< 8 September	10 September >

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two balls and a wall[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no established notability. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy or Strong delete Wikipedia is not a WP:HOWTO guide on how to play things, or a list of games. There's absolutely no reason for this article to have been undeleted, or even to exist ES &L 18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it can't be speedied, since an editor challenged the PROD. Gotta play by the rules. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 14:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:12, 16 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. The only valid deletion rationale that have been raised during this debate is reference to notability by the nominator. No other editors who have commented have agreed with that assessment. Being a stub or the fact that it has not been edited or expanded in 3 years is ground for improvement, not deletion under our deletion policy. As stated in WP:LR, "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link". Only after sufficient time are given after the link is noted to be dead and effort made to track down alternative sources do we consider a piece of information to be unverified. This closure does not proclude anyone from nominating the article to be merged to another article if they believe that is an appropriate course of action. -- KTC (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shark baiting[edit]

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

This article has not been touched in 3 years, had one source which is now a dead link and is merely two sentences long. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A Gsearch reveals that this actually appears to be a real activity, but some sources would really help. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Shark#Relationship with humans. I found some kind-of-reliable sources ([1][2], from first page of Google), and also noticed that an alternate term for this is "shark feeding", though that's not a good search term because of "shark feeding frenzy". Ansh6 6 6 07:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep -- no valid grounds for deletion in nomination Not edited in 3 years is not a valid grounds for deletion, dead links are not a valid grounds for deletion, and "merely two sentences" just means it is a stub, not a valid grounds for deletion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: The article clearly fails the general notability guideline and falls under reason #8 in the reasons for deletion: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." The fact that nobody has put out enough effort to make this article and its subject in 3 years and has zero sources makes it a clear candidate for deletion. It's a nothing article with almost no content; it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, not until someone can establish notability and cite sources. Antoshi ☏ ★ 15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I'm not a mind-reader; that's not in your nomination for deletion, "This article has not been touched in 3 years, had one source which is now a dead link and is merely two sentences long. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. Antoshi 23:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)" Feel free to renominate with a valid grounds for deletion. While you again assert that not editing for three years makes it a "clear candidate for deletion," and that stubs are candidates for deletion, that simply is not Wikipedia policy. Also, unsourced non-BLPs are not "clear candidates for deletion." So far you still haven't used any valid grounds for deletion in your actual nomination. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    - I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so combative at me over this. All I'm trying to do is make Wikipedia a bit more tidy. "Not edited in 3 years" is not my only argument as you keep bringing up. All that needs to be known is it's a source-less, nothing article that, yes, hasn't been touched in forever. You may not think it's grounds for deletion, but that's up to the administrator that has the final word to decide. Antoshi ☏ ★ 17:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not quite; the administrator or other person who closes the AFD goes by community consensus, which can be found in the guidelines I linked to above. I mentioned all three of your arguments as not being valid grounds for deletion; they aren't part of the community consensus for why an article should be deleted. It's not a battle. It's just information. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
        AfD's are not decided by "votes." Whether a keep or delete, etc. opinion is rendered is irrelevant. AfD's are resolved by the facts presented by the editors taking part in the AfD discussion and then decided upon by the administrator who has the final say whether to keep, delete, merge, whatever. As far as I can see, there's no reason to keep this article if there's no improvements made to it before the AfD is resolved. Antoshi ☏ ★ 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Who said anything about votes? If the article can be improved, the course of action that benefits the encyclopedia is to improve it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
        It benefits the encyclopedia if it can establish notability with enough reliable sources. If it cannot do that, it does not need an article until such a time it can. Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with this nomination, and I !voted keep. Ansh6 6 6 18:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being unspeakably abysmal is no reason for deletion, this is a notable commercial pursuit and this is the common name for it. HERE is one web piece on the topic, from an ultra-fast Google search. If Article Rescue Squadron still had alert flags, I would hang one here and see what happens. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Barber[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. The article is completely based on the artist's self published website which is full of unsubstantiated puffery. While the artist has been associated with some notable opera companies and musicians, it has been in only a very minor way. His recordings appear to be on minor labels, and are probably self produced (i.e. not notable). An extensive search through google news and google books has yielded no articles where he is the primary subject, and/or been more than a brief mention in a list of performers in a critical review. 4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I quickly found 2 articles where Barber is the primary subject: "Countertenor Terry Barber launches Craven Concerts Series", Sun Journal, and "American countertenor Terry Barber to perform Saturday at WNMU", Silver City Sun-News. These are admittedly somewhat regional newspapers, but there quite a few more articles like these and that should satisfy WP:MUSBIO #1. Further, the requirements of #6 and #10 at MUSBIO seem to be well met by Chanticleer, New Trinity Baroque, and his appearance in Sly at the MET and as Orlofsky at Carnegie Hall. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This profile article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and this one in the Connecticut Post along with the two that Michael listed probably push him over, although they are all pre-concert publicity and based on his own press releases and/or interviews. His work with Chanticleer and New Trinity Baroque (another very poor article) also push him over. The opera claims are very weak and somewhat inflated. The Sly claim is misleading and should be removed. No specific role is mentioned, which always rings alarm bells in articles like this. What does "joining the Met roster" mean? It clearly doesn't mean appearing in a named role on stage. I checked the Met Opera Database overall and especially the full cast lists for all nine performances of Sly and he is mentioned nowhere. He may have been hired as a cover (and obviously was never called upon to cover) or he was in the chorus. Note that no specific role is mentioned for the NYCO 2001 production of Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria either. He is mentioned nowhere in the cast list given in the New York Times review. The Orlovsky was a concert performance of Die Fledermaus. I guess that could be called a "Carnegie Hall debut", but there is nothing to verify that he sang that role apart from his own biography and press releases. If this article is kept, we have to clean it up considerably and reference it properly. Voceditenore (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources cited in the above discussion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources push him over the WP:GNG hurdle. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eldath[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms 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) 23:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. Not independently notable of Forgotten Realms. Deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. As far as Wikipedia goes, this fails WP:GNG in that all of the sources are primary/non independent and so the options are: delete or if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article, merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 19 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty DeGeneres[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTINHERITED. She is only notable as Ellen DeGeneres' mom. Hasn't even appeared on the show for a long time. PrairieKid (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her notability certainly stems from her famous daughter, but she has become notable in her own right as a prominent gay rights activist and speaker. Google news reveals plenty of coverage and reliable sources, and most of them are not trivial mentions. Her original notability was as the parent of a celebrity, but this has changed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As numerous sources show, she is the author of a couple of books, an activist in her own right, and the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources over a period of years. In the words of USA Today: "With book No. 2, she's not just Ellen's mom". --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. WP:NOTINHERITED is not meant to exclude relatives who independently do things that are notable, even if those things are associated with their famous relative (writing a family memoir for example). Sometimes they become notable just for being a relative, such as Billy Carter, Jimmy Carter's beer-swilling brother. --Green Cardamom (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's the subject of plenty of reliable-source coverage. NOTINHERITED means that we don't consider a person notable merely for being related to a notable person; it doesn't mean that we discard reliable sources' decision to make a relative notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:21, 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 delete & salt. KTC (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abante Cart[edit]

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

A page on this product was deleted through AfD in March 2012. After subsequent re-creation, the page was protected under the "AbanteCart" name. The present page has been created as "Abante Cart" and a WP:CSD G4 has been declined on the basis that the new page differs significantly from the page deleted in March 2012. The sources in the article are a mixture of press release publications and user-submitted-content. The product plainly exists, but I am finding nothing in reliable 3rd party sources to indicate that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adding links to previous versions of the article under a different name: AbanteCart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbanteCart. Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications this is anything but a run of the mill e-commerce application. Sources appear to be all primary: the website itself or press releases or ads for the product placed in other publications. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 17 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 United States Senate election in Alaska, 1996. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While many editors have advanced solid arguments for deletion, generally based on her failure of WP:POLITICIAN, per WP:POLOUTCOMES her name remains a likely search term, so redirecting to the election she participated in is sensible. I'm not convinced by the sources presented in favor of a WP:GNG argument. It's natural that the Anchorage press would give coverage to an Anchorage school board member, but keeping on this basis would, frankly, set a terrible precedent. As for the 39 Google Books results (discounting books from Wikipedia), they're mostly political almanacs where she's no more than a list mention. There are also mentions of other people by the same name, such as a figure associated with Beethoven.

When notability of a local politician isn't conclusively demonstrated, WP:POLOUTCOMES offers the best guidance. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Obermeyer[edit]

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

Marginal notability (though perhaps enough to pass), but subject has requested deletion. IMO, given the notability thing, there's no reason not to grant this request, though others may disagree. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for senate (not actually winning anything) one time. Not notable enough to override their wishes imo. Delete or leave as stub. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I removed a substantial portion of the article shortly before the nomination. Her primary claim to notability is still included, and while I think the content removed should stay removed, it may bear on this discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the content, as your removal was an a priori judgment that the subject was not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing inherently notable in the article. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls short of WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate lacking significant coverage. January (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability or even assertion of notability - could even have been speedied. Only claim to fame is getting 10% of the vote inspite of having been imprisoned for 10 days during the campaign. Seems likely to be simply written to disparage a living person.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability Shii (tock) 21:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not eligible for speedy, since a major party candidate for US Senate is always important, but no evidence of importance or substantial coverage aside from an unsuccessful campaign. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per courtesy (nominal notability)NE Ent 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I agree with the nom; she is of marginal notability, and if she wants the article deleted, then that's enough to push me in favor of deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because someone doesn't like their own article, which isn't policy and would set a poor precedent if we allowed it here, but simply because the subject fails the general notability guidelines set out in WP:BIO.JOJ ^Hutton 01:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO by wholly lacking biographical sources addressing the totality of her life, and any event that she might have been involved in appears to fail WP:BIO1E. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't care about somebody claiming to be her requesting deletion; but long-standing precedent here is that failed candidates are not inherently notable, since most of the coverage is not really about them but rather incidental to their candidacies and thus really more about the elections than about them. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this discussion should be closed early. It's snowing in Alaska. St Anselm (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a failed candidate for the for Mayor of Littleville or the Rumplestiltskin County Board of Supervisors. The U.S. Senate has been called "the most exclusive club in the world". There are only 100 U.S. Senators, and only two major American parties, so any major party candidate for a U.S. Senate seat passes the notability bar by definition, imo, even if they never do anything else important in their lives. However, they do not get the privilege of determining the fate of Wikipedia's articles about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do actually give a request from the subject some weight per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. In your opinion is the subject sufficiently notable that that section is inapplicable? Monty ₈₄₅ 04:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would find the "major party candidate for U.S. Senate" argument persuasive, but I looked at the link to the election results, and she did not even place second in the election. She got 11 percent of the vote and placed third behind the Green Party candidate, who got 13 percent. So although she did get the nomination of a major party, she was really kind of in "fringe candidate" territory. (At this point I am "neutral" on the deletion.) Neutron (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (as outlined below) ~~Delete~~ - but with due deference to BMK who makes a good point about the numbers. I will say, though, that while it might be "the most exclusive club in the world", the subject is not a member of that club. In fact, she's no more a member than you or I (unless you happen to be a US Senator editing WP between sessions). I'm not strictly against an arbitrary major party Senate candidates are automatically notable rule but I can't really see the value for readers in a stub that simply says someone with that name ran as a Senate candidate this one time. There's probably a reason why half of the entries in the ((Democratic Alaska Senatorial nominees)) template are redlinks. Stalwart111 07:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, not only for her Senate Run, but also for her judicial problems, as witnessed by countless newspaper articles and also e.g. this article from the American Journalism Review. Fram (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; above there was a delete !vote for the lack of biographical detail, but this can be easily fixed. I have added info on her education and marriage, the same SPS has her professional career as well. I know that such a personal website doesn't add any notability, but it does complete the article and reduces the stubbiness and too tight focus of the article. Fram (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that Obermeyer requested that the article be deleted or rewritten to her specifications, it wasn't a straight deletion request. The request has been rev/deleted from the page history because it contained all of her personal contact info, but part of what she was objecting to was that there was some very poorly sourced information about her husband. The current version of the article isn't the text she put forward - we tend to avoid letting people write their own articles, obviously - but it is well-sourced and not overly focused on her husband. Being a major party candidate for the US senate means she passes notability, and given that she didn't actually demand deletion as the only option, I think it the article should stay. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if someone could be bothered books references would suggest notability, and a general search would too. Murry1975 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources indicated above by Fram and Murry1975. Passes WP:GNG. Wishes of the subject irrelevant. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wishes of the subject are not irrelevant. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Or Golden Rule for that matter. Herostratus (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are irrelevant in this case. This is a clearly public, known figure, both because of sources and because she run for an election, thus begging for public exposure. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you hold that "Meets WP:BIO" == "is a public figure", because it'd be near impossible to be more obscure than the subject and still meet the notability requirements. In which case WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE has no meaning or use and should not exist. I don't believe that. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to United States Senate election in Alaska, 1996] per spirit and letter of WP:BLP which trumps most all other considerations. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requires a Delete close, absent a very clear consensus to keep, which I don't see here, and the person closing should take note of that. Unless the argument can be made that the subject is not "relatively unknown" (or is not not a public figure, the wikidefinition at WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE of which is "People who are relatively unknown", so that's circular). But that argument can't be made. On a scale of being well known, from zero to ten, where ten is Barack Obama and zero is your Uncle Dwight, where does she fit? Somewhere between zero and one. If you wish to define "relatively well-known" or "public figure" as "a person who has been noted somewhere in some publication" that's totally idiosyncratic, and you'd have to explain exactly who WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE is intended to cover. Nobody, I guess, since your Uncle Dwight has never appeared in the newspapers anyway and fails WP:BIO. So why does WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE exist? To line birdcages? I don't think so. Herostratus (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike any of my uncles, however, this person has run for the U.S. Senate, and received the endorsement of a major party (though as I mention above, she came in third in the election.) By running for public office, especially such a high-profile office, hasn't she intentionally made herself a "public figure"? Neutron (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting GNG per book and media sources cited above by Fram and Murry1975. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book sources that are actually about her and not Beethoven's girlfriend of the same name only mention her as a candidate because they list candidates and do not describe her as a person in any degree of detail. They do not satisfy general notability imo.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is borderline notable at best and fails WP:POLITICIAN on a good day. One of those "lulz" biographies intended to disparage the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have sppedied it myself, to avoid the whole game of AFD. non-notable BLP. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which speedy criterion would you have used? Whether this ends as delete or No consensus keep, I don't see how it would fit either G10 or A7, and other speedy reasons are even less applicable. Incorrectly using speedy deletion to avoid the "game" of AFD is a rather serious misuse of the admin tools. Fram (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In its original form it made no claim of notability whatsoever. In its current form I would say that G10 arguably applies, but that is of course more of a judgment call.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its "original form" from 2005? How is that still relevant for this AfD? And G10 now? That's a very wide interpretation of that criterion. I doubt such a deletion would survive DRV. Fram (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most 'notable' thing in the biography appears to be about her husband; early versions of the article seem to be interested mostly in advertising this. Failed Senate candidate with some weird ideas. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed major party (you know, the ones who actually run things) US Senate candidate. Plenty of notability there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Beyond My Ken. This may surprise you, but yes—I am aware of what the U.S. Senate is, and what the Democratic Party is. I also know that Alaska is the 47th-largest state in the Union, with a population on par with, say, Charlotte, North Carolina. Senators from small states tend to be important only due to their disproportionate influence (to the size of population represented) in the Senate. Losing candidates from small states are much less important, broadly speaking. Except in unusual circumstances, candidates who run against long-term Senate incumbents are widely seen and understood to be pro forma bordering-on-disposable placeholders. Sure, they'll run a campaign for the sake of the show, but no one expects them to win. Ted Stevens, the then-28-year incumbent, won handily and unsurprisingly against Obermeyer in 1996, with 76% of the vote. (Granted, Stevens was dislodged in a squeaker of a vote in 2008 – 46.5% to his opponent's 47.8% – but only because even Alaska was unprepared (just barely) to return their senior senator after a felony conviction reached just a few days before the election.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TenOfAllTrades. My sincere apologies for the insinuation that you weren't aware of the facts here, please chalk it up to my desire to put across my firm belief that all major party candidates for US Senate, even those from states with small populations like Alaska, are ipso facto notable. I mean, yes, there are probably more people living in my neighborhood of Manhattan than in the 49th State, but, for better or worse, the founders of the United States made all states equal with regards to representation in the Senate. (As far as I know, it's the only electoral body in the U.S. which is allowed to break the "one man, one vote" rule.) I see this as a bright line circumstance. I totally agree that failed candidates in almost every other circumstance start with a presumption of being non-notable, but with US Senate candidates and those for state Governor, my feeling is that notability is part and parcel of the candidacy.
Again, my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search indicates that she has run for the U.S. Senate at least twice and probably three times. According to this, she ran again for the Senate in 2002 and 2004, and Mayor of Anchorage in 2000 (losing in the primary each time). I would feel more comfortable with a second source, and here is one for her run in 2004: http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/060204/leg_060204leg001001.shtml (in which she is called a "perennial candidate.") She is also mentioned in United States Senate election in Alaska, 2004. I have not yet added any of this to the article because it would be good to have a second source for the 2002 run. But I think this sheds a different light on things. Neutron (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she was the actual party candidate only once, and tried unsuccessfully to be the candidate a few more times. Those further unsuccesful attempts should be added to her article of course, but don't really add any considerable notability in themselves. What does indicate her notability is that she was the major topic of multiple articles in the Anchorage newspapers over many years:

19 July 1992: Called a loose cannon, she sticks to her guns: Theresa Obermeyer refuses to be silenced (a 2000+ word article)
17 December 1992: Obermeyer raises ruckus at Rotary
22 April 1993: Obermeyer, colleagues scuffle to the bitter end
30 April 1993: Obermeyer blasts board ethics panelists
29 September 1994: Obermeyer fined $50 for outburst
17 August 1995: Theresa Obermeyer arrested after federal building scuffle
12 June 1996: Judge jails Obermeyer for 30 days
4 July 1996: Obermeyer went on a fast track U.S. Marshal denies special handling
31 October 1996: police wait in wings as Stevens, Obermeyer debate
22 February 1998: Obermeyer charged with assault
21 August 1998: Obermeyer hurt in scuffle
11 November 1998: Jury clears Obermeyer
30 June 1999: School board vote muzzles Obermeyer
8 February 2000: District pays for Christal to sue critic Obermeyer
22 February 2000: Newspaper opinion piece about Obermeyer
9 March 2000: Obermeyer snubs foes, makes own way
3 July 2001: Obermeyer loses suit by Christal

And these are only the ones where she is actually in the title of the article... 17 articles, spanning 10 years, but not notable? Strange... Fram (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginally notable and I don't think we should ignore the wishes of the subject. Why not leave a redirect to an article about the election, in which I believe she finished third after the Republican and Green Party candidate? AniMate 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Marginal notability, coverage is mostly routine coverage of local politics, and as the subject requests deletion, WP:BLPDELETE takes effect. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The user who has claimed to be the article subject made several edits to the article today [3] (mostly an unsourced copy of their preferred version, and again stating their request to either use that version or to delete the page). I've reverted the page back, but wanted to mention it here for consideration during the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, confining the page to her preferred version is not going to be acceptable, but I personally don't think that that invalidates her request for deletion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting that she is so vehement about not being called a "politician". Where I come from, someone who has run in eight different elections should be prepared to be called a "politician". But I have finally decided how to "vote" in this thing, and it is not how people would expect based on my comments here and above. Neutron (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Alaska, 1996. This is her most prominent race, and a redirect to an election page is a common outcome for a losing candidate for a national office. Many of the information in the article can be added to the election page. Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with an asterisk. (Probably to the 1996 election article, though she also is mentioned in the 2004 election article.) My impression from her preferred version of the article is that she has ceased her very public "campaign", and I am not talking about a campaign for office, but the combination of election campaigns and other public efforts to gain redress for her husband's difficulties in being admitted to the Alaska bar. (Which may have finally been resolved one way or the other; that's not clear.) I do not view this as a direct candidate for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE because she is not a "non-public figure" -- as I note above, it's tough to be a non-public figure when you've run in eight elections -- but more like sort of a version of Wikipedia's "right to vanish" (which directly applies to editors, not articles). In other words, ok, fine, redirect the article so it's not "live" (but remains preserved in the history), and if she doesn't run for office again and doesn't otherwise intentionally put herself in the newspapers again, it stays that way. But if she "comes back", then someone can bring back the article too, simply by reverting the redirect and adding the "latest" to the article. Is there already a three-letter acronym for that, or did I just make it up? Neutron (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closest thing we have is WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm comfortable supporting a redirect on that basis. Stalwart111 00:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. The one thing I think we should not do is set a "precedent" that under these circumstances, policy requires that the article be deleted, or even redirected. I don't think it does. I think the "message" should be, ok, you probably made it "above the line" to public-figure-hood, but if you want to go back under the line and you plan to stay there, there doesn't need to be a "live" article about you on Wikipedia. Just don't take advantage of the courtesy, or it will be withdrawn. (See, by analogy, WP:GAMING and WP:RTV. Neutron (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "solution" flies in the face of WP:NTEMP. She was public and notable once, she is public and notable forever -at least about the stuff she did when she was a public figure. I oppose the redirect. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think is about notability. Wp:BLPREQUESTDELETE assumes that the subject is notable, but allows for a deletion or redirection anyway, if the subject is not a public figure and requests deletion. And while notability is not temporary (according to Wikipedia guidelines, anyway), I see no reason why a person cannot cease to be a public figure after some period of years. What I am saying is that, even though I think this subject has made herself a public figure, I am not objecting to treating her as if she is now a non-public figure, unless and until she does something to demonstrate that she is again acting like a public figure. It is really just an unwritten wrinkle of wp:BLPREQUESTDELETE that I think would be appropriate in this case. Neutron (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron - I am not sure what precedent you are worried about setting. WP:POLOUTCOMES already mentions and discusses what the common outcomes are for failed candidates to a national legislature. While this is not policy, with regularity there are candidates running for the national legislature or failed candidates that come across as Articles for Deletion. If this were to survive as a keep, we would have to overcome WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:GNG, since the subject does not meet the automatic notibility standards of WP:Politician. Enos733 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is another topic where I can offer a different perspective than what a filtered "Google glasses" view can provide. I've known Theresa for around 20–25 years and interacted with her for many years before that. Many of us who know her really do see her as a good-natured person who means well. However, in remaining neutral about this, many of us also realize that [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff , and has chosen an abrasive, in-your-face approach to being a politician. This, in turn, led to her becoming the Democratic Party's nominee in name only during the 1996 election. Almost the entirety of the state's Democratic political establishment lined up in support of Ted Stevens, and she was outpolled in the election by the Green Party nominee. That, unfortunately, is what she's notable for, even if that notability is really at the level of "local celebrity" (which she certainly is in Anchorage). I can certainly understand if she wants this article deleted, as there is no easy way to whitewash it to conform to the hagiographic standards which dominate biographies on Wikipedia.
Just some things to keep in mind here:
- She served on the Anchorage School Board, which is elected municipality-wide like the mayor is. In other words, there are only five elected offices in the entire state (the governor, lieutenant governor, and the congressional delegation) which have a larger constituency than this office does. Of the current members, two are former state legislators and one is the husband of the former chair of the Alaska Democratic Party. Two other recent school board members are former legislators, and the office has been a springboard to other political fame on the state and municipal level. In other words, it's not a politically insignificant position, even if there is a black-and-white tendency to automatically regard school boards as such. BTW, the term of office for school board is three years, so the depiction of her serving two two-year terms doesn't really tell the whole story.
- That someone would prefer to make this article a POV fork about her husband is being cited as a reason to delete. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia which fall under such a category, so get busy. First, there are plenty of sources which discuss Theresa Obermeyer, even outside of the context of her husband's plight. Second, this is truly Don Quixote having to contend with lots and lots of windmills, but even the spectacle we've come to witness doesn't excuse the fact that Tom Obermeyer has had no problem remaining gainfully employed all these years. In fact, he was working as a legislative aide to Bettye Davis immediately prior to her reelection defeat.
- The implication that Obermeyer is non-notable because she's grouped in a template with a bunch of redlinked entries is pretty bogus to me. Gene Guess, John Havelock and Glenn Olds aren't notable simply because no one has gotten around to writing those articles yet? Who are you shitting, anyway? RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 05:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point - that's not really what I was suggesting with my comment about the template (I assume that was directed at me given I was the only one who raised it). My point was kind of the point you've now made. But anyway... Not sure what the "shitting" comment is about. Stalwart111 07:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perennially unsuccessful politician. Perhaps slightly more colourful than others that you could describe that way, but still nothing here that helps her meet WP:POLITICIAN as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Wrong. She passes WP:POLITICIAN #2: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. There are more than a dozen articles about her, with her name in the title, along a decade, listed above by Fram. --cyclopia ^speak! 08:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a faint excuse for a personal attack. Doesn't clear the Special Guidelines for politicians and that's actually the applicable metric here, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citations given above by Fram are sufficient for notability by the GNG. This will always be the case with major party candidates for the US Senate, so we could save a good deal of trouble by just accepting the principle. WP:Politician is not a restriction on the GNHG, the way some other guidelines are, but merely gives the presumption. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 16 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) 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legenda Show[edit]

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

Article about a martial arts event with no independent sources or indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is tagged with a host of issues, but the bottom line is that there is no significant independent coverage of the event. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of enough notability needed to pass WP:EVENT. Luchuslu (talk)

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 The Fairly OddParents shorts#Episodes. Article contains no referenced information that isn't already in the target of the suggested redirect. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairy Flu[edit]

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

Orphaned article, all nothing but an non-notable episode with trivia on it, possibly original research and fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fairly OddParents shorts#Episodes Average episode of a cartoon series, no long-term notability, but the redirect should satisfy everyone. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Sidelnikov[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and has only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I blew it--I want to withdraw my nomination. I missed the sidebar about his sambo--the article was just about his MMA.Mdtemp (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two golds and a silver at the world sambo championships is enough to show notability--IF they can be reliably sourced.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have now sourced his world combat sambo results. Clearly notable. Papaursa (talk) 05:08, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Williams (grappler)[edit]

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

Non-notable grappler. Finishing third at an ADCC qualifier does not show notability since previous discussions have determined that even qualifying for the ADCC world finals is not sufficient to show notability. Not enough to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet the notability levels for grappling. Marcos Avellan was deleted and he qualified for an ADCC tournament--Williams didn't even do that. Running a martial arts school also fails to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet the usual standards required to show notability in grappling. I'm not sure the article's only source meets WP:RS, it seems more promotional than encyclopedic. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Wilson (English footballer)[edit]

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable football player. There are no references. Article is of poor quality. Jdp407 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (parlez) @ 21:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 21:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 21:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thisa discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is not a good article, but you can hardly expect to find a lot pog Ghits for a player active 1954-62. As I understand it Stockport County were then in one of the lower divisions of the league, whose regular players are regarded as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with over 200 appearances in a fully-professional league, reference added to verify notability. The nominator should be reminded of WP:BEFORE; I also suggest the article is moved to simply Gene Wilson (footballer) as that appears to be the COMMONNAME. Giant Snowman 17:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The old Football League Third Division North surely isn't a "fully professional league" is it?! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism was first introduced in the English league system in 1885, and it was fully professional post-WW2. Giant Snowman 19:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do you have a source for that? No offence but it sounds pretty dubious. Off the top of my head Jo Broadhurst's dad and the England women's team's first manager both played in the Football League as semi-pros. I'm sure there are many, many (many) others. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

League Football and the Men Who Made It by Simon Inglis (1988) - but do you have a reference that those two were semi-pro? I'm more than happy to check my book on Bradford City players tonight for Eric Worthington as it details which players were amateur/semi-pro/professional. Giant Snowman 09:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolteachers I think, and there's other more prominent examples like John Atyeo. Anyway, I agree with Football League players usually being presumed notable (as long as they can be shown to meet GNG – can this one??) but I think an "FPL" should at least be at a national level of the league structure. Is there any other regionalised lower leagues on the list? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough books out there about FL players that one can safely presume notability from a GNG perspective, however the stuff online is a bit poor (it's out there, simply not reliable enough to include I don't think). If your concern is simply that Mr Wilson played in a 'regional' division then don't forget that he played in the Football League Division Three 1958–1962. Giant Snowman 09:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:FPL doesn't include Football League Third Division North at all. Having 200 appearances doesn't automatically make him notable, and I haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I might be wrong, but he doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL at all. Surely one source isn't enough to prove notability, and I hardly think that a single page from a website providing statistics and information on 100's of players counts as 'significant coverage'. Jdp407 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdp407: - FPL does include the Football League, which the Football League Third Division North was a part of. Giant Snowman 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - As far as I can see, whilst it includes the Football League Championship, the Football League One and the Football League Two, it does not include the Football League, or the Football League Third Division North. Am I correct in assuming these are different things? Jdp407 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Football League Championship, the Football League One and the Football League Two are the Football League; each one is a division, sitting at levels 2, 3 and 4 respectively in the English football pyramid. The Football League Third Division North was the old third tier of football in England and is therefore equivalent to the modern day Football League One. Giant Snowman 16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that! I had looked at WP:FPL not seen it, but didn't realise that it was the equivalent of Football League One. Jdp407 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted above). IN the 1960s and 1970s the Football League had Divisions I-IV. At one stage it was Divisions I & II (which were nationwide) and III N and III S. These were reorganised into divisions III-IV. In a period before TV money created astronomic salaries at the top, these four divisions WERE the professional game. When Divisions I & II became the Periership and the Championship, Divisions III and IV became League I and League II. We really need some clearer guidline in FOOTY as to what articels are permissible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to change FOOTY in this regard - I have been here for 7+ years and this is only the 2nd or 3rd time I can recall an editor doubting the notability of somebody who had a career in the Football League; and every time it has been questioned, the answer has always been a resounding "notable." Giant Snowman 18:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hundreds of appearances in the football league, meets WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably in my view. The lack of Ghits is to be expected given the era in which he played. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:38, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Mendes[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP about an MMA fighter who does not meet WP:NMMA and seems unlikely to.Mdtemp (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't quite meet WP:NMMA and with no references he certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell , Volume 2[edit]

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

No need for this title, with spurious space between "Hell" and comma, to exist. There is already a redirect from The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell, Volume 2 to the name of the band, created in May 2013. This is an unsourced stub for a future recording; was dePRODded without comment. When sourced content is available, the correct version of the title can be used for an article on the album. PamD 19:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per nom. If this is just a copyedit error but the correct title was redirected to the band, there's no point in leaving this one around (not even as a redirect). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:24, 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 Redirected to Kim Ju-ae. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ju Ae[edit]

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

No significance, wp:blp or wp:toosoon, this should just be under personal life of the parent ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kim Ju-ae since it's the same article forked. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with her dad's article; I agree with WP:TOOSOON, she may warrant an article in the future, but not yet. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect I was considering that given that the only source (at the core) is Dennis Rodman's word that she exists. No reason to believe he's making it up, but at the same time, he is not what would be considered a reliable source for BLP claims. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, and Kim Ju-ae, to Kim Jong-un. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD really should be procedurally closed since it's a clear WP:FORK of Kim Ju-ae, it's the same article. We can't vote merge or delete for this article since the article already exists elsewhere which is not under AfD. This AfD should have never happened, I don't think the nom realized there was a fork condition. --Green Cardamom (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware there was an existing article, both were created the same day. Should I WP:CSD#A10 it instead, leave it as AfD, or blank and redirect for the hyphenation in the name?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would WP:CSD#A10 it, then start a new AfD with the other article, if you want. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10, then discuss on the other AfD. Ansh6 6 6 18:45, 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: A. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist (comics)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of X-Force 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) 16:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the main characters on the Milligan run of X-Force. Failing that, a merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A is preferrable to deletion. BOZ (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. I don't see any attempt to establish notability in this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters, not enough coverage for a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:10, 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. KTC (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant of Primus[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers 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) 15:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Some elements could also be merged into Transformers or some other, more appropriate article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Article lacks independent, 3rd-party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 16 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 My-HiME anime characters. KTC (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Higurashi[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of My-HiME 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) 15:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Redirect or merge to My-HiME is also acceptable. I don't see any indication of notability, and English-language Google searches turn up nothing useful. There may well be useful Japanese sources; if so, the article can be recreated with those sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters I see no reason why this cant simply be redirected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters as the most obvious outcome. Cavarrone 05:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters per above. No notability outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Will the rest of the character articles at List of My-HiME anime characters be addressed also? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the characters will most likely be merged or redirected not deleted with the sources provided helping the list of characters article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and I don't envy the person who has to do it. There are, like, 30 of these pages and apparently the characters cross through multiple series that all have different plots? Bleh. I'm thinking the net result is going to require two character lists and the disentanglement of the two series' pages from each other. --erachima talk 22:21, 16 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 The Mask. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loki (Dark Horse Comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book character. Not sure why this page was even created. Ridernyc (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page was a fork of Loki (comics), a certainly notable comic book character; I've made the page into a redirect. The nominator should now familiarize themselves with WP:BEFORE. Dea db eef 06:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there is no mention of any other Loki character at Loki(comics) other then the marvel character I fail to see how this is a useful or relevant redirect. Ridernyc (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it. The problem with the redirect is that the Marvel and Dark Horse depictions are separate characters. Yes, both are based upon the mythological Loki, but that doesn't make them the same thing in and of itself. It wouldn't be a good redirect as they're by separate companies and people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to the nominator, I misunderstood this AfD to be for the Marvel character. Anyways, my !vote is now to redirect to The Mask. A lack of character summaries in that article precludes a merge, but redirects are cheap and one seems useful here. Dea db eef 02:03, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Redirect to The Mask is also acceptable, but I'm not sure anyone is going to search for this term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps redirect per NinjaRobotPirate. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mask on account of redirects being cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:39, 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 keep. And move, naturally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Briz District[edit]

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

no indication of notability. no extant RS. (Based on name of primary editor, a SPA, there may be CoI issues as well) [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to its apparent official name Magugpo East. We have reliable proof this district exists, by the inclusion of a Philippines governemnt webpage which says it was legally created by ordinance in 1993. Articles about legally recognised, populated places are generally allowed to remain (according to WP:NGEO). However, there's no proof it's known as Briz and the article will still need proper sourcing to make it suitable. Sionk (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this and Magugpo East to Tagum City. To my recollection, the consensus is that barangays aren't inherently notable unless they receive enough reliable coverage, so what is usually done is to redirect them to their municipality or city. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:53, 27 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:53, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—but move to Magugpo East (assuming they are, in fact, the same thing). WP:NGEO says that "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable", and this barangay was created by a legal ordinance. Granted that a barangy is the smallest recognizable district, we do have articles on US towns, which, as I understand it, are about the same thing. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While barangays are indeed the smallest political unit in the Philippine LGC, to my knowledge, barangays are considered by the WikiProject to only be notable if they have been the subject of reliable sources (which is why we have articles for the districts of Manila, such as Sampaloc, Manila, rather than any of Manila's barangays. Note that Manila alone has 700+ barangays, while most cities can have up to 40+). Also, barangays are not equivalent to towns, as a barangay is a subdivision of a municipality or a city, which correspond to cities and town in the United States. WP:NGEO is a good point, however; I'll check the Tambayan Philippines archives if there has been established consensus on the notability of barangays. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll admit to knowing basically nothing about Philippine geographical organizational units, I'm just going off of NGEO and trying to apply it to the situation, and I fully understand the application might need some "tweaking" to get right. Please do check with any relevant projects and let me/us know if there's a consensus or any guidance on this. Your effort is appreciated! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:03, 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gedempte Zalmhaven[edit]

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

fails GNG, no RS. (also WP:TOOSOON) [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 25 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I notice the linked article on the Dutch Wikipedia was deleted recently as a promotional-sounding article on an unrealised project: [4]. A project could be unrealised and yet notable, but all we have here is sourced to Skyscrapercity.com which doesn't look like a WP:RS. And when completed, it will be an apartment block; the only claim to notability would be perhaps if it was at that point indeed the tallest building in the Netherlands. Until then this looks WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article via its sourcing, actually. There is an RfC about that particular source that I opened specifically to confirm/deny its reliability because it does appear to be widely used for building projects, especially unfinished or planned ones, despite being a forum site. While not closed yet, the clear (though not unanimous) consensus there appears to be that it is not reliable. just fyi. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News archive search seems to suggest we already have multiple stories on the structure in publications. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify which of these are WP:RS please? lots of promotional/pr here. thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry, I'm not going to expand on this, here, on other Afds, nor on my Talk page: I've looked through the results and am satisfied that there are sufficient WP:RS among the results, and I encourage editors to see for themselves. The consensus shall decide, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

interested in posting a simple google link, but not interested in providing even a single concrete examples of WP:RS from that link. I see. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't allow myself to respond to this sort of goading but all right, here's one. It's right in front of you: http://www.deweekkrant.nl/artikel/2010/maart/01/verzet_tegen_zalmhaven_urban_ Use Google Translate. It's an article about opposition to the construction of the project, from the Dé Weekkrant publication. There's more articles on that page. Look at them, for heaven's sake. And please don't post anything else to my talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance, and thanks for self-reverting your initial not-so-civil responses. Perhaps you could also post RS links for the other AfDs where you simply posted a google news link for, expecting that things were obvious? thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gone taken a look for yourself? You realize that WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE are important guidelines for nominators, I hope? Did you do a Google News Archive search before nominating, including for foreign language news sources, and have you looked through the Gnews search results I'd linked to above, to see for yourself? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , the project does seem to be notable. As far as I can tell, unbuilt projects may be just as notable as built one, because the key public discussion is usually whether or not to build it in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 16 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. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Aleluya WRAR 1700 AM[edit]

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

Article that relies exclusively on primary sources (and a Google search failed to turn up any better ones either), for a radio station that fails to turn up in either the FCC or Recnet databases. I cannot verify whether it exists under Part 15 or carrier current rules, but either way it isn't a conventional licensed radio station — even its purported call sign, WRAR, conflicts with another station in a different city and state. A radio station in the United States is not entitled to a presumption of notability unless it has an FCC license — an unlicensed station can still become notable enough for inclusion if its sourcing and notability claim are really solid (we do, for example, have some very good, very well-sourced articles about pirate radio stations), but a radio station that has no non-primary sources at all clearly does not meet that standard. There is, in addition, a very real possibility of conflict of interest here, as the article's creator has never contributed anything to Wikipedia at all besides this article. Delete unless somebody can find stronger sourcing than I've been able to. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Hoax: Station is a hoax. WRAR-AM and WRAR-FM are both licensed to Tappahannock, Virginia and have been for awhile now. Per WP:NMEDIA, part 15 stations are not-notable, nor are pirates. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say it's a hoax as such; it clearly does exist, and unlicensed stations are allowed to call themselves anything they want. The existence of WRAR Tappahannock just proves that this station is an unlicensed part 15 or carrier current operation that isn't inherently notable; it doesn't prove that this station is a hoax. On the other hand, Radio Aleluya itself seems to be a network of several stations across the United States which air the same programming — other outlets include the duly licensed KQUE and KFTG — so the service might potentially qualify for an article (pending valid reliable sources about it, of course) even if not all of its individual transmitters do. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Tuchman[edit]

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

The extent of the promotionalism is so great that regardless of possible borderline notability, the article should be deleted. I've notified the ed. who accepted this from AfC in 2010. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is right about the high degree of promotion in the article; if kept it should be trimmed drastically, or converted into an article about his company, MarketRider. There is one significant independent reference, New York Times, but it is about MarketWatch and barely mentions him (calling him one of the company's co-founders, although in the article he is described as the founder). I could find no biographical information to sustain an article about him. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy I agree with the nom's conclusions regarding the article. The encyclopedia is best served by removal of the ocntent as it stands. If someone wants to fix the article they are welcome to do so. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would even say this could be speedily deleted as blatant advertising. One of the major contributors to the article may have some relation to the subject, it is blatant advertising. Even if we discount that and userfy it, he still fails Wikipedia:Notability. PrairieKid (talk) 22:22, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Kangaroo[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Most sources appear to find random tech blogs of the sort already linked (which do not appear to meet WP:RS), and most information about "Blue Kangaroo" online refers to a series of books, other companies (such as a coffee shop and a graphic design agency), or information about actual blue kangaroos in art. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Kinu ^t/_c 00:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found that would indicate notability. --Michig (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Also note Alexa rank of 509,984, which strongly suggests this hasn't taken off in any significant way yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient coverage for this subject to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:CORP. Gong show 06:31, 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 keep - while the initial reaction appears to have been heavily weighted in favor of a redirect, DGG's and others' better arguments later on have leaned towards keeping this. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Rome[edit]

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

Post modernist drivel. Mostly consists of WP:OR. What little that remains after the the post modernist stuff has been eliminated could find its way the mainstream History of the Roman Republic. But its scarcely worth the effort. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to History of the Roman Empire, since we don't have a separate article on the history of the Roman Republic. Nothing here that I saw was worthy of keeping. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It read like a pretty good high school term paper, but was full of opinions and conclusions which lacked references, meaning that they were either original research or borrowed without citation. The only other ending to this AFD I could endorse would be a Smerge to the redirect target, if it includes referenced text which would improve the target article. The thing that doesn't work is to have the article effectively blanked while the AFD remains open. Edison (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the Roman Empire. I have reverted Nyttend's bold redirect until the AFD has concluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nyttend, and add a hatnote for the game at the target. Ansh6 6 6 22:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This article is not a history article, but a historiography article about the views of historians (of various times and persuasions) on the subject. I accept that this is an unusual article, and it may need to be renamed to Views on the Rise of Rome or Rise of Rome (historiography). The article should certainly not be expanded to parallel existing history articles, and needs a title that will not encourage that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as mentioned by Peterkingiron this is a historiography not history. We have a similar Decline of the Roman Empire (though it has a history section tacked on, main focus and purpose has always been historiography). Other related historiography articles include Dark Ages (historiography). The rise and fall of the Roman Empire is one of the most written about topics in all of history, Wikipedia needs a lot more historiography. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historiography of a major historical subject. I agree with User:Green Cardamon that the only problem here is that we need more articles like this. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Rome. Discussion on including any of the arguments in this essay can take place in the context of the existing article covering the broader subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of Green Cardamom and Peterkingiron The rise of Rome is prominent enough that the historiography of the event is notable, too. It overlaps somewhat with Roman historiography but is much broader, including modern approaches to the history of the event as well. The main problem with the article is some likely original research per WP:OR and a paucity of references. While the article needs a lot of improvement, there seem no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that there COULD be an article covering this subject. If an editor wants to make such and attempt, I think they're welcome to it. But as there are existing article on the History of Rome and Roman historiography, this unsourced essay should be redirected to the history article and improvement efforts targeted to existing articles constructed based on Wikipedia guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. AfD is about determining whether a topic is notable. If the topic is notable (and it is, for instance, check out the book on the rise of Rome The Histories by Polybius, one of the founders of Roman historiography) then generally an article is kept for improvement. There are exceptions--copyright violations, BLP violations, unintelligible messes, etc.--but if an article is improvable, it should generally stay. See WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details. --Mark viking (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the subject title, which part of this article should be kept based on Wikipedia guidelines regarding citations to reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra, please read WP:MUST, it's part of WP:SURMOUNTABLE that Mark keeps pointing you to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my prior query: What in this article is worth preserving? What in this article adds in a helpful way to the existing articles covering this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article, as it stands, needs work, but per WP:RUBBISH, that is not a reason to delete the article if the subject is notable, and the historiography of the rise of Rome is. It might be better to also rename it to one of the titles Peterkingiron suggested, though, to make it clear it isn't a history article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- Roman historiography is a different subject again. That article is about the views of ancient Roman historians about the history of Rome. I will agree that the article needs work, but that is not a good reason for deletion. As I said above this article is about the views of historians. It should be sufficient to cite what they wrote. There may be works about the historiography of a subject generally, but they are usually rare. However, it is normal to set out some of the historiography of a subject at the beginning of a work on the history. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The suggestion that it be covered in Roman History seems to be based upon not recognizing the difference between history pf Rome, the study of what happened in Rome, and historiography of Rome, the study of how people wrote about the history of Rome. The suggestion that this is covered in Roman Histography article must have been made with out reading the article, which deals with the ancient ' treatment of Roman history-- Roman history as conceived by the Romans. The discontinuity with modern historical writing is great enough to justify two articles. I hope we will have many more historiography articles, but, as mentioned above, this does need to be more clearly titles. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 16 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 The Gathering Dark . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodah[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Magic: The Gathering through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of 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) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources on this. I agree; it belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Gathering Dark, the novel of which he's the protagonist, per WP:CHEAP. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Gathering Dark and redirect, since there is almost nothing in the The Gathering Dark article at this time, and plenty of referenced information in this article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge That's actually a really good idea. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 16 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 on whether this is or is not an appropriate subject for an article overall. However, there is clearly a consensus that the current article is inappropriate and useless, and may contain significant copyvio. Therefore, it will be stubbified. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SAP HANA[edit]

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

An unpromising start: "an in-memory data platform that is deploy-able as an on-premise appliance". I think that marketing-speak means some sort of software. Masses of refs but which of them are actually independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I speedied it earlier as copyvio; I suspect large chunks of what remain are copyvio; it's a mass of marketese. It could be stubified, but frankly, would you start with what's there now? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely full of copyvio. I've removed a lot, but I suspect much remains. More to the point, no reliable secondary sources that point to notability.--Korruski^Talk 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There should not be notability issues here. As shown in the reference section, WSJ, Bloomberg, Forbes, Financial Times, many heavy-weight communication is going on for SAP HANA. 71.142.73.183 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)— 71.142.73.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is a misleading claim. There is only one Bloomberg source given [5] which makes NO mention of SAP HANA. The WSJ one [6] is behind a paywall so I haven't checked it, but seems to be about 'Skunkworks' so not sure what the relationship is there. The Forbes article [7] makes a passing mention of SAP HANA in the context of a bigger article about SAP, and the FT article [8] is by an employee of SAP, so is not in any way a reliable, independent source.--Korruski^Talk 08:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since the product is indeed notable (take a look a Google books, there are about a dozen that cover this in depth and many more mentions), but the article is a mess. Might be easier to start over, although another idea is to remove most of the cut-n-paste text which is written in jargon and replace with English paraphrased from the sources. I could probably help since I am doing all sorts of these now days, but do not want to invest time into something that gets deleted anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'm not convinced that the presence of third-party technical manuals (which is all I can see in Google Books for this) about a tool is really sufficient to establish its notability, given that it doesn't seem to have any other form of reliable third-party coverage.--Korruski^Talk 08:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability, also appears to be a few copyvio issues with a Google search, however nothing clear-cut enough for me to suggest speedying. Mdann52 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe reason this page is under deletion consideration was because I put advertising/promotion content onto the page. I would like to start by apologizing for what I have done. This was the first time I ever encounters wiki and I have not enough knowledge about how wiki works or runs. My intention was 0% promotion and advertise/marketing is definitely not my purpose to help the page. I have been reading the rules and guides of wiki and I have already removed most portion of my edits. Can I get a second chance to help this page?I will from now on get prove from the help chatroom before doing anything on this page. For the notability issue, I understand that the article does not contains a lot of references, but I do know there are a lot of references exists for this topic. Maybe we can have a references needed (issue warning) on top of the page, but not delete the page that so many people contributed to the page before I do, or wanting to contribute in the future. JunWan (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that this article gets an average of over 30K visits a day (source) implies that this article meets the threshold for notability. Earwig's copyvios tool says that there is 5.4% copyright violation (source), which just isn't enough for deletion of the whole article in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of visits does not indicate notability, and anyway where on earth did you get 30K from? It looks to me as if the page gets around 1,000 a day. The copyvio is reduced now because I've already deleted reams of text but is irrelevant as it's not a reason to delete - failure to establish notability is.--Korruski^Talk 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing a comment from above, I do not see why the several books on this subject being technical in nature should disqualify it. Of course it is a very technical product intended for technical customers, so sources on it will be technical in nature. In my opinion, Wikipedia already has a strong bias toward "pop" subjects, with articles on two kids who wrote an app over a weekend being much more plentiful than true technology innovation. What this article needs is to be paraphrased into normal English. Alas, since normal language is not seen as a skill of value to software developers, what we get is filtered through marketeers who have their own way of obscuring any information with buzzwords. There are several articles related that are in bad shape. SAP HANA for example says it is composed of TREX search engine, SAP NetWeaver and MaxDB but those articles do not mention SAP HANA at all, so no idea if nor how they really do relate. And of course it has nothing to do with clouds nor solutions, but every software article now seems to mention those two words. The question seems to be is it worth trying to get this one into shape or start from scratch? W Nowicki (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that technical sources should disqualify it. My point is that a tool having 3rd-party manuals does not necessarily make it notable per the WP:GNG.--Korruski^Talk 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but still do not follow your reasoning. Why do paper books entirely on the subject not count? Since they are third party, that sure sounds like "independent" to me. And since each entire book is on it, sounds like very "Significant coverage". The fact that they can be found on Google books certainly sounds like easily "verifiable". Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but paper books with reputable publishers seem much more reliable than the wikis and web sites that are used in most other articles. The real issue to me is still that the current article does not use those reliable third party sources! Which is why deleting and re-creating a properly sourced article would also be fine with me. But the subject is notable and needs an article. W Nowicki (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep but reduce the level of detail. Third party manuals are published only on subjects whee the sales are expected to be significant, because the product is important. I think they count towards notability , at least somewhat DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 16 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brake Lights (mixtape)[edit]

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

Unclear how this mixtape might meet WP:NALBUMS. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google search brings up some hits but the reliability of these sources is unclear. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in poor shape, but its PROD was declined for a reason. Coverage in reliable third party sources including, XXL, LA Times, The Fader, review by Miami New Times, AllHipHop, MTV, Rap-Up and review by HipHopDX. STATic message me! 15:27, 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 & redirect to Billy Sing. KTC (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul the terrible[edit]

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

I do not see any sources cited. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (parlez) @ 21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 21:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billy Sing. He's not independently notable. Deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to have been the top Turkish/German sniper at Gallipoli, a front known for sniping. Most sources in English deal with his duel against Billy Sing but that doesn't make him non-notable just because he lost. "Abdul the Terrible" is a nickname given by the Australians so we need to research non-English sources which doubtless have something to say about this hero, just as English-language sources say much about Bill Sing. Seems one sided, the winner gets a Good Article, the looser gets a redirect (at best). Both were known in their time for being top snipers, I'm a little suspicious of a winner take all version of notability. --Green Cardamom (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an excellent argument if this were a history textbook, but it's Wikipedia. Unless someone shows that Abdul the Terrible is independently notable, it doesn't matter how we feel about the matter. According to several newspaper articles I found, Billy Sing himself was not notable until recently. With Billy Sing's newfound popularity, perhaps interest will follow Abdul the Terrible, as well. Until it does, there aren't enough reliable sources on him. As far as Turkish sources, there isn't much people on English Wikipedia can do about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is your friend in AfD. His name translates as "Abdul korkunç". A google search shows few hits. This page[9] says "The real identity is not known with certainty." No apparent tradition of writing about him outside the Bill Sing incident so not independent notability confirmed (probably). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original article (although I hesitate to use that word to describe this) is bad. It would be good if there was some additional verification if only to avoid another König incident. Was Abdul real, or was he a composite of a number of Turkish and/or German marksmen? Intothat darkness 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'd be ok with the redirect as well. Article can always be recreated if or when reliable sources appear. Intothat darkness 21:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources in it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Billy Sing. Not independently notable. jni (talk) 07:25, 16 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 keep - nom Withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdann52 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 10 September 2013‎

Ginger (film)[edit]

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

PROD contested without a reason. non-notable movie. Mdann52 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film was released September 6, and beginning as far back as last November,[10] has received coverage enough to meet WP:NF.[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Article has issues (now tagged) and needs work, but it serves the project and its readers that this stay and be improved over time and through regular editing. And with the release only days ago, we can certainly expect more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:06, 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 SNOW delete. Even if there were no other considerations, it would be perfectly clear that the subjects are not notable: they have no mentions anywhere. However, from posts on various social network sites and wikis and YouTube, it is clear that "Bang Habib" is the name or (more likely) nickname of someone who also goes by the name Said Muqaffa or Said Muqaffa Al-Idrus, and whose posts on those sites strongly suggest that this is someone (perhaps a child) playing around by creating a fake article with his/her name. Eri Satria seems to be a fairly common name, and numerous pages with that name appear in searches, but they are all irrelevant, and none of them refer to the subject of this Wikipedia article. It is also notable that the name "Eri Satria" does appear on quite a number of pages on social network sites and the like which also contain one or the other of "Bang Habib" or "Said Muqaffa". Furthermore, there is no doubt at all that many, perhaps all, of the edits by the creator of these articles are vandalism. On the whole, the evidence so strongly suggests a hoax that a G3 speedy deletion would be not unreasonable, there is such a lack of indication of significance in the article that an A7 speedy deletion would be not unreasonable, and there is such a lack of evidence of notability to be found anywhere that deletion is inevitably going to be the eventual outcome, so a SNOW deletion is the most reasonable step. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Habib[edit]

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

Possibly dubious article with no reliable link at least to confirm its existence. The article even has the TV3 Sweden logo. Possibly a creation of user due to "full name." 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is equally dubious with no reliable link (it seems also to look like the name of a person, not a TV station):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nary a mention anywhere, either in English- or Indonesian-language sources. There is a man named "Bang" Habib who owns a television station, but not in Aceh. Probable hoax. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:25, 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 Shii (tock) 01:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vsyo, chto ty khochesh[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability of its subject. Has no references, finding evidence of notability in English a dead end and not feasible. Possibly appropriate for the Russian Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 09:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable.--Viticulturist99 (talk) 13:30, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody (Turtles4 song)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable song by apparently non-notable band. Nothing to redirect to, nothing to justify keeping the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant non-notability. WP:NMUSIC camerontregan^talk 07:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A song by a non-notable band and which peaked at number 138 in the charts... Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the basic notability criteria set out at WP:NSONG. --DAJF (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charting itself is not sufficient to justify an article, but charting is usually sufficient to satisfy WP:NBAND. So while this may not be a notable single, it is a notable band. (I just doubt anyone will try to write such an article.) Michitaro (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - right now the band that made the song has no article, and since the song does not meet WP:NSONG, it should be deleted. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect if/when Turtles4 gets its own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:07, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vault of Terror[edit]

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

I came across this after declining a speedy for a film by one of the directors (Sean Weathers) that contributed to this compilation DVD. I noticed that his films in general have had notability issues to merit their own article and was about to redirect this to Weathers' article when I noticed that there would be an issue in just redirecting to him. There are four films on the DVD, Night of the Living Dead, Driller Killer, Weathers' film, and another film by a director who doesn't have an article. There's no clear place to redirect this to, as we have multiple places to redirect to. Redirecting to Weathers isn't an option since it's a bit misleading since it's not the name of the piece he created. I can't find any sources that really discuss this specific DVD set as a whole to show that it particularly merits its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly forgettable DVD compilation by an obscure company. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is certainly possible that some of this DVD Anthology's individual films may themselves be notable, being put into a compilation does not make that compilation separately notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Tokyogirl79: While we cannot have one redirect going to four different films or their directors, the better option is to either redirect to Weathers as the DVD producer, or have a sourced one-line mention in articles on its separate films saying something like "film name here was re-released September 17, 2013 as part of the Sean Weathers-produced anthology DVD Vault Of Terror. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just slightly worried about doing this in this instance since both of the two movies that are notable are in the public domain and are re-released pretty frequently. We could limit it to the companies or producers that have articles, but that would still be a fairly lengthy list when you get to films such as Night of the Living Dead and Driller Killer. It's fairly common for many companies to make DVD sets with one or all of the films being public domain titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought for this particular instance. I also imagine that sourced mentions of such for any film included in later compilations would serve readers when the compilation itself has no separate notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:53, 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. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Rogaliński[edit]

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

non-notable "Autobiography" -
The books in this article do not exist in libraries. See e.g. here on Worldcat.
Awards; that Paweł Rogaliński got them is not proven by any source. The source given do not mention his name. ... Some sources he gave at the discussion on de where, ehm, dubious.
independently deleted on de, fr and pl.

There are some autors who only care about this person; user:Dyskowiec, user:HenrietteMarcon , commons:user:Ceskibot, commons:user:Ciapta, commons:user:Nightvision83, commons:user:ClaudiusMaius. Some "share" the same camera: "FinePix S5700 S700". Sicherlich ^Post 03:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a promotional autobio - fails WP:N, no WP:RS. If deleted, please AfD this at fr and simple wikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't seem to meet our inclusion criteria as summarized at WP:GNG.--Viticulturist99 (talk) 12:17, 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 redirect to Fifth Harmony. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Jane Hansen[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Suggest this get redirected to Fifth Harmony. reddogsix (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Subject's notability to date is not independent of the group; does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 18:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Fifth Harmony. I see that the nom already tried that but then the article's creator reverted it without explanation. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fifth Harmony. The band's members are not notable outside of the band and I have redirected the others that were not at AFD. –anemone projectors– 08:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per not individually notable. Murry1975 (talk) 14:58, 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Frederick Broadbridge[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. almost all the coverage about him is 1 line mentions merely confirming his role. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 21:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 21:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 21:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. 1 line mentions? The very first GHit is his obituary published in the Globe and Mail. Author of at least two books, one of which is included in Peel's Bibliography of the Canadian Prairies to 1953. He was not just High Commissioner to Malawi: he was in fact the first Canadian HC to Malawi. He was included in the 1979 Canadian Who's Who. There's plenty of news coverage which far exceeds the "1 line mentions" described by the nominator.[17][18][19][20][21]. His papers are ensconced in the archives of the province of Saskatchewan. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

could you please add into the article and then I will withdraw this AfD. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:BEFORE failure. Notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their not being used in an article. While the article is in poor shape, needing work is not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. Cavarrone 05:32, 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Souk Grande Mall Chennai[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no indepth coverage, just small mentions in gnews eg a cinema opening there. [22]. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (post) @ 21:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone got the Tamil name handy? Its a fairly significant-sized project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not necessary, malls in Chennai are more likely to be covered by The Hindu and The Times of India than by Dinamalar or Dinathanthi, but it transliterates to 'கோல்ட் சூக் கிராண்டே மால்" or "கோல்ட் சூக் கிராண்ட் மால்" (removing the accented e from grande). e.g. compare coverage for Ampa Skywalk (அம்பா ஸ்கைவாக்). —SpacemanSpiff 09:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone explain the meaning of 8,00,000 sq ft? (in the article, entered in the article as given in the source). If it means 800,000 sq ft, the mall is unlikely to be notable ;if it means 8,000,000 , irt probably is or will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:21, 18 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. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Dance (poem)[edit]

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

This can never be anything more than a stub. The poem is only known due to chain e-mails, which usually mis-credit it. We're not snopes, let them do the job. (Note: earlier PROD rejected) Ego White Tray (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes GNG, and the level of vandalism to the article reinforces the level of interest in this topic. There is no policy of rejecting topics just because Snopes covers them too, nor any reason to think that this stub can't or won't be expanded. Disclosures of interest: I am the original author of this stub, and the challenger of the PROD, which was based on a vandalised version of the article, see Talk:Slow Dance (poem)#PROD. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to say the stub can't be expanded, and it passes the general guideline. camerontregan^talk 07:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 21:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable topic, room for expansion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:42, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAmScientist[edit]

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

This was a low importance crowdfunding site that now appears to be defunct. See Non functioning home page

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 21:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was ever sufficiently notable in the first place, the fact of its going defunct shouldn't affect notability, per WP:NTEMP. But I don't think it is or was notable. I certainly couldn't dig up better sources than the ones already in the article using Google news archive, and the ones already there are very weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wp:notability is not temporary. If a subject has sufficient notability for wikipedia, then just because the company no longer exists does not stop that notability. That said, the article may just be suitable for WP:SPEEDY deletion G7, author request.Martin451 (talk) 19:16, 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 & redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. KTC (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted uncontroversially a year ago; the only change is that she's been identified as one of Charlie Sheen's many girlfriends, from whom she does not WP:INHERIT notability. No change from the previous analysis -- "Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG. All significant GNews and GBooks hits appear to refer to others sharing the same common name. No reliable sourcing or significant biographical content; all references are either promotional or industry listings" -- except that she's in some Charlie Sheen tabloidery. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She is also a Penthouse Pet. (The lead section of the article could stand a rewrite though.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 21:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom's analysis. Moreover, being a Penthouse Pet does not constitute mainstream coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnegas (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 September 2013‎
- It doesn't? Is there a consensus for that? Anyway, all else fails, the article could at least be redirected to List of Penthouse Pets. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability isn't inherited, especially from tabloid gossip. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no mainstream coverage outside her adult appearances themselves and the adult industry's internal promotion mechanisms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 16 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 keep. SNOW impending. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who fandom[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Most references aren't actually reliable third-party sources but first-party fan-sites. Other references are not about the fandom but about individual fans. Fandom itself lacks notability. IsaacAA (talk) 23:14, 8 September 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 September 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Whatever the faults of the current text, the subject is quite clearly notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE. Tons of potential sources, try for example Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. AfD is not cleanup. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with a probability of SNOW - Well-documented fandom with depth of coverage and longevity. Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem Blaster[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers 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) 00:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki to Wikia, though I can't imagine them not having an article on it already. Ansh6 6 6 05:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (state) @ 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Definitely belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 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.