tonnies had written in college, involves two women who turn out not to be, strictly speaking, creatures of organic matter: one is an artificial-intelligence program, the other a human consciousness uploaded into a form that could survive a centuries-long space journey. The very title of Tonnies’s Posthuman Blues blog, Kimball points out, hints at ambivalence about these subjects. But that was the place, he says, where his generally private friend “revealed himself,” post by post. The fact that the blog persists, in public, is what makes it distinct from, say, a journal Kimball owns that belonged to his grandfather and that has been read by perhaps 20 people.

The day before we spoke, Kimball continued, he had linked to an old Posthuman Blues post on his Facebook page, seeking reactions from his own online circle. “So I’m still having this conversation” with his friend Tonnies, he told me, “even though he’s been dead for more than a year.” Eventually, Kimball added, such situations may be routine. “We’re entering a world where we can all leave as much of a legacy as George Bush or Bill Clinton. Maybe that’s the ultimate democratization,” he said. “It gives all of us a chance at immortality.”

After talking to Kimball, I ended up watching a couple of interview clips of Tonnies on YouTube. In one, he discussed “transhumanism,” the techno-scientific quest to transcend the traditional limits of the human animal, death included, whether through merging with machines or fiddling with our genes. Skeptics or opponents of transhumanism are missing the point that it’s well underway, he argued: medicine is transhuman, in that it thwarts mortality. While I didn’t find this wholly convincing, I will concede that it was interesting to find myself in a position to listen to his arguments at all. " Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. The subject of the NYT article might be notable, but not everyone he knew or collaborated with is automatically notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inheritance, the NYT article doesn't have to be entirely about Kimball, see WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a passing mention then it wouldn't contribute, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:GNG, multiple reliable sources cover the topic in depth enough to write at least a stub article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:56, 28 August 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) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of in depth coverage required to pass the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:GNG, "in-depth" is not a requirement and is different from "significant"... NOT the same thing. Enough sources speak toward the individual and or his works in enough detail to support a short start class article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in sources is trivial and the individual has not been the subject of the articles, contrary to WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 12 September 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) 02:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stoning of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow[edit]

Stoning of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow (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 event fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy and WP:NEVENT guideline, specifically there is no enduring notability, one or two mentions in passing does not demonstrate that. There is a spike in news coverage at the time then it all goes away. LGA _talk^edits 23:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A section with several sources was added to cover long-term notability and impact but was deleted by another editor for "undue coverage". It can easily be added again and reworked to fix the notability issue. Also, the incident achieved widespread news coverage, and the case (that of a 13-year-old girl being stoned to death after being raped) is prominent in that there were no other similar occurrences during the civil war in Somalia. --1ST7 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom - passing mentions do not demonstrate that, there is no claim in the article as to enduring notability, Wikinews is that way ----> .LGA _talk^edits 01:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There was some coverage around the time of the incident, but not much on the girl/woman afterwards. The incident also had no lasting impact on society; no legislation, for example, came out of it. By contrast, the Soraya Manutchehri stoning was made into both a novel and a film adaptation, yet it's a stub article. As such, the incident is an isolated occurrence with little enduring notability. Middayexpress (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another way to look at it is these types of incidents are indeed common but this one rose from invisibility and received global attention, even condemned in the US Senate for an enduring record (the Congressional Record, Volume 154 Part 18). This is a well written well sourced NPOV article about an incident covered in multiple reliable sources, keep per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A summary public execution by stoning carried out by an Al-Qaeda affiliate, accompanied by shooting of witnesses who objected is not at all common in the modern era, and is highly notable and worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. The sources are there, as a Google Books search shows that the killing has received significant coverage in at least 11 books published in the past five years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep enduring notability, clearly not a routine news, I cuncur with Cullen except that I count 12 books covering the event. Cavarrone 20:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I won't get into a pissing contest about how many books I can find covering this event, but, from Cullen's and my searches linked above I can certainly see far more than enough from reliable academic publishers to demonstrate that this event has become part of documented history rather than just a news event. If you look only for news sources then you will find only news sources: the way to see if a topic transcends WP:NOTNEWS is to look for coverage in books and academic papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cullen, Cavarrone, and Phil Bridger; a mere 60 seconds of searching shows that it meets the GNG. I'd add a gentle trouting of the nominator for unhelpful snideness ("Wikinews is that way"). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks for the opinions on the academic works related to the subject; I've started adding the books to the article as sources. Is it alright if I ask if there's any opinion regarding how Duhulow's age should be discussed in the article? There's currently a dispute about whether she should be described as a "female" (in reference to the account of some people who witnessed the stoning and estimated her age to be 23) or as a "13-year-old girl" (as her family and teacher said) in the opening sentence. I'm sorry to bother anyone about it, but the dispute has been going on for almost a week and I'm not sure where else to seek another opinion. --1ST7 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hoban[edit]

Patrick Hoban (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)

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that the article was sufficiently different than the last version to be deleted. However, Patrick Hoban has still not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright infringement. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. The article also has a bunch of problems (including copyright issues) that need to be fixed if this article is kept.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Moran (supercentenarian)[edit]

James Moran (supercentenarian) (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)

Two things can be told about James Moran: He won a grain cradling contest, and allegedly died aged 111. Neither of these helps to establish encyclopedic notability. FoxyOrange (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep any documented supercentarian should be able to have an article here. Perhaps this cannot be expanded on further, but that is not a reason to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there is no special notability criterion for supercentenarians. Instead, WP:BIO should be followed, which states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I don't think this is met here. And what is more, James Moran is by no means a "documented supercentarian", because his date of birth is not known for sure.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being "documented" usually means "Guinness Book of World's Records" certified. Hardly a measure of notability. Rather we just rely on BIO or GNG as you say, regardless if they are "official", no bias against countries or time periods where birth certificates didn't exist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The best I could find is this mention, no byline, that he was 110 sometime in 1913 in the Dwight, Illinois Star and Herald,[3] not exactly the New York Times. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Three sources exist which verify his claimed age, but subject does not meet WP:BIO. It's not possible to check the Conner source since the book is rare, not held in any libraries,[4] not helping claims of notabilty. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Return of Ultraman monsters#Bemstar. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bemstar[edit]

Bemstar (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 The Return of Ultraman 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 better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Redirection to The Return of Ultraman is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero sourcing and dubious notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (partially)/redirect to List of Return of Ultraman monsters#Bemstar, which is the proper place for infos about this character. Cavarrone 05:36, 12 September 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 (non-admin closure) Keep, nomination withdrawn. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy in Amber[edit]

Gypsy in Amber (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)

Early, minor work by notable author. Nominated for Edgar award. Not finding any reviews. Suggest redirect to Martin Cruz Smith. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nom)— Thanks to User:Tokyogirl79 for the lesson in how to ferret out book reviews. The article is definitely notable, and I've learned a thing or two. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, it's cool. These sources were sort of hidden. I've gotten used to finding the hard to find reviews and whatnot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promethium (comics)[edit]

Promethium (comics) (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)

Two non-notable substances from different comic book continuums. No real world context and I doubt there are sources to add any real world context to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only mentioned in primary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has anyone looked for sources additional sources? It doesn't appear to be the case. A significant number of pages link to this article. Sources are likely available if looked for. A quick search in search in google for Promethium in Comics pulled up several pages of secondary and tertiary sources. It is likely that the page can be expanded. This is the second time this page has been nominated for deletion. It was determined that the article should be kept after the last time is was nominated. Editors have slowly been adding to the article since then. 42of8 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources are listed on the article, and the sources I see when I looked are either primary sources or non-reliable sources - fan websites, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

42of8, please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG. As you read them please keep in mind we also need real world context in the article. For example the creator saying something like "I needed a super strong metal, and it needed a cool name so I took the name Prometheus and add "um" to the end of it." In order to be encyclopedia the articles need to be about our real world and how the subjects were developed and published not just summaries of their fictional elements in a fictional universe. Sorry but I'm tired of you repling with the same basic reply of WP:Ilikeit and heres a bunch of primary, unreliable sources that I found in Google that just mention the subject in passing and have no real world information about the subject. It's the same over and over again, and I have repeatedly taken the time to explain to you why these sources fall short and then in the next AFD there is your same exact argument again. I like it and heres a bunch of stuff I found in Google. Ridernyc (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a perfect example of this you have added this source to the article [5]. It's an IMDB listing that simply mentions something refereed to as a "a rock called Promethium X on the moon." So lets start, since this is a blurb from the makers fo the film that is being used on IMDB, it is primary. Second it's a plot summary with no real world context. Third, its a passing trival mention that totals two short sentences of something called "Promethium X." so it's far far far below the threshold of significant coverage. Last and most importantly this "Promethium X" from the brief description we have in the plot summary sounds like a totally different substances from the one discussed in the Marvel section of the article that is up for discussion. It fails as a source on every level of what we are looking for. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 8 September 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) 02:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diana: The Rose Conspiracy[edit]

Diana: The Rose Conspiracy (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)

Prodded but deprodded without addressing the concerns. The prod reason was:

Not notable: does not satisfy WP:NFILM, based on sources or a search which turns up little except video links. Only possibility would be if it were known by some other name in other languages but it seems to be "The Rose Conspiracy" even in Spanish, Portuguese.

Further the claim (which might make it notable) that "it was selected as one of the best works by the Italian Art Critics Association at the Venice Biennale" seems dubious – I can't find it in the sources. Otherwise it seems to only have very limited local coverage and interest. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I pointed out when I de-prodded it, the article does have two WP:RS already, and my Google News archive search revealed what appears to be a third, the Panama Online news ref. I stopped there because three refs is my own personal minimum for "multiple sources," so I felt it met WP:GNG -- but there well may be more Spanish-language news refs, I do not know. Now, I agree that the first news ref, the bylined Reuters news story, doesn't support the statement that it won a major award at the Biennale, but that's not a reason to delete. The claim that "it seems to only have very limited local coverage and interest" is belied by the fact that the 2nd ref verifies that it was selected for the prestigious Venice Biennale, which is rather far away from Uruguay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

• Keep a minor short film that received just enough recognition: (three sources) Infobae UOL Terra We do not expect films seen only in museums and art spaces to have the same level of coverage as do big-budget, highly-advertised, stdio-blockbusters... but this did have a London screening in 2008 Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fwiw, the other one I was mentioning is here. It's more of a short capsule item, I admit, and likely a pick up of the Reuters piece, as both are Portuguese. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Which gives us yet another search parameter, thank you: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Searches for Non-English sourcing is proving somewhat more fruitful. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uruguay isn't anything like the USA, or even Argentina, so the short art films won't give any top results, but still if one is looking for characteristic samples of Uruguayan cinema he might as well get some articles about them. Locally, Martín Sastre is quite a name in the art cinema and the contemporary art scene. I don't say any short film of his is worth an article, some are just made as art exhibits, but this one has been around for a while, and it tells something about his background. I am for keeping it. Hoverfish Talk 00:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lux Familiar Cup 2011[edit]

The Lux Familiar Cup 2011 (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 article contains the result of a poll conducted on a Half Man Half Biscuit fansite. Absolutely no secondary coverage; therefore, not notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this tournament.  Gong show 16:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principality (comics)[edit]

Principality (comics) (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)

Long list of non-notable Marvel characters. Seems the term "Principality" itself is a non-notable term that Marvel recently invented to try to group these minor characters into some sort of classification system. All of the links lead to other lists where if you are lucky there might be a stub describing the character. It's an endless mess of list poorly written and unencyclopedic, unrefernced, totally random, and unorganized lists that were all created after the Pokemon fallout to try to group together things to avoid deletion. There is far too much coverage of a minutia of details trying to lump all this stuff together to try to make things pass muster and avoid AFD Ridernyc (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This could be something significant in the future depending on what Marvel does with it and if it sticks around, but right now there's not enough information out there to get a good idea what this is all about. 42of8 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 8 September 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) 02:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Universe[edit]

Features of the Marvel Universe (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)

A somewhat random, unrefrenced and indiscriminate list of "Features of the Marvel Universe." The lead basically says this is a totally indiscriminate list of all things Marvel. Appears to have served as a dumping ground for all things non-notable in the Marvel Universe with items being added the to list as their articles faced deletion. The perfect example of why simply gathering things together is not enough to make a hoard of unencyclopedic things suddenly encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could you please explain why this is unencyclopedic? I seems that you are listing things you don't find to be interesting as non-notable after making a half-hearted search for sources and then submitting them for deletion. Many of the articles you say are not notable really are notable but the articles are under-developed but it is likely that expansion with sources can be found. It seems like you are attacking a field of study that you don't care for. 42of8 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is indiscriminate with no inclusion criteria. It' is also unsourced. The majority of the "features" would not pass the GNG, the majority of them will also never have any information on their real world context or development. While I appreciate your passion for the project I'm not sure you have a very firm grasp on policy and consensus of what the project should be. I would recommend reading WP:NOT. This fails multiple sections of policy. The most important of which is list needs a clear inclusion criteria, this has what amounts to no inclusion criteria. WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." There is no discussion of anything in any of the "Features" listed here, just very brief in-universe descriptions of them. Ridernyc (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation of those policies. It seems like you are looking at this with a very narrow interpretation of the policy that could discourage participation. The policies allow room for pages like this. 42of8 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks unsalvageable. There's no inclusion criteria, and I doubt that it's verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just rename it List of things in the Marvel Universe or something like that. See how many blue links there are in there? Its a perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would still have no inclusion criteria and would function only as an index. A category would do the same job. Just put all the Marvel articles in a Marvel category, and you've got this index. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN clearly states you should not destroy a list because you prefer categories. A list article is superior since it gives useful information to help you navigate. The inclusion criteria is rather obvious. If its a notable part of the Marvel Universe then its on the list. Dream Focus 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but I disagree about the inclusion criteria; it's so vague that superheroes and their superpowers could credibly be added. A better name and more strict inclusion criteria would make me feel better about this article. My first thought was that it could be used as a dumping ground for everything non-notable, but then I thought about why I wanted to keep around a dumping ground of non-notable topics. An index works better, but I'm not convinced that we need one. We've already got a portals and categories, and who decides what's notable enough to be put on this list? If it were verifiable, that would be different. List of cult films, for example, has citations for every film listed. How are people going to decide what is a notable feature of the Marvel Universe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a list of notable entities. It has a fairly obvious inclusion criterion: everything notable featured in Marvel stories. Arguably you could break it up into separate lists, e.g. List of places in the Marvel universe, and it already references some articles like List of Marvel Comics dimensions. But even if you spun out sections into individual list articles, you would probably still want to have an overview listing all of the lists, and some of the sublists might be too short for independent articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a possible merge target. The fact that solid inclusion criteria have yet to be established for this list is not a valid reason for deletion, as this can be discussed on the talk page or elsewhere. Meanwhile, this article does include an independent source, and if the other articles up for deletion were merged into this one, I am sure we could easily meet the GNG. A rename is possible, if that would help focus the article's contents better. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is beyond doubt that the Marvel Universe is notable, and contains many independently notable places and things; a list may also contain things that are not individually notable enough to merit articles. bd2412 T 19:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Items such as the Baxter Building or Infinity Gauntlet have considerable notability and are detailed in reference works such as Marvel: The Characters and Their Universe and The Marvel Comics Encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Zoungrana[edit]

Patrice Zoungrana (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable footballer, Fails WP:GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Usual non-notable footballer failing WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable as a football player, plays in the third highest league in his country. TCN7JM 01:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agira (Ultra monster)[edit]

Agira (Ultra monster) (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 Ultra Seven through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Searching has not revealed any sources that would allow this to meet the notability threshold. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to not establishing notability. TTN (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicle models used in the military[edit]

List of vehicle models used in the military (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)

It's unclear exactly what "the military" means in the title, but if it means any military force then this list (if ever completed) would be huge. We already have many pages that are or contain lists of military vehicles by operator (e.g. pages in Category:Lists of currently active military vehicles) so having (what the title indicates is) a single list across all countries/periods is not a good way to organize things. DexDor (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not seem to be an appropriate scope for an article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague in scope and unfinishable. If intended to be types currently in use, it will be impossible to list all types (security); if intended to be a historic list, it might as well list every vehicle ever produced. This is because in both World Wars, the British government (among others) requisitioned large numbers of vehicles, a proportion of which were allocated to the military. These commandeered vehicles were of many different makes and types, often it was a case of "is it in working order - if not, can it be made so?". Nothing was sacred. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to wide a remit for one article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - would be impossible to complete and grow to be massive. We have more specific lists already. Ansh666 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. I have no idea how this has survived since 2005 given its obvious problems around scope. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn. Thank you for finding the necessary sourcing User:Yngvadottir! Jujutacular (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farsund Hospital[edit]

Farsund Hospital (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)

Unsourced article. My searches were able to verify its existence, but nothing more. I can't find enough to constitute an article. Jujutacular (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a surprising amount of news coverage; one has to search the local name, "Farsund sykehus". I've added information from three articles from this year and last year (one at NRK national TV), and I can see lots of articles in the local paper from the year it closed, 2007, listed at the Norwegian search engine, kvasir.no, but can't get to them directly so I'll have to do a further search before I can add some of them. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 September 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) 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Bergin[edit]

Bonnie Bergin (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)

Doesn't seem to be notable - Only one of her books was published by a non-self-publishing company; there are few to no mentions of her as either "Bonnie Bergin" or "Bonita Bergin" and what mentions there are seem to be the same repeated profile or on the website for her dog training school, or passing mentions in dog training books (usually as 'she's trying to teach dogs to read, this is cool / funny') Said school may be notable, and the service dog group may be notable, but I don't believe Bonnie herself is. I found claims that she invented the concept of the service dog but I couldn't find anything reliable to back up the claim - it's mentioned here but it isn't really delved into anywhere else except in interviews with her (and how reliable can those be), and the reliability of that site seems shaky at best to me. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 17:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bonnie Bergin is credited with inventing the concept of the "service dog", even coining the term and founding the first training program for dogs to assist the physically handicap. Notable via WP:ANYBIO #2 "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Sources exist in a Google Books search, one example[6] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google news archive search makes notability obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Articvles like this establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 11 September 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 Cockpit. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left seat[edit]

Left seat (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 am also nominating the following related page:

Right seat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If indeed the left seat is normally used by the pilot in command and the right seat by the co-pilot (currently, there are citation needed tags), then this information should be included in the cockpit article. There is just no need for these two articles, especially because for most "ordinary" people, the terms "left/right seat" do not have any link to aviation (so that a redirect to "cockpit" would not be appropriate, either). FoxyOrange (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Generally speaking, if an article only contains the information that can be conveyed in one sentence then it's better to put that sentence in a more comprehensive article. So add to Cockpit (and perhaps to Pilot and Co-pilot too): "Usually the pilot sits in the left seat and the co-pilot in the right seat." BayShrimp (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect I don't see the terms in use outside aviation, as motorcars don't have the aircraft-style dual controls and therefore have "driver's seat" or "driver's side", left or right depending on the country. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge info (if properly cited) to the cockpit article. Can't imagine this article will ever be more than a few lines long.--Dmol (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect both to Cockpit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - any worthwhile information from both into cockpit. It will otherwise have to spend life as a permastub. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any point in redirection to cockpit as users may be searching for the right and left seats of other vehicles. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 00:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no sources and the title is too ambiguous. The configuration of flying machines varies - the primary seat in a helipcopter is on the right, not the left; and some trainers like the Tiger Moth have fore and aft configuration. Warden (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are the WP:COMMONNAMEs for airline useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not clear. Per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Warden (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move both to a disambiguated title (not sure what, maybe Left seat (cockpit) and Right seat (cockpit)), then merge to Cockpit to maintain edit histories. Ansh666 19:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a reasonable compromise that would retain the attribution (note this would be best done as a move without leaving a redirect). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and Merge. I agree with User:Ansh666 and would follow their suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljpernic (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Whittemore[edit]

Tyler Whittemore (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)

No Notability, Unencyclopedic, possible COI, wrong tone, etc. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 16:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zorin OS[edit]

Zorin OS (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)

A consensus of sorts formed at Talk:Zorin OS is: to take this to AfD again. And so done. Shirt58 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The only third-party sources are reviews from Katherine Noyes, who routinely reviews Linux distros; that doesn't seem to show notability and even if it did, that's the only third-party author who seems to have given Zorin OS any attention at all, which is not enough to establish notability on Wikipedia. DistroWatch does not contribute towards establishing notability as you can simply buy an entry in DistroWatch. The subject also comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Is there an Ubuntu Wikia? If so, this is where these Ubuntu fork articles belong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
• Delete—Yes, there's coverage, but not (in my opinion) significant coverage, nor does the coverage attest to the significance of the distro. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Simply not enough independent in-depth sources yet. Yworo (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Huntsberger[edit]

David Huntsberger (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 Comedian. Claim to fame is appearing on Comedy's Prem. Blend, regularly appearing on a podcast, and being a semi-finalist on Last Comic Standing. All articles are either pure promo, or releases dealing with appearances. IMO it's bad when I can repeat "David Huntsberger is a stand-up comedian whose voice you might" by heart because of how many articles start exactly the same. Caffeyw (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not very notable, but there are still a few hits here and there from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing the significant, meaningful external coverage. Neutrality^talk 14:56, 6 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) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only see a fe w brief mentions in local media. Ridernyc (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Baig[edit]

Arslan Baig (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)

Article was deleted as an A7 on aug 7 and re-created eight minutes later. I tagged as a BLP prod on Aug 20 as there are essentially no sources. I am unable to find any source material online for this singer. It looks to me that he is not yet notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Diannaa (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nom has pretty much covered it. The "sources" in the article are YouTube videos posted by the subject and friends and the subject's Facebook page. I couldn't find anything usable elsewhere. The performances listed include sets in cafes and at unspecified "fashion event[s]". Maybe WP:TOOSOON, probably [[WP:NOTEVER]]. Stalwart111 04:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 August 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) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but did not find anything that would help towards WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not evident. --VI-007 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reevoo[edit]

Reevoo (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)

may not meet WP:CORPDEPTH: a Google News search for the company's name turns up only [7] and [8], neither of which is primarily about the company. The business2community.com story cited in the article just presents some information from Reevoo's market research (alongside others') without telling us about the company itself; moreover business2community.com has over 4 000 registered contributors, according to its about page. The internetretailer.com story cited in the article is mainly about Reevoo's market research, with about three sentences concerning the company. Anyone can add information to Crunchbase. —rybec 05:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 30 August 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) 15:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Seems to be an advert for a company that collects and recycles reviews. I see nothing notable about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Crash Engine[edit]

The Crash Engine (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)

Unsigned band. A cursory search doesn't turn up any sources. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find any indication that these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 11:46, 30 August 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) 15:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just reverted copyvio from the band's press kit to the last clean version. No opinion on notability. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Ridernyc (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – I found three sources. There are some reviews in some online magazines, and the band's music was used in the film Last Man Running. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AReputation[edit]

AReputation (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)

Article is about a website that does not seem to be notable, possible COI Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 15:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly promotion. Especially amused by saying it has something to with a globe! It sounds like the usual company that gets paid to write glowing "reviews" or other misleading user-generated content? Hard to tell if they are legit or not from the article. Not even a good advertisement, since they cannot even write English. W Nowicki (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Another WP:ADVERT from a NN PR company. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 11 September 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. KTC (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avaidika[edit]

Avaidika (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:DICTDEF, but mainly part of a walled garden by this editor based on his own novel analysis of vedic terminology to apply it to modern science. DMacks (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I nearly tagged it when it came across NPP, but I thought it might develop into a real article. Hasn't happened yet, and unlikely to do so. WP:DICTDEF is correct. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and i have first hand contact with the speakers of a language which is about the most accurate in existence in terms Sanskrit variations, I clearly show with valid referencing what i am putting forward, I do not see a reason why this should be deleted.--Prestigiouzman (talk) 05:23, 31 August 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) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've just taken another article by this editor to AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tar Ua Mhesa and have found another dictionary type article Anulomana which I may also take to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 15 September 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 per copyright violation found in all revisions of the article as well as the lack of sufficent notability assertions. AngelOfSadness talk 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barani Institute of Information Technology[edit]

Barani Institute of Information Technology (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)

Stubby article with little assertion of notability and no evidence of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go ahead and speedy this, would you be good enough to point out the assertion of notability it makes? I'm not seeing anything.--Launchballer 16:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, since that's apparently what it's a part of. Ansh666 03:54, 3 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) 15:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tejinder Singh[edit]

Tejinder Singh (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 article shows he was nominated for an award. That passes CSD. There are references. That passes BLPPROD. The other references seem to be written by him, not about him. This is just the gentleman doing his job. There is insufficient notability here. The gentleman fails WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 23:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not sure this still live. the article was detagged. Dlohcierekim 23:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) Added back, the AFD nomination is neither withdrawn nor closed, m/ User:Timtrent. --Tito☸Dutta 00:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have just been through the alleged references, and many of them do not pass muster. The gentleman certainly exists and is a journalist. The rest of the article puffs him up to be that which he is not. The AfD banner has now been removed by '2' editors and a sockpuppetry report has been made. One of them has stated that he is not Tejinder Sigh on the article's talk page. Lady MacBeth srpings to mind here. No-one has suggested they were, previously! Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course they aren't! Dlohcierekim 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Significant and living, but does not meet WP:GNG Dlohcierekim 20:27, 31 August 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) 15:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik Malaviya[edit]

Hardik Malaviya (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 to meet WP:GNG. Article is about Hardik Malaviya (Fictional Character) but no reference was provided. It looks like a total vandalism as the article creator is also Hardik98248. Sourov0000 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 23:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt There is a bit of history of various approaches to creating articles on this subject which then have to be deleted: [9]. The present version is woven around a character named "Hardik" in Go Goa Gone; it isn't clear whether this shares anything more than a forename with the subject of this article, which has no substantiating evidence. Being a "Naghty Student" isn't notability in Wikipedia terms. AllyD (talk) 20:04, 30 August 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) 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies[edit]

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (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:CORP rather plainly and has been so tagged since May 2012 with no improvements made to indicate that there is any notability of this society. jps (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I worked on this article a few months ago. No signs that this organisation has any serious mainstream coverage and thus fails WP:CORP/WP:FRINGE#Notability, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any notability here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find a few mentions, but nothing near enough to write an independently sourced article or indicate that the society have had any particular impact. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP! I find the SIS web site to be an excellent resource. I work as a geologist, so I know only too well that the gradualist approach cannot answer all questions. Many catastrophist related ideas have some merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoVibecke (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — GeoVibecke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As indicated by Doug: WP:USEFUL, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteMerit or usefulness to some people isn't relevant here, the issue is does it meet our criteria of notability. I've searched in the past hoping to improve this article and failed. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- An early reaction was that this was going to be about a bunch of cranks, WP:FRINGE applying, but some of their proceedings seem to relate to past events that are clearly not in that category. British Archaeological Reports publish a lot of stuff, but not the rubbish that one tends to get from the cranks. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your policy based argument for keeping this article? When it comes to notability, it doesn't matter if they are a bunch of cranks or not as long as the article satisfies applicable notability guidelines. No one is proposing to delete this article merely because they are cranks. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Surjko[edit]

Alexander Surjko (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)

On notability grounds - fight record is only for non-notable organizations Peter Rehse (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and doesn't meet the notability standards for kickboxers.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 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) 02:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of QI episodes[edit]

List of QI episodes (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)

Article fails to meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE, WP:N and WP:IINFO. No sources for tables of information containing guests or winners of individual game show episodes. Article contents fall under WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT. Details contained within <ref> coding in the Series section are merely anecdotes or details about episodes—not links to sources that provide verification of score data presented in tables.

This is not a series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. Results of an individual episode of a game show are seldom notable, and rarely covered in any independent source except maybe on fansites. Information on individual game show episodes is sub-trivial and not instrumental to understanding the topic in the manner that fictional/dramatized TV series episodes are.

Game show episodes do not develop or advance the show in any way. Episodes that do stand out (introduction of a new game feature, special guest, etc.) are best noted in the main series article as part of its history.

Related deletion discussions of episode listings for game shows:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal Special shows
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Figure It Out episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Family's Got Guts episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes

AldezD (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) AldezD (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because each individual season of a game show does not fall under WP:EPISODE, WP:GNG or WP:N, and the entirety of details contained with in each individual season are unsourced:

QI (A series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (B series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (C series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (D series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (E series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (F series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (G series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (H series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (I series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (J series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QI (K series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AldezD (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Comparing QI to quiz shows such as Deal or No Deal and Figure It Out is totally disingenuous and a false attempt at bolstering the argument as they are entirely different programmes. The content of these articles may be poorly sourced but that in itself is not a reason to delete. These are excellent, informative articles that improve Wikipedia with their existence. Deleting them serves no purpose. violet/riga _^[talk] 14:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• These articles are nothing more than recaps of panel games. The extraordinary level of detail within each episode falls under WP:CRUFT and does not meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE. AldezD (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I know what your opinion is, I just await an explanation as to how this project would benefit from such deletions. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hang on a minute, don't we list all the HIGNFY episodes, who appeared, who won, etc? And don't we recap episode storylines in countless drama series in a similar way to what is done here? I don't personally think WP:EPISODE is a valid reason to delete here. That would only apply if someone decided to make an article for every single episode, rather than for each series. I tend to agree that comparing this to shows such as Deal or No Deal is misleading. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a useful article for people to use. I, for example, enjoy QI, and using this article I can easily find and choose an episode to watch based on the guests present. It is a useful article, all the important information (episode/guests) is correct, and as such there is no reason whatsoever to remove it. Speverendrooner 17:33, 7 September 2013 (BST)

• WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. This does not address WP:GNG, WP:EPISODE, and WP:CRUFT. AldezD (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Violet/Riga. These bundled nominations are often misguided, comparing apples with oranges. QI is easily notable and so are the episodes that make up the series. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no linked sources within the articles nominated that provide criteria for individual episodes of this show to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, there is an extraordinary level of WP:CRUFT in these nominated articles. AldezD (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Violet/Riga QI is not a conventional game show. The entries have been checked by people who work on the show and are deemed accurate. The articles are a useful resource for people catching up with the series (such as those who live in the USA, where it has only just become available legitimately) and for people wanting to check out what topics were covered. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the availability of resources such as this, which cannot readily be found elsewhere. That's why there are no linked sources. Wikipedia is itself the resource. Guinevere50 (talk) 1:14, 7 September 2013 (EST)
• Keep The nominator's rationale is a fair one, and obviously concerns about sourcing need to be addressed. However, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that this article fails to meet WP:GNG simply on the basis of QI not being a fictional series and its episodes not "advancing" the show. We have many lists on Wikipedia of episodes of non-fictional TV series, some of which have even been featured (e.g. List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Chartjackers episodes, and, for better or worse, List of QI episodes itself). Personally, I consider these articles more of a boon to Wikipedia than a hindrance, hence why I would prefer to see them kept. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, there's something quite bizarre in nominating a featured list for deletion. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while I think the article might need a few tweaks to remain worthy of its featured list status (I notice some blank references, etc), I don't see any reason Wikipedia would be a better place for its deletion. It's a useful reference point for people wanting to catch up on the episodes, which are regularly repeated and released on DVD. This isn't a "game show" in the same vein as the other cited by the nominator, but a comedy panel show, which implies AldezD didn't know anything about the show before nominating. Nobody wins £500 or an Austin Metro at the end. Bob talk 20:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a useful article about a popular programme. The information in the pages is very hard to find elsewhere. QI is not a game show, it is a comedy quiz that provides interesting little-known information about people, places and ideas, and debunks common misconceptions. It's often hard to remember which QI episode contained a particular piece of information, and these pages can be used to look it up - which makes them very useful. --Madang1965 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree with the keep rationales given above. Rankersbo (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep this is a nomination that is absurd and forces me to question the WP:COMPETENCE of the nominator. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also see this similar AfD from the same user. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep this is a useful article and the programme is popular. The information is difficult to find elsewhere. These pages are used to find certain episodes or to find a certain guest can be very useful - I'd question the WP:COMPETENCE of the nominator who seems to have a vendetta against episode lists - I'd point out this other AFD too. I agree with the comment above - how is WP supposed to benefit from this article being deleted. Adrianw9 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of FC Politehnica Timișoara[edit]

History of FC Politehnica Timișoara (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)

Contested proud under the rationale that it was a reasonable spinoff. As a completely unreffed article full of pov it is not a reasonable spinoff. The club's article has a reffed history that is much more encyclopedic than this. As it is reffed it is unclear what could be merged. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not sufficient notable content to merit a spin-off article. GiantSnowman 20:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is unsourced with indication that it meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a sourced history already exists in the main article. The main article is no so large that a separate history article is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lyons (actor, entrepreneur)[edit]

Steve Lyons (actor, entrepreneur) (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)

Speedy delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO, I suspect it is probaably a vanity page. Author persistently removing speedy delete notices, despite being told not to. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it is a valid article. The author is citing reputable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristofmcking (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - let's have a look at the sources in this stable version. Reference 1, 3,4 and 5 are to crunchbase, which uses Wiki software, so is editable by anyone including the subject who apparently wrote the pages [10], and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. References 2, 6, 7 8 and 9 do not mention Steve Lyons. 6 establishes that an app exists, but not its notability. 7 is about a TV show, 8 an interview of JJ Abrams by someone, and 9 is a closed blog. The author (you) hasn't cited any reliable sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the refs are not reliable, vanity page. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy STRONG delete: I am very impressed with this editor's autobiography. He remained neutral, factual and impersonal. PrairieKid (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interesting twist, instead of "three kids and an app" it seems "one kid and three apps". But still not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garreth MacDonald[edit]

Garreth MacDonald (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 individual CrazyJulian (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oregon's hockey team is a club team, and coaching a club team is no more notable than sponsoring the school chess club.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet criteria of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NCOLLATH, and does not pass WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG; coach of a non-notable club team. Resolute 13:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kumarr Pathela[edit]

Sunil Kumarr Pathela (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)

Speedy template removed. Living person, no indication of notabilty. asnac (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. KTC (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Air Charter[edit]

ACM Air Charter (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 corporate charter/aircraft lease company fails WP:CORP. The article is based solely on one self-published website, and a google search does not reveal anything that would establish the significant third-party coverage that is needed according to that notability guideline. A search at the Flightglobal Archive does not produce anything, either. I have to admit that I wrote a good part of that article myself in 2010, using my (then valid) Per aspera ad Astra (talk · contribs) account. Back then, I obviously was not that familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, otherwise I would have long since AfD'ed it. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit one more reference --Gelli63 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gelli63, your additional reference ([11]) is just a directory-like entry at the airport website. This is not the significant coverage needed to pass WP:CORP.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:16, 28 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

approved by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt --Gelli63 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, airlines are not inherently notable. The relevant inclusion criteria are listed at WP:CORP. In case of ACM Air Charter, they do not seem to be met; merely being a "registered company" does not suffice.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:42, 7 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) 11:40, 7 September 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:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANts P2P[edit]

ANts P2P (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 article summarizes one of several academic projects that looked into applying novel optimization techniques to the problems of anonymous peer-to-peer file sharing. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to a single Slycknews article. While the project has been mentioned a handful of times in the peer-reviewed literature, there is not sufficient coverage or follow-on work for this topic to be considered notable per WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 22 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:18, 29 August 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) 11:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Easylink[edit]

London Easylink (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)

As per previous Limebourne AfD. Short-lived, long defunct bus operator. Redirect to London Central or London General. Aycliffe ^Talk Previously Tommietomato. 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 22. Snotbot  t • c »  16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 22 August 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge DELETE - very short-lived non notable company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:35, 31 August 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) 11:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no sources other than Wikipedia for verification. Belatedly signed at--Charles (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Some sources exist ([12]) but not enough for an article. But why London Central as the target? Its parent company was Durham Travel Services ([13], [14]), which has a hugely inaccurate (and unsourced) article but is definitely notable ([15], [16] and more offline), so let's take the opportunity to make two crap articles into one decent one. Merge with Durham Travel Services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.183.237 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Central is the target as this is its current form. Merging with DTS would just be silly as that too is defunct. Saying that I will also AfD it.aycliffe^talk 07:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've just had a look at the article and it suggests that DTS was Harris Bus, not London Easylink. aycliffe^talk 07:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that article's wrong - check out the sources I linked to (whoever created that article seems to have just made up its content). There is no "current form", it collapsed - redirecting to a company that happens to run its routes now is pointless since we're never likely to mention Easylink in it. 81.178.183.237 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I cannot see how a bus company that operated two route for a few year until it went bust in 2002 can possibly be notable. One might redirect to a list of London bus companies (if we had one listing it) but not merge, save possibly minimally. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Kakon[edit]

Fred Kakon (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)

Can't see passes WP:GNG. Web refs seem to be repastes of his own press bio, he works at laguitare.com. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 29 August 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) 11:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom definitely fails WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City First[edit]

City First (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)

Local ticket with no notability, but actively campaigning in local body election. the previous article name "City First (Political Party)" gave the false impression that this is a party. Was previously prodded, but got deprodded with the following edit summary: "rmv prod; by definition deleting a political article is not "non controvertial", & should be discussed. also, they do have at least some nz coverage. If thats not enough,then merge into something suitable?" There is nothing else that is suitable, though. The ticket is headed by two sitting councillors (no WP articles for them) and it got mention in the media with regards to what these two councillors are up to during the election period (i.e. the article was more about the people rather than the ticket that they had formed); no further coverage. This organisation is a very long way off achieving notability. Schwede66 01:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• what about municipal politics and/or municipal elections in nz? what about "politics in/of christchurch"? Lx 121 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• New Zealand local elections, 2013 is the only existing article that I can think of that may be suitable. Schwede66 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A nascent party of two local candidates does not come close to meeting WP:GNG or any other guidelines for that matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 1 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) 10:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage in media to be notable. Adabow (talk) 05:40, 8 September 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 Cyber Wars (film). Delete; the title is a valid redirect so then recreate & redirect to Cyber Wars (film) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Wars[edit]

Cyber Wars (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)

Article was previously deleted (under a slightly different title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber-Wars. The reason given then was: Article does not assert that this browser-based game meets WP:WEB. Seven years has past, and it appears that this video game still may not be notable.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  04:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]