Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 1 December	3 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Game Management Units

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

Not unique. Every state has these. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, what have they done to stand out from similar entities in other states? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these units are bigger than other entire states. How game is managed is very much a hot button issue up here, but despite that I am not certain this deserves a stand-alone article. It could be merged into Alaska Department of Fish and Game or some,other appropriate target though. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could someone take the time to expand the article to explain what these things are? Arbitrage trades? geographical units? squads of people? Neither of the refs mentions these by name. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Merge if necessary. The Steve 08:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per Thesteve. I searched adn.com for relevant articles about (rather than just mentioning) game management units, and I didn't find much of anything. (Adn.com is basically the newspaper of record for Alaska, so that's where you'd expect anything relevant to be.) I don't think there could be ever be much more content than a statement that these exist, plus a map and names. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have added some explanation as requested above as well as an external link to a map of the unit boundaries. I think all of this content could be easily accomodated at the rather brief article on ADF&G. The differing regulations in the various units and subunits seems pretty critical to understanding how they regulate such a vast area. Hinters are expected to know what area they are in and if their permit is still valid should they move into the next unit while pursuing game. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion regarding deletion here, but I must ask the nominator why it is relevant that every state has one? Every state has a capital city, but does that take away the notability there? Am I missing something? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, the nom is pretty weak and does not cite any policy-based reason for deletion as well as ignoring the obvious idea of merging. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2012 (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 Skylar Grey. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Look Down (Skylar Grey album)

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

per WP:NMUSIC not really enough information to warrant an independent article — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JUST A RANDOM USER: Hey kid, this is apparently the article on the forthcoming release, that is to say "the article in progress", just like your Wiki page where you say "It's still a work in progress so mind the mess please. LOL". So, slower on the "delete" trigger, please. Perhaps more approrpate would be to flag it as "in lack of citations" or something, but only past the release date, when it could be merged with the discography page of the artist - but maybe I am just not aware of some of your editorial practices, as I am not an admin or editor here, just a user, although the one who does not see any benefit in deleting articles like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.67.129 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skylar Grey (ideally edit - both this and her article are a bit scrappy). This article contains various information on what Grey has been doing recently, including her latest single release, and some is sourced and most is likely to be source-able. But it's policy not to have articles on unreleased albums especially if they don't have firm release dates, and some of this info though sourced may be outdated when/if the album is released. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skylar Grey. Merge if appropriate. The Steve 08:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skylar Grey. Doesn't quite meet WP:NALBUMS yet.--Giants27(T|C) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis (pinball)

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

Nothing special about this recent pinball machine, and no particular media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Couldn't find any reliable sources in web, news or books hits, beyond those that mentioned the mere existence of this - certainly nothing that indicated any notability. There were a few things that said Elvis himself liked pinball, but that's nothing to do with this. I find it unlikely that anyone would type "Elvis (pinball)" into the search box, so a merge would not be appropriate. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just another pinball machine. Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (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) —Theo polisme 07:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded event manager

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

This article was deleted by PROD in July 2012‎. An anonymous editor has now requested undeletion, which I have done. The PROD reason was "This product does not appear notable; no evidence of notability. Fails WP:N and WP:V." I disagree about WP:V, as the subject of the article is about a proprietary system, and documentation on the company's web site is perfectly verifiable. However, WP:N is a different matter, as there is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The subject is a part of the organisation of a proprietary system, with no existence or relevance outside the operation of that system. Apart from documentation on the company's own site, there are mentions in blogs, wikis, and other unreliable sources, and a few brief "how to" notes for users of the system, but no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. (Although it is not a reason for deletion, for context it is perhaps worth mentioning that the article was created by a single-purpose account, the user of which stated that he was working for Cisco, the company responsible for this product.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add the several books by Cisco Press to that "Apart from" qualifier. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: There is an ongoing campaign by Avaya pushers/employees to destroy coverage of everything Cisco on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson is not involved in this, I'm just pointing this out for context regarding the battling SPAs. I have not evaluated the notability of this particular article and it may very well warrant deletion. Gigs (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article at first doesn't appear notable, but a Google search found a couple notable sources such as [1]. I think the page is an asset to Wikipedia. Vacation^nine 13:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks encyclopedic and useful and substantial enough for an article. Specialized content like this will be coverage-light, but my guess is that it probably exists. North8000 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity DIP Records

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

This article was initially nominated in 2006 and was deleted but resurfaced after 4 months. Unfortunately, it seems nothing much has changed since then, a Google News archives search provides this (brief mentions) and this (focuses more with one of their artists than the company itself). Google News archives also provided three Music Week results here (at the bottom, second to the bottom and the third is at the next page). Google News UK and Google Books provided nothing useful. I think this is a such a small company that their website redirects to a blog after clicking "enter", no professional or detailed website. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having conducted a search I could find only one source that could possibly be considered "coverage" (this), but even that wouldn't be considered "significant coverage" enough to be considered a source that confers notability. I just can't see anyway the subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Would be keen to consider any sources anyone else can find but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Stalwart111 23:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I can't find any evidence of reliable sources supporting either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 14:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JustMock

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per the GNG - no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom; there are sources but few that look to be independent of the subject. Certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG from what I can see. Re-prints of company announcements, the company's own blog, etc. A search didn't bring up much else. Stalwart111 23:50, 2 December 2012 (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. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morevna Project

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

doubtful notability, ru-wiki article was deleted because of that Postoronniy-13 (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We do not operate en.Wikipedia by the different rules and policies set by other wikipedias. As this topic has received coverage,[2][3][4] we must judge here by our own notability standards. If the GNG is seen to be met, no matter what hapened at ru.Wikipedia, we would then opt for keeping and tagging for improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the Google news links except the first one repeat the same thing "This article is part of an on-going series on the challenges I've faced in producing two free-licensed movies, Marya Morevna, through the Morevna Project and Lunatics, which we are working on as Anansi Spaceworks." and the last result is another brief mention. Additionally, it seems the author of all those entries is Terry Hancock who is connected to the Morevna Project, making it a primary source. Really, all I'm seeing is that the project's purpose is to work on a film adaption of the folk tale, they are working independently and using open source software but no other significant work, from what I'm aware. My own search provided this announcement seeking new artists. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister above (I found similar results). Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Morevna Project is active and (IMHO) quite relevant to both free software and free culture. They just released their first finished animation demo, which is a 5-minute segment of the longer story. I'm not sure if it's valid to call me a "primary source". I have written about the project a lot; I have been in contact with the project leader; and I have contributed English-translation assistance. If that is sufficient to be considered a primary source, then it seems to me that this creates a significant disadvantage to open projects which accept such outside contributions. I covered Morevna Project because it is a landmark for free-culture and free-software film production, like the Blender Foundation "Open Movies" and like Sita Sings the Blues. Morevna is unique in its association with Synfig and in the fact that it is a film project following an open-source collaboration method. It has also been written about by a number of other sources, including LibreGraphicsWorld, LWN, and TET (I found these on the first page of a quick Google search). The demo film was also publicly screened recently. Although the article now correctly notes the use of non-free music in the demo, this is also true of both the Blender Foundation movies and "Sita Sings the Blues". We're still waiting to see a film project with a completely free soundtrack, although that is one of the goals on my own project. Digitante (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per previous delete comments, my own searches find the same. Also, the Libre Graphics and TET sources mentioned are blog posts. I'm a bit dubious of the reliability of the LWN cite, but it's probably the best of the bunch. All in all, still well short of substantial coverage from reliable sources. If a better case can be made, now or in the future, happy to revisit. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for topic's failure of WP:N... HERE. While a decent article may well be possible in the future, the topic lacks enough independent coverage for inclusion. I did not want this deleted solely because it was deleted on some unrelated ru.Wikipedia elsewhere by some other set of rules, and wish to thank those above who looked at the topic through our own considerations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 9 December 2012 (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. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishaal Nityanand

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

Non-notable actor / filmmaker. A "lead role" in a film that has been in production since 2006, but not yet released, and producer/director credits for several films of little notability. Award for "best story" from a film festival of little note. Other awards cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article says, subject is a documentary filmmaker and got few awards too! But, no clue in world wide web! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article says the subject has won some awards but only one of these can be verified (I tried to find sources for the others but couldn't find anything). Before the awards could be considered against WP:N, they would still need to be WP:V. I think we would need at least a couple more "significant coverage" sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 23:55, 2 December 2012 (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 Boston Tea Party (political party). MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Briscoe

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

Subject fails both the general notability guideline and WP:POLITICIAN. The article survived the first Afd based on the fact that she was the nominee of the Boston Tea Party, which at the time she was. However, (as detailed in the article) she was later removed as the nominee by the BTP well before the election (and before the party disbanded), apparently for misrepresenting her credentials (see Talk:Tiffany Briscoe). She didn't appear on any state ballots in the 2012 election, and article's citations are mostly non-reliable sources and dead links. Clearly non-notable and should be deleted. Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party) where she is mentioned. Valenciano (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ddcm8991 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there does not appear to be sufficient reliable sources where the subject has received significant coverage to warrant the subject meet WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. The subject has received multiple passing mentions, however the subject is connected to the event of the 2012 Presidential Election but is not independently notable outside of the event. Therefore, a better redirect target may be United States presidential election, 2012.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, please. No Reliable Sources are provided at the article, and it does not appear that any Reliable Sources took notice of her. Not worth a redirect. The grand total of votes that were cast for her in the party's "online nominating process open to all BTP members" was 13 votes out of 20, according to Boston Tea Party (political party). (The actual link appears to be dead, not surprising since the party is defunct). Surely there has to be SOME kind of minimum support requirement before a "party nominee" becomes notable! --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New quantum theory

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

This article presents a new theory based on the idea that photons have mass and an off-centre nucleus. It is straight copy of this paper published last month in the Indian Journal of Science and Technology. Copyright permission is claimed on the talk page, with an OTRS ticket number. Whether or not the physics is any good, Wikipedia does not publish original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." Searches turn up quite a lot of "New Quantum Physics" but nothing about this one - unsurprisingly, as it was published only last month. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete as inadequately sourced WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as fringe science/original research/fails notability. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as inadequately sourced WP:OR. The content is utter nonsense. WP has no ban on such pseudoscientific theories but the bar for inclusion is set very high, requiring reliable sources reporting on the controversy in detail. The only actual source is the paper it's a copy of, which being similarly nonsensical is of no use as a source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly original research spam. No prejudice on recreation in the (unlikely) case it gets some attention from the scientific community. Also I have doubts the paper is published on an actaully reliable academic journal. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that it raises doubts about the journal that it is published in. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well, respected journals like PNAS have published utter nonsense too. What raises my hairy eyebrows is the lack of a DOI and of any impact factor information in the journal kinda-crappy website. Plus, the article is categorized as a "popular article", which I don't really understand what are supposed to be, but are distinct from "research articles" of the same journal -could be a category for "non peer-reviewed random stuff". --Cyclopia ^talk 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. single source. In fact a copy of the cited article. Indian science and technology lost my respect. - Altenmann >t 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There, there. Let's not make generalizations. Crap pathological science thrives everywhere. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian journals are typically of a poor quality from what I have seen of them cropping up on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly original research, no evidence of notability. Scog (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly sourced WP:OR. — sparklism ^hey! 08:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article has been rewritten as a brief summary referenced to the Indian Journal of Science and Technology paper, but it still fails WP:NOR for lack of secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both original research and spam. Created by a single-purpose editor who is almost certainly promoting their own work. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability and WP:NOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR and non-notable self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's SNOW time, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the closing admin also delete the OR images? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copy at User:Tushar.gupta16/sandbox which should go too, either with this or by MfD. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy? this is a new editor: User:Tushar.gupta16. Although there maybe not merit in this theory, I don't think anyone has looked for sources yet. Sometimes the community can be bitey. just a thought. Spoildead (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look for sources before nominating, both on the web and in Scholar. There are quite a lot of "New quantum theory" and several different Agarwals, but the only ones that associate the term with N.S. Agarwal are the original paper and this article. Userfication would be appropriate only if there was some prospect of this being a viable article in the short to medium term, and that is not the case here. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was an edit by a now blocked sockpuppet. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new editor doesn't mean that the policies are enforced less, it just means it's explained to them. Userfication is for notable subjects that can be developed whereas this is primarily sourced from a Journal of dubious quality. In this case it is Original Research and there is no agreement in the scientific community as to it's verifiability, thus according to WP:RS or lack there of in this case it is WP:OR and not allowed. No one here is trying to bite an editor it's more so to protect the hard work being put forth on quality over quantity especially because wikipedia is usually within the top ten web results usually. It can affect everyone's credibility if we allow unaccepted things into the peadia..Just my opinion but maybe I'm missing something from your rationale about biting? For the record I do believe at this point in a Delete because if it's only based on original research it should not be here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Hell's comments about the treatment of newbie editors. Some people think they deserve greater leeway for bad edits than experienced editors. Not so: just greater explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Snow Delete Not notable, original research, fringe science, what more could you want? PianoDan (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a non-notable fringe theory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:47, 7 December 2012 (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) —Theo polisme 07:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover (band)

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

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

This musician fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage about him by third parties. He also fails every part of WP:MUSICBIO. Because I've also got identical doubts about Undercover's notability as well, I'm nominating it here also; it fails GNG and NMUSIC. JFHJr (㊟) 21:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just not notable. --Bruddersohn (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Undercover (band) as I believe I can bring the article into proper shape, with references. I just made a start, and will continue to work on it. I'm not as certain about Ojo Taylor. Tracking down third party coverage for 1980s Christian Punk bands is not easy, but can be done -- Foetusized (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leader of the band Undercover as well as a solo artist, producer, and contributor to other projects. Tag with blpreferences instead.

As for thje band's notability, multiple albums on major Christian labels and the first Christian New Wave band who later transitioned to a form of punk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Taylor probably passes GNG/NMUSIC via Huffington Post, Raised by Wolves, Apostles of Rock. At the very least it should be merged to the Undercover (band) article. As for the band, clearly passes notability guidelines via the above coverage, plus Times Daily, Allmusic, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, Austin American-Statesman, and Observer-Reporter. --Michig (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that searching variations of the name gives more results, e.g. for "Joey Taylor": Billboard, Religious Rock 'n' Roll, a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, Nurturing the Soul of the Youth Worker, 8 Habits of an Effective Youth Worker, and "CHANGES GRACE GOSPEL MUSIC", Sun-Sentinel, February 22, 1985. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)...and for "Joe Taylor": What About Christian Rock?, Montreal Gazette, Bangor Daily News. Granted they're not all in-depth but there's more than enough there overall. --Michig (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've withdrawn the nomination as to Taylor, but my Undercover nomination stands. JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band clearly meets WP:BAND 5 & 7. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chen He

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

Extremely inappropriately worded for an encyclopedia article, and has a very strong feeling of hoax to it (in particular, none of the cited links are actually links, and the four links to alleged Chinese Wikipedia articles all do not exist). Unless somehow this can be established as real and sufficiently notable, iDelete it. --Nlu (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I can't find reliable coverage indicating he passes WP:BASIC guidelines or alternatives like WP:NACTOR. On the article's own terms, some information is highly irrelevant or unlikely to gain notice. Wonder if his girlfriend wrote it. JFHJr (㊟) 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the text of the article even questions the subject's notability - "He is a newcomer, so he doesn't have many works." Game over. Stalwart111 00:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxy...Another person attempting to capitalize on recent Asian music fads. (In my humble opinion) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama speech to Clinton Global Initiative, 2012

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

Delete, doesn't merit a stand alone article. Seems to be political coatrack Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty of media coverage of this speech; it clearly passes our general notability guideline. We also have several other articles about speeches by Obama (listed here). If the article is deemed too short, it should simply be merged somewhere, but it should certainly not be deleted. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At most there should be a mention in that companies article but to write a article on each presidential speech would be nuts, of course they cover those speeches by the most famous man in the world. It doesn't nec mean they all should have articles on them. If you also notice those were significant speeches, to congress and as a election victory speech, this is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it meets WP:SIGCOV it fails WP:NOTTEMP. This speech does not have the lasting impact of, for example, the John F. Kennedy 1961 inaugural speech. Every speech made by a head of state would otherwise merit its own stand alone article. Blue Riband► 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMP is an essay, not a guideline. There is a discussion in the White House scheduled for later this week that resulted from this speech; the impact has lasted up until the present, several months after the speech. Why delete and not merge? Neelix (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - newspaper coverage irrelevant: all what Obama utters is surely covered. Ho evidence of encyclopedic impact . - Altenmann >t 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have responded to the speech in various ways. What would constitute encyclopedic impact that this speech did not have? Neelix (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sentence or two on this in another article would be good. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information in the article is valid and reliably sourced, not just a sentence or two. Surely merging is more appropriate than deletion? Neelix (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classical ONEEVENT. If this speech turns out to be in the class of lastingly notable speeches, such as MLK's "I have a dream", or the Gettysburg address, then we can re-create this article, but my crystal ball tells me not to keep my breath. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT is a guideline for determining the notability of biographical articles, not articles about events. Why should speeches be held to a higher standard of notability than music albums or television episodes? We don't require other articles to be as notable as the "I Have a Dream" speech in order to justify their existence. Neelix (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We don't need articles on every Obama speech p b p 20:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Neelix (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every presidential speech receives WP:ROUTINE coverage, that does not mean every speech is notable. No indication that this is of any lasting importance as compared to any other speech. ?Possible List of Speeches by President Barack Obama article with a brief summary of each speech though. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recommendation. I have created such an article at Speeches of Barack Obama. It makes a lot more sense to me to merge there rather than delete; I don't see that anyone has presented a reason against merging. Neelix (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Speeches of Barack Obama" is fine, but so far that is a list of legitimately notable speeches that contain a link to their standalone aticle plus a short summary on the new one. If this AfD winds up as delete, it will not be remaining there. Politicians give hundreds of speeches a year, we cannot be a humongous compendium of all of them. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The barrier for notability for inclusion as content within an article is much lower than a standalone article. Every entry in such a list does not need to be individually notable, which is explicitly covered as a possibility in the list selection criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have noted, routine coverage of a speech, there is nothing significant or impactful here. pretty sure there are other Obama speech AfDs over the past few years that wound up as delete as well, will have to look. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 3 December e2012 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:Run of the mill. Any presidential speech receives routine press coverage. No indication that this one is of any lasting significance. Newsworthiness is not notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, run of the mill. The President makes speeches all the time. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that this speech has not been shown to be notable as a speech, and thus not an appropriate separate topic, I also think it would be appropriate to include some content about the speech, as a clear statement on current U.S. policy on the topic, in the existing article Human trafficking in the United States. So, merge. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere. Clinton_Foundation#Clinton_Global_Initiative, Speeches of Barack Obama, Barack Obama are all possible choices. Merge if appropriate. Sheesh, its just one speech. The Steve 05:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be merged, Speeches of Barack Obama would be the most appropriate target. Neelix (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2012 (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) —Theo polisme 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1953–54 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds

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

The article is a large list of football statistics for the qualifiers of a competition. Delete per WP:NOT as WP:RAWDATA. Odie5533 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a comment posted on my user talk page. I have copied it here because it seems relevant to the discussion --Odie5533 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the normal number of teams who enter the FA Cup. The external link is there for the results to be verified and that is the normal way for every season in the FA Cup history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_FA_Cup_Qualifying_Rounds and this season is no different. Have a look at previous seasons from 2012-13 to show this.

I take it you are not an association football/soccer fan. The FA Cup is one of the oldest cup competitions ever and so many clubs enter that they have to have so many rounds before it gets into the 1st Round Proper. The seasons in English football is not showing the Qualifying Rounds for many seasons at present, and I am hoping to fill in the gaps right up to the 2007-08 season.

I have done this for many seasons in The Football League Cup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_League_Cup and Scottish League Cup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_League_Cup

This page does not deserve deletion because so many teams enter.

Darrin01

Keep per above. NickSt (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of a bigger scheme of qualifying rounds by year, which work is being done to complete the missing gaps. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While some years might be notable, I don't think saying "because XX year was notable, they're all notable" is correct. Legoktm (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several similar articles exist. Faustus37 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are strong WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. I am arguing that the article should be deleted because it is a gigantic wall of statistics. At least it certainly appears to be. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modified? Absolutely. It shouldn't be deleted though. Faustus37 (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1953–54 FA Cup. This cup is definitely notable, however I think Odie is right about this being WP:RAWDATA. Based on a little bit of searching, I can't find enough sources for this specific year's qualifying rounds (what the article is actually about) to meet GNG. Legoktm (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any news articles about the qualifying rounds from 1953-54 either. I searched BritishNewspaperArchive.co.uk. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual seasons, including qualifying rounds, of the FA Cup are extremely notable and have received significant coverage for more than 100 years! Just because at the moment the article is admittedly just a list of matches, it doesn't mean that prose and a proper article couldn't be written, for example you could write about significant matches or results, any new teams from the previous year, the leagues that the competing teams came from, the regional format of the draws or any number of other things. This book contains all the results and shows how important the Cup is in English football history. Not to mention the endless coverage that the matches would have received in local newspapers and football yearbooks, etc. To the points above, obviously you won't find much coverage online for a competition so long ago, but having online sources is not a requirement for notability. And Odie5533, of course you didn't find anything in the BNA – the archives only go up to 1950 so you aren't likely to find much about 1953–54, are you... BigDom (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BigDom - topic is notable; article needs improving. Giant Snowman 15:02, 3 December 2012 (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 Gangnam Style. Subject is significant, but doesn't quite justify a content fork per the opinions below (and the duplicate !vote). v/r - T P 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style by country

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

This article is related to the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon; at any rate, there should not be three or four spinoff articles detailing the same thing, and content would best be put in a "reaction" section of the original article. I suppose a secondary article regarding the phenomenon or reaction would be appropriate, as well, but not 3 content forks. dci | TALK 18:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NORUSH. Once the "charm" has worn off, and people move on to the next flavor-of-the-week, these articles will all be merged together or deleted anyway. This "phenomenon" will end up in the dustbin right next to the "Macarena Phenomenon" and all of the other "Phenomenons". This happens all the time and is predictable.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete In my opinion, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL and I believe we should at least wait until the "phenomenon" is over and then it will be clear whether or not to delete. For those sceptical that this phenomenon is going to remain, I would recommend further reading at Effects of Gangnam Style (which hopefully doesn't get deleted too). Personally, I believe you would have to wait some time before the phenomenon is over, if getting 1 billion views by mid-December indeed turns out to be true -A1candidate (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although fairly trivial and newsy the article is well-sourced. I would say it meets the usual WP standards. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a significant amount of secondary source coverage all over the world about this notable phenomenon. — Cirt (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All editors are encouraged to re-read WP:RECENTISM. This stuff always ends up deleted and merged anyway. Doing it now will just save work later. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test: Its the first time a video approaches one billion views, its has topped more national music charts than Macarena (or any other comparable phenomenon) ever did, its success is something that the South Korean music industry has worked on for twenty years and the song will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market. -A1candidate (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sue Rangell. This is an excellent example of WP:RECENTISM. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The info is fine, it just doesn't need to be spread out across so many articles. There should be two articles - One about the song, and one about the it's effects/phenomenon/"by country"/whatever other variations there are out there. All of these "Impact/effect" articles are redundant of one another, and should be merged together. (Using whichever title as the most predecence in the past.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a there are about 5-7 articles on this that all say essentially the same thing.(see previous and next day's archives) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gangnam Style phenomenon which covers exactly the same information as this. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style phenomenon should be merged here instead -A1candidate (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this should be merged to Gangnam style phenomenon because it describes a phenomenon. "Gangnam Style by country" doesn't really mean anything. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should simply be deleted as duplicate info. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as unnecessary fork. But if kept, I expect to see a section acted for every country in Africa. How is Psy effecting Mali? Let's not omit that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This info could be on the Gangnam Style article... CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 04:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test and will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market. Article should not be merged to Gangnam Style (almost 200 kB) as per WP:SIZERULE. Gangnam Style phenomenon has been deleted so this must remain -A1candidate (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punch-Out!! (anime)

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

Seems rather fake. Searching on Google News for "punch-out!!" anime retrieves only one false positive. Since the supposed series has a release date of 2014, it's likely that anything in Google News archives or Google Books is a false positive. Also, you'd expect sites like IGN to be abuzz with news of such a show, but hits on the WP:VG/S search look like false positives, too. CtP (t • c) 17:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many false positives and Disney Channel generally doesn't deal with outside projects or properties based on video game properties outside of Marvel, nor have they ever dealt with anime in any manner. Nate • (chatter) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Disney aired K-On! in Japan, and have a famous relationship with Studio Ghibli. They're not outsiders to the world of anime. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification You are correct that Disney does deal with anime and Ghibli; thank you for the correction, though what is correct that Disney Channel generally doesn't deal with anime (Starz usually gets it all through their Disney output deal). Nate • (chatter) 09:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this is proven not to be fake, it fails WP:Notability I can say I see it as a Wikipedia:Too soon case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possible Redirect to Punch-Out!! with a mention of the series there, if that can even be sourced. All the above reasons are why. — ^Wylie_Coyote 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without reliable sources about the project, or even about if it will exist, then I don't think this should have an article. No prejudice against recreation if, and only if, sources prove that it will be made. Also, technically this wouldn't be an anime since it would be made by an American company despite having elements of Japanese animation, similar to some Nickelodeon shows like Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:24, 8 December 2012 (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. Nomination and delete vote are by sockpuppets evading a block. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narine Dovlatyan

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

Not really notable. Ggg1829 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because of criteria met in WP:SINGER

“

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

”

Such as the ANMA, twice.

“

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

”

Such as Hay Superstar. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2012 (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 Big Ten Conference. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten Conference Sports

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. TBr and ley 23:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking independent references. If such references are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 16:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly this chart could be the framework for a useful navigational list, with links to all the existing articles about particular sports programs within the Big Ten. For example, the entries under the Baseball column could be made into links to articles such as Illinois Fighting Illini baseball, Indiana Hoosiers baseball, etc., and similarly for the other sports. Such a navigational aid may currently exist but I'm not aware of it; finding these articles through categories is possible, but requires multiple clicking to get to each article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Big Ten Conference p b p 00:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge anything worth saving to Big Ten Conference. Given that this is an athletic conference, no need for this as a separate article, but it might be helpful if it's not a redlink. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:53, 9 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pelham Police Department (New Hampshire)

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

Devoid of content, save for an infobox, for a city of 13,000. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Don't really think this is notable. Nothing in article. No need for this. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tiny non-notable police department. No content, so no redirect or merge to Pelham, New Hampshire. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2012 (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. (non-admin closure) — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Family (unofficial TV series)

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

Fails notability tests - work is not completed, not commissioned and not widely covered in mainstream sources. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. At this point it is only a proposed series that may never be produced.Blue Riband► 22:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Its plans are to produce two 30 minute long episodes and pitch the TV series idea to 20th Century Fox"...who will toss it right in the trash because every writer knows studios don't take unsolicited script ideas, especially from British schoolchildren. WP:MADEUP and it looks like the school's webmaster put the kibosh on hosting the 'show site'. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School project with no coverage in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am sorry to have miss lead into the idea that kids are running this project. The school is a well known academy in preforming arts that have facilities of grate interest with a professional recording studio, high quality editing graphic software and other facilities has agreed to let Jake Mason Productions base the pre-production British Family in the rooms of H13-H15 as well as the recording studio.User:Timwilliam20 — Timwilliam20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above other deletes. Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete A show that a local performing arts school plans to pitch to a studio? We would need the biggest crystal ball in history to foresee the notability of this project. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time it is not made by the school, Jake Mason Productions are renting the rooms h13-h15 and recording studio— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwilliams20 (talk • contribs)

that still doesn't make it notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)*[reply]

The page is notable as the project has started and it will be aired in 2015 but the production will move to FOX for the second half of season 1 if they win the pitch— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwilliams20 (talk • contribs)
Keep the page it is notable I have heard about the show as I live in somerset and I have even done some editing on the aritcal user: Samdepp5— Samdepp5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep this article is notable user: ronnutt

Blocked as a sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all the above, including WP:TOOSOON. — ^Wylie_Coyote 00:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I would also like to add recently created Jake Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)to the AfD (the planned director of the planned film). Travelbird (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jake Mason doesn't need AfD consideration at this point; it has been speedied repeatedly, and is now salted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the above. However, if the series does (though it almost definitely won't) get through to Fox then it would be notable. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was tempted to {{speedy}} delete, for which the article clearly qualifies, but as this page has so many posts will let it run.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the original nominator I was going to speedy it, but it doesn't really fit any of the criteria. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Too soon, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It can have an article when - if ever - it exists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghaffar Naqshbandi

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. The person's notablity is very much under doubt. From the article, it definitely looks like the article is created only by his follower, and is not more significant except the fact he was influenced by xyz, and influenced abc, both of whom again have questionable notablity. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about followership or contribution to jurisprudence, in article or elsewhere.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Cuaresma

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, despite what the page creator put of a Filipino footballer playing for Laos at the 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup. This player has yet to make international debut or play in a fully pro league. Also fails WP:GNG. Mas y mas (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your problem with the article that the creator accidentially wrote Laotian instead of Philippine football team or do you question the notability of this particular sportsperson as such? Normally people that play for a national team on an international level are accepted as notable, and as far s I can gather the 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup is part of the FIFA franchise. Travelbird (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This player has yet to make a full international appearance, let alone play at the 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup and also does not play in a fully pro league and therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mas y mas (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the game stats is does seem that he has not played. Do you know whether he is actually part of the lineup for the tournament? If so, we might hold off on the deletion until the tournament is over (just to avoid having to re-create it again, if he does play). Travelbird (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's the backup goalkeeper. Looks highly unlikely that he'll play. Mas y mas (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Not listed at FIFA or NFT - can be re-created if/when he makes his international debut. Giant Snowman 14:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - as he hasn't played yet for either the Azkals or at the UFL he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. No prejudice against recreation once he goes pro. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although he'd surely not play for the national team anytime soon barring a massive injury to the first choice keeper, he's the starting keeper for the Loyola Meralco Sparks F.C., but the UFL isn't a fully-professional league as most players have day jobs. Ergo, it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. –H T D 14:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the UFL is still the de-facto premier league of Filipino football, isn't it? It's still the highest level of football in the Philippines, right? Honestly, I thought that the UFL was already fully professional. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is de facto the top flight in the Philippines but it isn't fully professional. For example, the members of the Loyola side that participated in the 2012 Singapore Cup had to file leaves on their day (or night) jobs in order to participate (I dunno if Cuaresma was one of them). As cited in that article, there were even instances where players left at halftime to go to their day/night jobs. Could be more tragic for the armed forces sides if they're deployed to a war zone and can't participate in some key matches. –H T D 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, of course, depends on how you'd define "professional", much less "fully professional". There was a court case several years ago on whether the Philippine Basketball League (which billed itself as a "semi-professional" league) is a professional league; the court ruled that it is a professional league, which made it to be subjected to the regulation of the Games and Amusements Board (GAB). The GAB regulates professional sports in the country from the Philippine Basketball Association up to the likes of the URCC and professional boxing via issuing licenses to players. I dunno what's the status of the UFL vis a vis with the GAB, but I don't think it has anything to do with it as long as "fully professional" is concerned. –H T D 15:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league or for the Filipino national team. This means the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2012 (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. Unless I've missed one, it's not clear to me that sources really cover this as a class, rather than as individual examples (which is perhaps a pedantic distinction, but perhaps not). That said, the argument that it's a non-encyclopaedic cross categorization falls flat on its face; the nationality of players on a national team is not a random category, List of footballers born in Scotland who prefer dark lagers over light lagers this is not. So, policy wise both positions are fairly weak. Augmenting that, the headcount is about tied. I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Wily D 07:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers born in Scotland who have played for an international team other than Scotland

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

I wish I was nominating just for the ridiculous title, but I'm not - there is recent consensus at another AfD that these kind of articles are non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:N. Examples, [5], [6], [7]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid list of people (the members of the list meet WP:N) that is in a category of (many) similar lists. I also think the title is hilarious, but it does describe the list. Richigi (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like many lists that clutter WP, this adds nothing to the individual bios where the meat is. No discussion of what country of birth had to do with career, either; not that one could seriously be had.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:39, 2 Deecember 2012 (UTC)
Keep

WP:TLDR - but if you're arguing that the consensus in the related, recent AfD carries no weight then you're wrong. Giant Snowman 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again - TLDR. Please can you be more consise? Giant Snowman 12:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (I have redacted the lengthier previous discussion that you didn't read.)

1. This is an interesting, non-trivial, reasonably referenced article that adds to what individual bios provide.
2. Although this type of article may not be some people's cup of tea, it would be missed by others. Wikipedia serves different types of reader.
3. The nominator cites two "analogous" AfDs, but doesn't point up relevant dissimilaries to this article: one was unreferenced, and the other was a project of disproportionate scope. I have read these AfD decisions carefully. While there was consensus for deleting these specific articles, no properly explicit discussion arrived at a consensus that "all Wikipedia articles with this format are trivial." These articles were ultimately deleted on their individual merits. Some language in the AfDs may have led to an understandable perception that the class of article was trivial but that perception is nonetheless a mischaracterizing over-generalization.
4. In short, I strongly disagree that a formal policy emerged in these AfDs. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another example, several Scottish born players inducted into the US Soccer hall of fame [8] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia, adds nothing to Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A whole article in a national newspaper yesterday based on this subject [9]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid, sourced, reasonably-sized list. The Steve 09:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would prefer had more prose and list tidied up, however i believe that Per J Morrison there is enough notability on the subject and could be improved. Blethering Scot 23:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list even has reliable verifiable references. IJA (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd Keep - just seems like an inverse one of these: List of England international footballers born outside of England. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that the equivalent article about the world's foremost footballing nation was deleted with comments such as "trivial" and "notability implausible" without anyone even giving any evidence of having looked for sources, but this one about what has become in recent decades a very minor force in world football attracts so many defenders. The blatant bias in our coverage of football appears to be continuing. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly grant you that that other article may or may not have gone through a perfect AfD. But Wikipedia is not irreversible, for example if new evidence of notability comes before us all. You and the nominator appear to prefer to have the two articles dealt with as a general class: you both point to their similarities. But you seem to potentially be on different sides of the keep / delete debate. The nominator is arguing for deletion of all similar articles based on TYPE of article, you for bias if one is kept and the other not. BUT one current dissimilarity to that other article is the claim in its AfD write up that it was unreferenced. This article is, and that is relevant from a Wikipedia viewpoint. Now as to whether a proper literature search was not done in behalf of the other article, I would share with the results of my preliminary research which is that you are in fact correct: there is at least one very pertinent good WP:RS that should have been considered. But it wasn't, and you do show in the AfD log. So complaints of bias may be going a little too far. As such, it would be preferable to step back and deal with both articles separately and in a Wikipedian way. That said, so as far as that other article goes some eventual energy in getting it going again may be in order if 1. the correct procedure here (without finger-pointing and bias-mongering) highlights that the class of article is NOT trivial (as some contend, which is their right as an opinion, and one which I do not share at all) and 2. the Brazil article is drafted and referenced and submitted with that relevant fact presented for community review. Sorry if this is long, and also apologies if it seems to be criticising you (or indeed anyone), which is NOT my intention. This whole thing is a potential fiasco, and could have been shut down with a good WP:RS in the Brazil article. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced, interesting, an ongoing subject of discussion in national newspapers. Can't see what the problem is save an unreasonable assumption that the logic applied to a similar but unreferenced article should be used here too. Ben Mac Dui 09:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the reason given by most people in the Brazil deletion discussion was not that it was unreferenced, which could easily have been fixed by copying references from the individual players' articles, but that such a topic is inherently too trivial for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a great deal about Brazil. Perhaps the subject is treated less seriously there. Perhaps, as your first post above is hinting at, there are simply fewer en-Wiki editors with a genuine interest in Brazil to defend the cultural position of that nation. Perhaps this is what you meant by "blatant bias". Ben Mac Dui 20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that many editors dismiss articles about not-British footballing topics as inherently trivial, and claim that notability is implausible, so call for deletion without any attempt to find sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Anglospherism (which in football terms means dismissal of every other serious football nation) is the single biggest problem of English football culture and a very serious problem on the English Wikipedia generally. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the problem in English football culture generally, but the specific problem on Wikipedia is British rather than English, as Scotland gets the same favourable consideration, which is denied to other nations (except maybe Wales and Northern Ireland), as England. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Phil Bridger: I acknowledge the points you are making and the useful dialog that has resulted. I am not canvassing you in either direction, but this is a friendly indication that I don't see that you have exercised your prerogative of explicitly declaring for keep / delete in respect of this specific article yet.FeatherPluma (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REname to List of Scottish-born footballers who have played for other countries: Still a mouthful but slightly more succinct. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phil and GiantSnowman, if we developed consensus on many of these lists before including Brazil, why make an exception for Scottish footballers. Secret ^account 00:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was one of those who participated in the deletion-discussion on the Brazilian equivalent, and I stand by what I said there: "The Scottish list should be deleted too". I believe these kind of list are those that are mentioned in WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7: Wikipedia-articles are not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations such as..." Mentoz86 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above. WP:NOT expressly prohibits this type of article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 states that "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" -- I would suggest that the fact there is repeated coverage of this issue in reliable sources suggests it is a "culturally significant phenomenon". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Jmorrison230582 implies, the example given in the "express prohibition" text at WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 appears to be crafted so as to be irrefutably trite. Judge for yourselves whether this list is that "culturally insignificant." I favor the rename suggestion of Peterkingiron. Very interested to see how this AfD emerges, but reckon I'll disengage as I've given my opinion already. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument per WP:NOTDIRECTORY mentioned above is convincing. I don't see how this particular intersection of personal characteristics is a culturally significant (read: notable) topic. To establish that, we'd need a source discussing this issue as such (i.e., the issue of Scots playing for non-Scottish national teams), and no such source is cited in the article as far as I can tell. Sandstein 12:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too unspecific, to put it simply Mikeo34 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2012 (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 Baltimore Orioles minor league players. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Clark

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

Not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Career minor leaguer ...William 11:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. He had a great year in the minor leagues last year, so it would not be surprising if he earned a major league call up in 2012. If not keep, then merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Alex (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Try WP:CRYSTALBALL. At almost 30 years of age, he is past prospect stage. Look, he was on the 40 man roster before last year began and still didn't make the show....William 15:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. He was added to the 40 man roster on 10-31-2012. The date Reflinks provided is incorrect. Please open the links to sources to confirm in the future. [10] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. He is currently on the 40 man roster (added after the season not last year) so he might make the show this year. Not notable enough for his own page but the minor league player pages were made for guys like this. Spanneraol (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players per Spanneraol.--Yankees10 17:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spanneraol. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the established policy of WikiProject Baseball to create list articles for "semi-notable" minor league baseball players by affiliated farm system, and without prejudice to delete later if subject's notability for a standalone article is not fully established per WP:NBASEBALL or WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the article's creator, so I'll abstain from voting, other than to say that I thought the coverage was sufficient for GNG before I created it, but a merge would not be the worst solution in the world. I imagine he'll receive his first MLB promotion in 2013 and have his page restored by the summer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cochran (baseball)

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

Not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Career minor leaguer

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC) ...William 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep But I'm not too sure how to handle phantom ballplayers. Alex (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's sourcing, we keep under GNG. If there's not, we delete for failing to meet GNG. They get no presumption of notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Yankees10 17:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for nomimation. Stat sites confirm that he's not a phantom player but the subject has yet to pitch a single inning of MLB baseball. He is in the Phillies AAA minor league but not on their 40-man MLB roster.Blue Riband► 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, he was a phantom ballplayer since he was called up to the major leagues but didn't play in any big league games. Alex (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in the Majors. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual analysis for non-notable minor league baseball player . . . no presumption of notability per WP:NBASEBALL because he's never played a MLB game, and media coverage of his minor league career has not generated sufficient depth of independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. We do not extend a presumption of notability under WP:NBASEBALL based on a player being listed on a MLB team's 40-man roster; must have appeared in an actual regular season MLB game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to establish GNG. Those indicating delete for not playing in MLB are missing the point slightly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2012 (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. This discussion is a classic example of why we need a stable notability guideline for businessmen. Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mastro

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT Not encyclopedic, just a run of the mill news story. If Michael Mastro had been notable in his own right, this would rate a mention on his article. But there is nothing to warrant a separate article. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background (by article creator) This article started its life as The Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro. It was moved to "Michael Mastro" by an editor who replaced the stub template and plastered the article with several "multiple issues" tags. The article’s new name does not represent the contents of the article, but since I am not endowed with article-moving rights on Wikipedia, I was not able to revert this move - and had to ask this editor to revert his move. Instead of reverting the move a discussion has been initiated on the talkpage. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill news story no matter what the page is titled. Nowhere near the level of notability required for an article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and also because WP:NOT#NEWS. §FreeRangeFrog 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I moved the page after that I "replaced the stub template and plastered the article with several "multiple issues" tags", yes it was me. I questioned all along whether someone should have a separate article about something that happened to them without actually having a biographical article behind it. So that was the basis of the move. After reading some of the discussion on the talk page I may have been wrong, still doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, so I was getting close to wiping my hands of the situation and reverting the move and letting someone else do whatever they wanted (discussion would be moot if the belligerent pulled out, wouldn't it?). But now the article has been nominated for deletion (by someone else I might add), I agree that the article fails to meet WP:BIO and should be deleted. If the person was notable for being a "real estate developer who was in business for forty years managing apartments and midsize office parks in Seattle" then they would be worthy of the article. -- Patchy1 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

without actually having a biographical article behind it -- Don't tell us you still haven't understood WP:BLP1E. There are many articles about notable single events involving otherwise non-notable people. Some of those articles have made it to featured status.

The articles (as you correctly say) are about the events, not the non-notable people who had a part to play in those events. If Mastro had been involved in the moon landings he could be mentioned in an article about the moon landings without necessarily meriting a stand-alone article on himself. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I presume you support the move request? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that was the basis of the move. -- In other words, your move had no basis.

If the person was notable for being a "real estate developer who was in business for forty years managing apartments and midsize office parks in Seattle" then they would be worthy of the article. -- Again, WP:BLP1E. Ian Tomlinson as a person is clearly not notable; but the circumstances of his death clearly are. You are "arguing" in full ignorance of Wikipedia policy and encyclopedic best practice. --87.78.237.22 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the title of that article refers to the event (a person's death in questionable circumstances which resulted in massive media coverage and a trial). It's not about the person himself. Tomlinson was not notable as a person before that event, and he is not notable now as a person, because he has done nothing notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request to move the article to Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:BLP1E. He is not a notable person, so his bankruptcy and extradition are not notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. Ian Tomlinson was not a notable person. The circumstances of his death are clearly notable though. The person and the events surrounding them are distinct topics. Michael Mastro may not be notable, but that does not automatically mean that the events surrounding him are not notable either. One plus one equals two. I don't know how this could be explained any clearer. Unless you are deliberately refusing to understand this, you should now know the difference. I hope. --78.35.240.67 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You Wikipedia editors are so full of yourselves and self-centered. I was reading an article about Mastro in the local (Seattle) paper and decided to learn more from Wikipedia. I landed on this entry and discovered the article is set for deletion for some typical BS rules as interpreted by self-absorbed editors. What a disaster Wikipedia has become. Thankfully you don't get paid for for being completely detached from the millions of potential Wikipedia users who expect something other than editorial self-aggrandizement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable contributions to this discussion, Wikipedia needs more helpful people like you to make it better! -- Patchy1 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE, WP:NPA. --87.78.237.22 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How cute. You come in here acting like you know everything and get called on the carpet for your silliness. So of course, your response is throw a bunch of policies in our face. Well, here's something for you: That no personal attacks policy also applies to your claims that "You Wikipedia editors are so full of yourselves and self-centered." As another IP said below, to the wrong person I might add, "Just refrain from personal attacks and that's that." AutomaticStrikeout 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a tech-savvy internet user, I presume you're aware of services like WhoisIP, right? So why don't you first check 98.237.200.212 against 87.78.237.22 (e.g. using cqcounter.com/whois) before jumping to demonstrably false conclusions? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does that service have to do with anything? I don't need to be tech-savvy to see that you have a very confrontational tone and you don't seem to realize that your original post was a very wide-spread personal attack that assumed bad faith on the part of quite a few people. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 15:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using that tool would show you that 98.237.200.212 and 87.78.237.22 (the latter being me) are different people, as one IP traces to the United States and the other to Germany. The original comment which you complain about is not mine. I merely warned Patchy1 against violating BITE and NPA. --78.35.240.67 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now see what you are saying. Yes, I made a bad assumption and for that I apologize. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are not a tech-savvy internet user, because you havn't figured out how to log in, which is obviously simpler than anyone else going to the trouble of tracking your IP. (oh by the way that wasn't a personal attack, just an observation). -- Patchy1 08:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm feeding the trolls here, but just for accuracy's sake, let me pile on a well-deserved warning against assuming bad faith. You assumed, when you not only had no reason to do so but the immediate option to test and falsify that hypothesis, that the original IP commenter and me (the guy who warned you) are the same person. --78.35.240.67 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we goofed. Still, given that you were the one to bring up the personal attack policy, why are you calling us trolls? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes thank you for underscoring just how clever all you self important editors really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.238.3 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content not at all relevant to the discussion regarding the article. -- Patchy1 04:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, buddy. You can not just strike comments willy-nilly. You are welcome to retract your personal attacks and hope that the other IP responds in kind. Do not do this again. Just refrain from personal attacks and that's that. --213.168.89.157 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice buddy. AutomaticStrikeout 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, respectfully whatever. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be thankful he did not completely erase it Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as run-of-the-mill news story with no lasting impact or notability -- regardless of the move request: Neither Mastro nor the story surrounding him are notable. The low level of participation in this AfD alone guarantees that the article would forever sit there without substantial improvements. The little media buzz is over and new info will at best trickle in and more likely stop completely. --87.79.96.143 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realize that my comments will continue to be ignored because:
- I am a nobody at Wikpedia whose article-moving-rights have been stripped
- I am this article's "creator"

However I would still like to have my say just in case some time in the future sense will start to prevail.

There are three criteria used as justification in this deletion nomination:

As far as notability is concerned this article which is about the "biggest bankruptcy case in the history of Washington state" relies on NINE independent reliable secondary sources and dozens of references - can someone please explain to me once more how this fails wp:notable?
The second and third criteria are not applicable in this case since this article is NOT a biography. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and I would like to know why this is not a biography? AutomaticStrikeout 19:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- @AutomaticStrikeout, It is its probably against wiki-etiquette for me to answer your question, but since no one else did, here it is: Your question leads me to believe that you have not noticed the Background (by article creator) and the associated link provided earlier in this discussion. Am I right? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't see how this is not a biography. It's an article about a person, isn't it? AutomaticStrikeout 19:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please actually read the move request section at the article talk page. It happens to be very pertinent to your point. The request is to move the article to Bankruptcy and extradition of Michael Mastro along the lines of other BIO1E articles like Death of Ian Tomlinson. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The death of Ian Tomlinson was a major event, resulting in massive news coverage, resignations, a trial of a serving police officer, changes in how the police operate etc. etc. This is basically a run-of-the-mill news event that will be forgotten as soon as the news coverage peters out. Mastro is not notable, and his bankruptcy is not notable according to Wikipedia policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is relatively unknown. certainly not notable. Fails WP:BIO PS:I'm a nobody too, without article-moving rights. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Buggie111 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - to something relating to the WP:EVENT rather than the person. There are plenty of WP articles about events, rather than the individuals involved. If people contend that it is the event that is notable, rather that the person, then there might be a case for an event-related article, provided the reliable sources are there to back it up. Without WP:OTHERSTUFFING this too much, please see Conrad Murray and Trial of Conrad Murray as an example. The person doesn't have to be individually notable for the event itself to be notable. But if there's no appetite for an event-related article, this biographical article should be deleted (per AutomaticStrikeout above). Stalwart111 00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this person is the central character in the bankruptcy, it makes sense for the article to be named after the person rather than attempting to make it an article about a news event. Either way, WP:BLP applies just as much, and all statements about living persons need to be sourced. This is a keep for me because there is plenty of information out there to write an article, and certainly to meet WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is at least a notable event with reliable sourcing. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind of my point - this is a fairly classic case of WP:BLP1E - the subject is notable because of the one event. He would otherwise be non-notable. But there seems to be no particular reason why we can't have an article about that one event. Stalwart111 02:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:BIO1E applies more - particularly the paragraph about the person having a major role in a minor event. There is no reason an article that describes the more general events related to the person, cannot bear the name of that person. In any case, that is a discussion for the article talk page and another move discussion and should not have any bearing on whether the article is kept/deleted. Based on your response, can you consider updating your delete !vote above? VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get entirely where you're coming from. BIO1E, though, says, "Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident", which is what I advocated above and is the basis of the Conrad Murray example I gave. My second point, though, was that if people contend that even the event is non-notable (given it is just one of dozens of extradition cases each year which result from various marginally notable crimes) then deleting this article without creating / redirecting / renaming would be fine by me. But I also have no particular objection to such an article (title) being created if others believe otherwise. I suppose it probably shouldn't have been moved in the first place... Stalwart111 02:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Notable event that shouldn't have been turned into a biography. A good example of why, except in obvious straightforward cases, page moves without prior discussion should be quickly reverted. This AfD was unnecessary and pointless; sadly there's a faction of users who find the best way to build the encyclopedia is to go around looking for things to delete. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to build a quality encyclopedia is to delete articles that do not meet the community's guidelines and policies. Even as an "event", this is non-notable. Thousands of people go bankrupt and commit fraud every day. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the best way to build a quality encyclopedia, and yes, as an event it is notable. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your comments to be taken seriously, please assume good faith and explain how it is notable based on Wikipedia policies. Just saying "It's notable" isn't enough. Where is the sustained and ongoing coverage in multiple sources, for example? If Wikipedia is full of dross it ceases to be a quality encyclopedia. That's why we have guidelines and policies. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woof. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry the Dog, in regards to the "sustained and ongoing coverage in multiple sources" I have already addressed this on Nov 23. Did you see my comment? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustained and ongoing? There has been a blip of media coverage following his arrest (which you picked up on to create the article). A Google search turns up less than a page and a half of news all dating from the beginning to the middle of the month (some of them blogs) and relating to his arrest. This is three years after the main event. It wasn't notable then and it isn't notable now. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry the Dog, This story(the biggest bankruptcy in the history of Washington State) has been covered at least since 2010 by publications such as the WSJ and at least eight others. What does it take to be considered "Sustained and ongoing"?

Compare the Google hits on Ian Tomlison vs Michael Mastro and you will see the difference. Massive coverage of the Tomlinson story. Pages of results. For Mastro I find mainly blogs (including the WSJ) but no sustained and and ongoing coverage of Mastro or his bankruptcy in mainstream media. A few blogs and the odd newspaper article (none of which confirm the claims about it being the biggest bankruptcy, certainly not in terms of the amount of money unsecured creditors are left owed) do not constitute sustained and ongoing coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of people go bankrupt and commit fraud every day. Can you rephrase this in the context of policy and/or notability guidelines? I see you reference three guidelines in your nomination, but they seem rather speciously selected considering the subject appears to meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that he does meet either of those guidelines. If he did, there would be coverage of all his notable achievements easily found. But he has not achieved anything notable more than any other run-of-the-mill businessman who made a fortune in the good times and lost it when the economy tanked. I have searched high and low for articles called "The bankruptcy of..." and cannot find any. Going bankrupt is not in and of itself notable. Bankruptcies are mentioned in the articles of notable people, but not as separate events for non-notable people. If sources can be found that show Mastro is notable beyond this one thing (which is not in and of itself notable) then by all means he should have an article, and his bankruptcy should be mentioned in it. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where "notable achievements" are listed as criteria at WP:BASIC or WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look beyond the basic policies which I did quote in my nom (WP:NOTABLE. In this case, you have to look at events. Clearly Mastro's bankruptcy fails that. And if he is not notable for that, what is he notable for? The policies presuppose that the subject of the article must be notable for something (good or bad), achievements in shorthand. This is a classic example of someone who is temporarily in the news for nothing notable at all, and who isn't otherwise notable.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry the Dirty Dog (talk • contribs)

This bankruptcy involved a default on over $600 million in debt, so WP:MILL related arguments are not a slam-dunk. Coverage has continued for years, and it is a remarkable stretch to refer to it as a singular event, let alone a "classic" example of temporary coverage. WP:N that you link immediately above includes the general notability guideline, which in my opinion this subject unequivocally meets. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of bankruptcies involve far more money than that. The coverage which caused this article to be created is definitely temporary. Or else it would have been created three years ago. This will fade from public view as most other bankruptcies do, unless they involve notable people. WP:GNG is the bare minimum. That just saves the article from speedy deletion. Beyond that you have to look at [[WP:GNG] in the context of other policies to determine whether it is really notable. Just meeting the basic requirements is not enough. If it fails other policies, it fails WP:NOTABLE. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a novel opinion, but it is not supported by policy, WP:SPEEDY, or the notability guidelines. Loads of bankruptcies involve far more money than that. Ok, name five personal bankruptcies involving larger defaults. VQuakr (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not novel at all. Google the bankruptcy records for yourself. La Toya Jackson is one. There were 1.5 million personal bankruptcies in the US in 2009. You'll find that either those bankrupts are notable people and the bankruptcy is mentioned in their article, or they aren't notable and there is no Wikipedia article called "The Bankruptcy of X". The amount of the bankruptcy is irrelevant. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not novel at all. This isn't an argument, it's contradiction. Where, in our policies or guidelines, do you find the material that leads you to believe that the GNG is an invalid "keep" rationale or has anything to do with speedy deletion? Jackson's bankruptcy was over a sum about 1/900th as large as that of the subject here, and Mastro's press coverage has been continuous for years and been far deeper than a routine "so and so filed for bankruptcy." VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not novel because GNG doesn't guarantee inclusion. An assertion of notability under GNG is enough to save an article from a speedy but if it still fails other policies it can still be deleted after discussion. That's the whole point of AfDs. As to the amount, I have read that unsecured creditors will be left owed about $250 million - by far not the biggest amount in history. If reliable sources exist to show that it is the biggest bankruptcy in history then Mastro might well be notable as history's biggest individual bankrupt. But I am not seeing that. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The best way to build a quality encyclopedia is to delete articles that do not meet the community's guidelines and policies." At worst this is a borderline case. The event has had coverage in reliable news sources. Most bankruptcy and fraud cases don't. Besides that, how exactly is the encyclopedia improved at all by deleting such articles, much less is it the "best way" to improve it? You, I and every other WP user will never, ever see the vast, vast majority of all WP articles. What difference does it make if some of those don't meet the community's guidelines and policies? Much more important, it seems to me, is that information is there for those who are looking for it. And someone could look for information about this case. So what harm is there in leaving it? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When we come across such articles we should take what action is needed (improve them, merge them, nominate them for deletion or whatever). This is especially true for borderline BLPs. In this case I decided to seek a community view on deletion because I didn't think it could be improved since I see nothing else that makes Mastro notable. It's well sourced, but at the moment these are only allegations. He is a bankrupt but he hasn't been convicted of anything. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. How is WP harmed by the continued existence of this article? How is WP improved by its deletion? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the issue. WP has polices and either articles meet them or they don't. Articles that are questionable are nominated for deletion and the community decides by consensus. The policies are there to ensure that WP remains a quality resource. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made it the issue by contending that deleting such articles is the "best way" to improves the quality of the encyclopedia. How is the quality of WP improved by deleting articles like this one? Or are you backing away from that assertion? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. An encyclopedia can have loads of quality articles but if it is also full of dross, it pulls the whole quality of the enterprise down. That is why we have policies for inclusion. It's not a free for all. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. The best way to improve the quality of an otherwise sound chain is to get rid of that link. If an article doesn't meet those policies it should go. I was explaining why I nominated it for the community to decide by consensus. The only issue here is whether the article meets the policies for inclusion. The rest is distraction. I do not see how either Mastro or his bankruptcy are notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is a poor reason for keeping any article. The particular line of discussion is unlikely to be productive and I respectfully suggest it be dropped. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully disagree. Any article with potentially useful information that is not harmful is an excellent reason to keep. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry the Dirty Dog, the basis of your position seems to be, "An encyclopedia can have loads of quality articles but if it is also full of dross, it pulls the whole quality of the enterprise down." Putting aside the question of whether this article qualifies as dross, please explain how articles that are dross "pulls the whole quality of the enterprise down".

I maintain that if WP was frozen as is, but then hundreds or even thousands of dross articles were added, the overall quality would not be lowered, because all of the useful information would still be there. Everyone would still get just as much utility out of WP with or without those dross articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Born2cycle... not unlike comments from Wikipedia's own founder:

"'I hope someone will create lots of articles about famous dresses,' Wales wrote. 'Our systemic bias caused by being a predominantly male geek community is worth some reflection in this contest. We have nearly 90 articles about Linux distributions… I think we can have an article about this dress. We should have articles about 100 famous dresses.' Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales" ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I want to formally object to this entire process, since it was started while another discussion about the article (changing its title), was underway. Especially since the current title is the apparent most likely reason many are supporting deletion. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Article has the wrong name" is not a valid reason for deletion, but I do not see where in the discussion that appears to have been a major factor in editors' !votes. I personally think this article should continue be named as a biography per the fourth paragraph of BIO1E, but I seem to be alone in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to original page, and file another AFD if it still doesn't seem to pass muster there. There seems to be enough news coverage of this event to meet our notability standards, even if some people here find it relatively uninteresting. This definitely should not have been turned into a biography; bad decision by ~~whoever's responsible for that~~ Patchy. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not alone, I myself live in Seattle and have been fascinated by the Mastro story as it has emerged, and am dumbfounded by the all-knowing Wikipedia editors living in who knows what parts of the world that don't think this rates as worth the obviously limited ink available on Wikipedia. Whatever - I don't have a dog in this fight but it certainly does make me question the value of Wikipedia as a credible source. As I've said before, I came here seeking more information about Mastro after reading a yet another news update on the case, and was startled to see on this page that so many Wikipedia editors think it's a non-event. They also appear to have an extraordinary amount of time on their hands - which is amusing in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that when you sarcastically say things like "the all-knowing Wikipedia editors living in who knows what parts of the world", you instantly diminish your credibility in this conversation. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the word "credibility" means? Townlake (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking that because you are curious or are you being sarcastic? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to refresh your understanding of the words, 'sarcastically' and 'sarcastic' because you are using them incorrectly. There is no 'sarcasm' in either of the comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.200.212 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are Townlake, you have no way of knowing if he was being sarcastic. Neither do I necessarily, that is why I was asking. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA Guys at least try to keep it civil. -- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It does appear to meet WP:GNG But only by the skin of its teeth --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take back my former keep reading the above and change it to a delete see WP:NOT#NEWS and it fails to meet WP:PERP & WP:BIO --Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Unfortuantely neither the article nor the first newspaper cited state the size of the bankruptcy and fraud. The entirety seems to be about whether jewellery worth $1.4M were or were not available to the creditors. Thius seems to me a very routine issue, which has been blown up in the press (at the request of the police), because he had become a fugitive. But for that, it would probably not merited more than a mention in the newspapers. WP:NOTNEWS. If the article is to remain at its present location, we need a full biography. If not, it should be moved back or deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (gas) @ 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment that the reliable sources are solely about jewelry or the extradition. For example coverage from 2009 discusses a bit of his background and the fact that he owed creditors over 600 million. An article in Forbes from 2011 also predates the extradition, though the author suggests that leaving the country is one of few options left to the subject. These are two examples out of many; coverage is not limited to the last few weeks or to local coverage from the Seattle area. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least for now. The content and sourcing are for a news story which should not exist as a separate article. It has been renamed to the name of the central character in the story, but there is not content to make it such, and, more importantly no sourcing to establish wp:notability for the individual. That doesn't preclude getting the sources required to wp:notability and creating an article later. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, I don't care where. The article title is irrelevant and easy to change. Easily meets the WP:GNG, our primary guideline, with in-depth articles in Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times, and many, many others. The Steve 09:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...and many, many others." Where? Google returns a page and a half of coverage, including several blogs (of which the WSJ is one). Articles that meet GNG can still be deleted if they fall down at other hurdles, which I believe this one does. Otherwise every event that was covered in enough blogs to fill a page and a half of Google results would be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The Associated Press, several articles, The Seatle Post-Intelligencer, 10+ articles, including many mentions before the "event", The Stranger, Knight Ridder Trubune, several articles. Twenty-nine articles on "Mastro Properties" in reliable sources from 1999-2011, all relevant. Shall I go on? The Steve 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant sources showing why this bankruptcy is notable, as this article is all about that, and many of the "keep" comments refer to renaming or merging?. As I said before, if we have sources to show that Mastro himself is notable we can have a more detailed article on him as an individual rather than a sensationalistic article on the most recent event. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This particular Afd is about Michael Mastro, NOT the bankruptcy, and I think I've just demonstrated my Keep vote quite nicely, don't you? The bio needs some work, but there are 12 years of news stories for his background, including almost 50 from the Seattle Times alone. The Steve 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Mastro can be shown to be notable then a proper biography can be created. The creator originally created an article about the bankruptcy and he and many of his supporters are arguing it should be moved back to that title in a effort to keep it. As such, it is not notable and should be deleted, no matter what its title. Note that neither the author nor anyone else has used these past couple of weeks to improve the article in the ways you have suggested. If that had been done II would have withdrawn my nomination. If someone can make a case for Mastro's notability and wants to create an article that is more than just sensationalism, they can. There is plenty of precedent for articles being deleted and then recreated some time later when an article can be shown to be warranted. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown Mastro to be notable (see my sources, above). Making a "proper" biography will be done in the course of regular editing, building on the existing article. Deleting the article on Mastro will not improve it. I am willing to improve this article, and it is now on my watchlist, but I don't have the time to do it before this AFD is closed. The Steve 08:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis I will withdraw the nomination and wait for the improvements. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion the title should be irrelevant. It's absurd to decide to delete an article named A but keep the same article if it's renamed to B. That issue is for the (ongoing) RM discussion. The issue here is, or should be, about whether the content of the article is notable and sufficiently supported by reliable sources. If it needs to be improved, or the scope needs to change, that's worth noting too. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made a start on Mastro's personal history, but info is sparse, as he was only barely notable before the bankruptcy. However, he was interviewed for his property business (cites now added) and mentioned in local social reports. I also found some court records (added) for those interested in exactly how much he was in debt. Cheers! The Steve 05:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition For Change (civil rights organization)

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Even when the organization and its founder are mentioned, the actual topic of coverage is something else entirely, usually discrimination or a particular suit. The coverage doesn't amount to coverage substantially about this organization. Also, most sources I'm finding strike me as less than reliable (press releases, human interest) to support the magnitude of importance apparently claimed, especially in past versions of the article. For example, this rather promising CBS url leads to a piece authored by a "C4CFED." All that reliable sources indicate as far as WP:CORPDEPTH is this organization exists. This article was apparently created by the organization's founder, Wardjordan (talk · contribs). JFHJr (㊟) 07:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — As a side note, the organization hosts a list of names that was used to support WP:BLP-offending content: see here and here. It shouldn't bear directly on deletion, but it does give an indication of the encyclopedic value of the organization's own publications. JFHJr (㊟) 07:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this earlier, because having looked I could find no reliable third party sources. It was deprodded, but no real solid sources have been found.--Scott Mac 13:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (state) @ 11:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has zero or 1 wp:notability-suitable sources, depending on how you view that one story on that website. There is no coverage on the organization other than it's stated intentions and on the person that started it. The article also seems evasive on a wide range of areas.....this could be a one person "organization" from all that has(n't) been sourced and established in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2012 (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_Mayors_of_Wolverhampton#20th_Century. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Walton Hamp

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

Local politician, no indication of how he might meet WP:POLITICIAN RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local dignitary who served as mayor (which just means chairman of the borough council in Britain and isn't an executive position) for only a year. Not especially notable as a politician or as a doctor. Not honoured by the King. No entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having copious evidence of existence, but no in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless some one can find something notable about him, he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Merge into Wolverhampton - what is the sense of deleting information about a politician who died almost a hundred years ago which is well-referenced and very nicely presented? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (converse) @ 11:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To List_of_Mayors_of_Wolverhampton#20th_Century. There is no basis whatsoever under WP:GNG for this standalone bio. §FreeRangeFrog 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (voted above). "redirect" is undesirable, since it will leave an article on a NN person. Mayor in UK is an ofice that senior councillors take in turn. It merely points to long service as a councillor. "merge" into Wolverhampton is also inappropriate, as it will unbalance the article. However in effect that has already been done, since he appoears in the list of mayors. The real issue is that local councillors are NN, as they do not meet WP:POLITICIAN and unless notable for other reasons should not have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haight Ashbury Beat

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

site is dead, no other refs given. no indication of notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources, zero indication of wp:notability. Even the one external link is nothing as they appear to be out of existence. Might make a good two sentences in another article if it had sourcing. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web page for sale, presumably defunct; no visibility on news archives.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero relevant web hits; fails WP:NMEDIA for newspapers. §FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here... --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paying In Pain

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

no indication this has any notability, only ref is website, no significant google hits i can find. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Nothing there that would indicate rw notability either. Wording appears to be deceptive. Says that 20 issues have been printed to date, but they do not offer any printed edition or any printed anything. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article caims it's a magazine, but the website just says "Paying In Pain is a skateboard only link sharing site"... Whatever it may be, there are no sources establishing notability and there are even problems to verify the scant information present in the article. --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a magazine. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HeavensDust

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

This band appears to fail WP:GNG and may not quite meet enough criteria of WP:BAND. Several searches have not yielded coverage in reliable sources. Sources in the article are blogs, Myspace pages and commercial sites. Per the article, they have released albums on various record labels that appear to be of the lesser-known variety, (except for Domo Records, so the topic seems to meet criteria #5 of WP:BAND). Is this enough to demonstrate overall topic notability for a standalone article? Per WP:BAND, a topic "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" of WP:BAND. However, this does not guarantee topic notability, because the phrase "may be notable" is used, rather than "is notable". Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? I think that what's there just squeaks by. And my first guess is that there's more than what is in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are not reliable, and I didn't find anything better from Google/News/Books. --Michig (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just don't see the coverage. The current sources do not count as significant independent RS. According to Oricon, they have not charted in Japan. The claims about iTunes and Amazon rankings are not verified. I checked Japanese sites and the best I could do is find this one interview. There's just not enough now. Michitaro (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND for not gaining enough independent coverage or charting on Oricon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:29, 8 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Island Games

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The games are still about 9 years away. Ish dar ian 08:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Ish dar ian 08:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Far too soon. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Buggie111 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (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 both. Michig (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artspace 1%

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

This topic about an art gallery appears to fail WP:GNG. After source searching, only this source has been found, [11], which provides only sparse coverage. The topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Artmagazine 1%; not finding any coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, so it appears to fail WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This sounds like a good and interesting project in its time, but while I can find its traces in the CVs of those who exhibited there, I am not finding in-depth discussions of the initiative itself. So sadly, unless someone can find some better sources, it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Nothing to meet WP:GNG and the absence of sources even raises problems to verify. --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cold colours

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

This topic about an American heavy metal band fails WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Not finding any coverage after several searches, including those in GNews archives and Gbooks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Should have been A7'ed. §FreeRangeFrog 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom rationale. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete The content originally posted was vandalism, and since the only other contributed has brought the article to AfD, there is no reason for keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Fiesta Bowl

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

stub, original content was inappropriate and removed, but there will be a 2014 bowl. is this too soon? (this is not my area of expertise at all). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athena School of Management

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

Contested PROD with "This page should not be deleted as it is relevant information on an educational institute. While the institution may not have many of sources as it is a new institute, there are enough sources to qualify an entry on Wikipedia (refer to sources 4, 6, 7)". This is a promotional article for a business that fails to meet WP:ORG. §FreeRangeFrog 16:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all sources are either from the subject school, its commercial affiliates or from social networking sites. A long way from having enough "significant coverage" to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 03:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reference no. 6 is from an independent source - Australian Council for Private Education & Training (ACPET) - commenting on the tie up between Australian Vocational Training & Education Group (AVTEG) and Athena School of Management (ASM). Furthermore, this tie-up is important and notable as AVTEG is a partner with the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) (http://www.nsdcindia.org/) a non–for–profit public – private partnership set up by the Indian Ministry of Finance with an aim to skill or upskill 150 million Indians by 2022. Ajain001 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2012‎ (UTC)— Ajain001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(Note: I signed your comment for you - you can use ~~~~ to sign your comments) - the problem with the source you cite is that it isn't really significant coverage of the subject which we need per WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. It's a passing mention of the subject within an article about a connected organisation's event. Per WP:INHERIT, the subject does not gain notability because of an "important relationship". Whether or not another organisation (AVTEG or NSDC) might be notable doesn't really have an impact on this subject. We need significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources for it to be considered notable. If you have some sources that fit the bill, I'm sure people would be keen to consider them. Stalwart111 11:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable: "the first batch of Athena will commence from January 7, 2013". This means classes have not yet started. All actually existing degree granting universities are notable, but I can not find in any of their material that they will actually offer a degree--they refer only to their "post-gratuate programme" In the context of Indian higher education, this probably means that, so far from obtaining any type of accreditation or psudo-accreditation to offer a degree, they have not yet made arrangements for a degree to be given to those completing their course by some institution having some sort of authorization to do so.. As the School will not have any graduates until 2015, I suppose there is no actual need for degrees yet. What they need now is enough advertising to attract students. We're not the place for it.

I note, btw, that the article has 4 photographs, all of the very same building--and it is clear from their slideshow that they occupy only a small part of it. And their arrangement with AVTEG is for that consultancy to help them "develop" courses--AVTEG is not an educational institution, and is probably non-notable--NSDC probably is, but that's yet another step removed DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "This is a page about a bonafide institution giving valid education and degrees". An article in wiki should not be judged by whether the subject is new or old. It should be judged by whether it is relevant and reliable or not. The page gives accurate information about Athena. NO false claims are stated or made. The institution give degrees from Gulbarga University (which is a Govt. of India & UGC Accredited University).It is also partnering the Australian Institute of Management - Western Australia (AIMWA). Just because the first batch starts in January 2013 does not make it any less relevant. A school does not become relevant only once the students graduate from it. If that was the case then no secondary school would be relevant for at least 10 years! The page is a reliable source of information for people who may want to know more about the subject matter. That is the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Also as an institution gathers age and momentum it gets more and more coverage from citable sources. Information and knowledge are only as relevant as the people who crave them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.109.82 (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — 182.73.109.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Where is the Gulbarga University degree relationship verifiable: I don't see it mentioned on Athena's website? As User:DGG observed, the site seems rather shy of mentioning certification of Athena's forthcoming courses. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a startup without verifiable track record, in an industry where many more fail than survive even to first class graduation. More promotion than information in the article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a mile. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails every measure of WP:ORG. Richigi (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2012 (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 Damascus University. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Information Technology Engineering of Damascus University

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

This fails WP:GNG. I propose it because an educational organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which this department hasn't been. Note: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources (if any at all) is not sufficient to establish notability.

Proposal

Delete and merge it into Damascus University. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete and Merge' is not possible for licensing reasons(that makes the merged content copyvio). It should be either 'Merge and redirect' or 'Delete and redirect' or 'Delete' or 'Redirect'. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Anbu that is not impossible (it's complicated maybe), see this & WP:MAD. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But, why do you think those complicated methods are absolutely required in this case? --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges, though in this case the article largely consists of a list of undergraduate course topics which is not at all notable except for those doing the course/exams, so there is little to merge. AllyD (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - AfD is not the place for discussions about merger, which this appears to be. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was actually "delete and merge" on my end. I have corrected it. Mr T ^(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this faculty. Yazan (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The content is not worth merging. But, the title is worth redirecting. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Nobody would search for this. The generally accepted shorthand would be "Faculty of Information Technology Engineering, Damascus University". But nobody would search for that either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2012 (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Elliker

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

Very marginal notability--the best secondary source that actually talks about her, rather than just mention her as having (had) a job, is this--2,803 words from the Washington Post's society pages. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Found a few sources myself. [12] is a local source, but it only talks about her losing her job, [13] mentions the same subject but seems to be a very short story. However, whilst doing a little digging I found something much more interesting than her radio work - she appears to have worked on a number of games and films - [14] shows her as having worked on Elder Scrolls III and Fallout 3, and [15] Metacritic pulls up these games and Star Trek Conquest/Legacy as also involving her. I'm fairly confident she's notable, what I'm not so sure is, how notable is she in Wikipedia terms? She may possibly qualify under WP:ENT. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Multiple independently-published sources dealing substantially with the subject showing in footnotes. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolle Galyon

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

The subject participated in a reality television show for aspiring singers. Cut in the first round (of 20 vocalists), did not place, and was barely shown. Notability not established in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 14:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, ~~unreferenced WP:BLP.~~ Pburka (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete: fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BLP1E. All references refer only to her brief appearance as a contestant on a reality show and were published within a few weeks of each other. Lacks persistent coverage. Consider redirecting to The Voice (U.S. season 2). Pburka (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no Notability. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, and the rest of the above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to Sue, the subject passes WP:GNG. Whether she passes WP:BIO (which is basically GNG) or WP:MUSICBIO is irrelevant. Notability guidelines do not have an order of precedence. Any that are met are acceptable. Sources: [16][17][18][19] and [20]. Not sure that Sue even bothered to search for sources, Pburka's comment "unreferenced WP:BLP" judges the article rather than the subject, and although I greatly respect Cindy, I am not positive WP:BEFORE was followed when I've found five sources. I'll improve this article later.--v/r - TP 18:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the refs to the article.--v/r - TP 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, strong keep per WP:HOTTIE--v/r - TP 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - TParis, I understand that you have made more edits to the article than anyone else, and I understand your frustration here. But you must try to take a step back and look at the article in a neutral way. There simply isn't significant coverage of this person in reliable independent sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, what? I made edits to the article after leaving a !vote here. And your statement is wrong in the first place, Amiller98 (talk · contribs) has the highest edit count on that article. Did you look at the article history? It is generally considered appropriate at WP:AFD for those !voting to keep an article to improve it to address the issues of the delete !voters. Now, I've shown 5 sources with significant independent coverage. Please explain why they are not so. Have you even looked at the article and the sources? You've made a grave mistake in assuming I've come to a keep opinion by using means other than neutrality. I have no more connection to the article than you do. Feel free to change your argument to something with more factual accuracy and actual policy based reasoning. You're somewhere between ad hominem and contradiction on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.--v/r - T P 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First let me start by saying that you did a very good job in sourcing. You were able to dig up sources that nobody else, including me, could find. this was very good detective work, and I commend you for this. I am going to go through them and give my reasoning as to why I do not think they qualify. Please don't take the comments personally. I think you did a good job.

Nashville.com article, if anything, was damning, with the comment "Unfortunately it was not Galyon’s night last night. It could have been nerves or it could have been she was missing her piano which was a last-minute change to the performance...", this does not reinforce her notability.
The "taste of country" article was equally unimpressive, reading "“When you weren’t nervous you were so special,”... Gaylon said at that point she felt like she had gotten what she came for so she lost focus."
Hutchnews.com is a local Hutchington kansas concern. a single article there certainly does not denote notability.
"Digital Spy" is just an internet ad-mill that taps RSS feeds. Not Notable.
BuddyTV - The only source that seems (again in my humble opinon) to count is the BuddyTv source, which speaks of her work at The Voice. But is this it? All sorts of people worked at The Voice, how is she, in particular, notable? And to be perfectly honest, I have never even heard of BuddyTV until now.

None of this qualifies for WP:GNG which demands "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources". She was cut in the very first round. Perhaps as time goes on, this person will make a name for herself, but she simply hasn't been able to do that yet.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires that subjects be covered in articles, not that the articles speak highly of them. A quotation that suggests she was not on her game does not make a source any less of a source. Same for Taste of Country. Hutchnews, we've never declined a source because it is local. We only decline when all sources are local because they suggest local significance. Digital Spy: There is no evidence to suggest that article was an RSS feed. In fact, the "author" appears to have a page suggesting she wrote it instead of that it was pulled from an automatic RSS feed.

I think you are confused what "significant" means in the Wikipedia context. You seem to think it means "the article must be about a significant even" rather than "a significant portion of the article must be about the subject". WP:42 quite clearly explains "a cited reference must be about the subject – there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it." These sources meet the "significant" requirement as explained in WP:42.--v/r - T P 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points. But In my most humble opinion, these are simply all obscure references to a failed candidate. By this logic, every single candidate on that show could have their own article, as they certainly have all had similar coverage (If you want to call it that). I think that at the end of the day, when the smoke clears, the notability simply isn't there. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - references provided are not exactly encouraging.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a teen gazette.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am impressed by TParis' defense of this bio, but let's break it down to basics: This person is essentially a songwriter with modest success at it, certainly nothing that would put her past WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. She wrote two songs that made it into a single EP. That's simply not enough. Her participation in that TV show is irrelevant, since it confers even less notability. §FreeRangeFrog 20:28, 2 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yui Ogura

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

Disputed Prod, BLP sourced only to primary sources, finding difficulty in locating in depth coverage in reliable sources to establish GNG Nounique names 14:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is a complete unknown. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This could be linked to the AfD for Kaori Ishihara, since they are both in the same unit, but there are some articles on her apart from Ishihara. She seems to have appeared a number of times in the national sports papers, such as: [21], [22], [23]. The Japanese Wikipedia article for her has a lot of citations, but most are to blogs and non-independent sources. But one link was to a regional newspaper: [24]. I should note that there are articles about the unit as well: [25]. To say she is a "complete unknown" is simply not true. Michitaro (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NMUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, etc. etc. Qworty (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 14 results for "小倉唯" on Google News, 5 different sources ("おた☆スケ", "インフォシーク", "マイナビニュース", "アニメ！アニメ！", "サーチナニュース"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuganatsu (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not exactly sure how reliable the sources found by Hyganatsu are (they seem to be rather short). I did find some GNews hits, but they're about YuiKaori. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the main issue here is whether there is enough significant coverage or activity beyond YuiKaori (the notability of which, with all the Oricon charting, is not questioned) to justify a stand alone page. I searched Oricon and was confused at first because this seems to show nothing. But a second search showed that there is another page here that shows she has several charting singles, including a recent one that reached number 8. As I noted with the Kaori Ishihara AfD, according to WP:MUSICBIO, a musician "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria," one of which is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." A top-ten charting plus the articles on her as a voice actor ([26] [27]), as a tarento (the citations I gave above), or as a solo singer ([28]) should be enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Michitaro (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro's links. If a person's songs charted, and does get reliable sources, then he/she is notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have thought the voice acting alone was enough to justify her passing WP:Notable. She has had some fairly high profile roles (like in Quantam Hack), and presumably coverage in Japanese media that I can't access Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple major roles in anime, passes WP:ENTERTAINER per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2012 (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) —Theo polisme 07:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Inbari

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

Novelist who had one award of unknown notability. Lots of external links to his work, but no significant coverage by WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was nominated for deletion only moments after it was posted and before the more detailed link to Home (2009 novel), which I trust satisfies your criteria for notability, went up. Don't you think you were jumping the gun a little bit? See also the Hebrew Wikipedia page link on Inbari and his significance and press coverage. -- ColdNorthWind2 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - I saw the book and determined that it is very likely notable and not a problem. The problems with the author have been outlined below, and it is actually a common problem, so it didn't require hours of research. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is significant coverage in a reliable source, as is this, reaching the final five in the Sapir Prize for Literature doesn't seem something that would happen to a non-notable writer, and his work is cited by several other authors. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources are about the book not the author (make a few comments about the author but the articles are about the book which has its own article). Nomination for a major prize would be notable under WP:ANYBIO .. if it happened multiple times. He only had a single nomination. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:AUTHOR #3, a film was named after the book. Uncertain how much the film follows the book, but still influential of the film. The National Book Publishers Association of Israel is red-link, but it was established in 1939, so it's a venerable institution in Israel and I'm assuming it carries significance to receive the top(?) Platinum award, per WP:ANYBIO #1. Note to ColdNorthWind2: The "problem" (from the point of view of AfD) is the author is notable for one book, and that one book has been given a separate article, thus separating from the author the one thing he is notable for (notability is not inherited across articles). If the book article were to be merged into the author article, there would be no problem meeting notability as all those other sources would become part of the article.-- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "film" referenced by the Haaretz article is a 2-minute video clip that can be viewed at Oded Hirsch's website. Other than Hirsch also being from Afikim, the inclusion of this reference seems to me kind of pointless and serves to weaken the article on Home. I also think that Inbari's work in journalism and literary criticism is sufficiently strong enough to stand apart from his novel, and goes to notability. - ColdNorthWind2 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok struck the film as rationale. Also, unable to verify "Israel Book Publishers Association" Platinum prize is anything of note. I don't see any sources that show the author is notable outside the book, and since the author didn't win any major awards (per WP:ANYBIO) or meet other guidelines of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR (all of the sources are primarily about the book, not the author), and since notability of the book is not inherited by the author, per WP:INHERENT, it looks problematic. I'll abstain from voting for now until others have a chance to look at it and comment. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per a search for secondary sourcing, he fails WP:AUTHOR and his book fails WP:BK. Bear in mind WP:42. Qworty (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Home is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (Haaretz, NRG, etc.) if you - surprise! - search in Hebrew. Sapir finalist may also confer notability. Contrary to arguments that these make the book notable but not the author, general practice and guidelines indicate that the author of a notable book is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This author is well-known in Israel, has written widely discussed essays in Haaretz and Azure, and his book was a finalist for the Sapir Prize, which is like Israel's equivalent of the National Book Award, Man Booker, and Pulitzer all rolled into one. Nobody familiar with the Israeli literary scene would consider deleting the entry for a moment. If anything, the entry understates the subject's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.139.24 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — 84.228.139.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Home (2009 novel), which seems to meet Wikipedia's criteria better than the author does at this point. Most coverage is about the book, not about him, suggesting that he fails WP:AUTHOR. I also checked Google Scholar since he is also a teacher, but the results were not impressive. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly the author is well-known in Israel/Hebrew language sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR#4C, although I suppose there's room for interpretation, mainly whether or not this man's work is significant enough to get through the notability threshold. §FreeRangeFrog 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat marginal for the English wiki, but I'm an inclusionist. A case can be made for merging it with the book, but in that case I'd propose moving the book here rather than the other way around. Zero^talk 09:18, 7 December 2012 (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 after almost a month, defaulting to keep. Michig (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Daily

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

no indication that this was ever a notable paper. Perhaps it can become a redirect to The Daily News (Palo Alto), with any content merged, but im not sure if that paper is notable either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not only non-notable, it's non-verified; I could not find confirmation that a paper by this name even exists. The "official link" at the article goes nowhere. A Google search for San Francisco Daily Post finds the Palo Alto Daily Post instead. If a redirect is contemplated, it should be to the Palo Alto Daily Post, which has the same owners and the same address - not to The Daily News (Palo Alto) which has a different owner. At least the Palo Alto Daily Post has an independent reference or two. The Daily News (Palo Alto) seems to be entirely self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send to the Yellow Pages directory. No notability claimed or referenced. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The San Francisco Press Club source is not a reader blog, but apparently a reliable industry source. To my surprise, I see it was present when the article was nominated for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The San Francisco PENINSULA Press Club is not a newspaper or news source, but a "professional journalism organization serving the greater Bay Area". As an "organization" it may be reporting about one of its own members and thus not be independent. But even if that one reference (announcing the launch of the paper in 2006) is accepted, a single reference is not sufficient for notability. And the lack of any current references, or even a current Google page, suggests that the paper did not last long enough to become notable or significant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. A couple more references in reliable sources about this paper: in 2006 Editor & Publisher reported that "Free Daily Launches in San Francisco" (this source was cited in the original version of the Wikipedia article); and in 2008, when the New York Sun reported on the founding of the Palo Alto Daily Post, it mentioned that "Messrs. Pavelich and Price also own a small neighborhood daily in San Francisco." "Heresy in Silicon Valley: Traditional Newspaper Launches". Archive.org stored a number of copies of the official website for the SF Daily[29], mostly from about 2007-2008, such as this one [30], which uses the names Daily and Daily Post interchangeably. Later versions of the website don't seem to have any content, and it leaves one unclear about whether the San Francisco paper continued to exist beyond the founding of the Palo Alto paper. The 2010 New York Times article about the Palo Alto paper doesn't mention the San Francisco paper.[31] I conclude that the San Francisco paper was notable enough. I might be tempted to support a merge and redirect to Palo Alto Daily Post, given the interrelated ownership and history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The paper was real and existed, and had a high enough circulation to be notable. It's not just a blog. The article meets several notability standards such as WP:MAGAZINE and WP:NEWSPAPER --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but neither of those links is a notability standard - or even relevant to this discussion. The notability standard for a publication is WP:CORP or WP:GNG. We have not found any significant coverage; in fact all we've been able to confirm is that the paper existed, perhaps briefly. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another source (from HighBeam): in a December 3, 2007 piece, a Long Beach Press-Telegram columnist complimented the San Francisco Daily for obtaining and reporting the salaries of highly-paid public employees, viewing this as a significant victory for the public's "right to know" since the Palo Alto Daily News had failed in an effort, a few years earlier, to obtain similar information.[32] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per citations of Arxiloxos. Passes GNG, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough evidence that it's a reliable source. Unfortunately, RS's tend to report on the news, and not each other, a weakness of the GNG I've noticed before. The Steve 09:50, 4 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bell (KlickEx)

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

Fails WP:BASIC - none of the references are specifically about this person and searches for '"Robert Bell" "klickex"' turn up only the briefest or mentions in reliable sources: e.g. [33] [34]. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several of the "references" don't even mention Robert Bell, and none of them gives him more than brief mention. There seems to be no evidence anywhere of notability. (It is perhaps worth mentioning that the author of the article is a single purpose account that edits only on topics related to Robert Bell's businesses.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~ JamesBWatson: also contributed to broad ranges of articles on ocean racing, super yachts, banking, geographic locations - however, confirm: restricted to primary/specialist knowledge fields verified by secondary reports. 22:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete This person is a complete unknown. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider qualifies under WP:ANYBIO part 1 (National Award: New Zealand Hi-Tech Young Achiever of the Year 2012) - tension may exist under conflict of interest; notability query in a global field is likely valid. However, regional (New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji) notability can be considered. An unsolicited creation of the page led to the provision of primary/non-independent secondary population; entry pends thrid party clean-up.--SpyFX ✍ 20:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reliable source to show that the "New Zealand Hi-Tech Young Achiever of the Year 2012" is "well-known and significant"? Regardless, without sources providing in depth coverage of this person, we can't write an article. SmartSE (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm sure this Bio Subject doesn't give in-depth or personal interviews. Published articles would therefore be hear-say at best! 26th November 2012.

- concede that perhaps this article is premature; however - on the grounds of WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E - there is fair standing to give the article benefit of the doubt, particulary if a wiki-clean-up is effected, regarding focus exclusively on content from secondary sources.
- Will take a look at what I can find to support "well-known and significant". Thanks..! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyFX (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Best i can find is this university article (alumni magazine) [35] and a reference from an online newpaper of the awards results (the annual ICT industry awards in NZ) - [36]; an article from the Silicon Valley Forum [37] and a youtube clip of a TV show on local TV in California that he interviewed for: [38]] - although it's verbally referred to as "Derick Bell" - it's credited as "Robert Bell" - clearly of KlickEx.

Note: I'm actually surprised at how many people look at this page! [39] anyone know how to get more detailed info on uniquie visits, etc? Is it family of Robert or... what?!

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smacks of self-promotion, down to the "et al" after education (?!). Links do not support the claims, e.g. re emerging markets expertise. The touted business and technology are not practically notable either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow button

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

Article about trivial, non-notable topic. The only (invalid) references are web sites that have a follow button. I seem to remember a similarly named article that was deleted a few months ago. - Mr X 02:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but include the basic info in "Follow (social network)" if there is such an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and trivial. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial and already covered. Eeekster (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence or argument presented towards showing notability under the general or specialized notability guidelines j⚛e decker ^talk 07:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Creighton

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

Notability has yet to be established. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only 1 bout for a second tier organization, fails WP:NMMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poison Whiskey (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has no fights for a top tier MMA organization and clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three fights, none in the top-tier. Fails WP:N Luchuslu (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. Kevlar (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all above. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. If the article is substantially improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turnkey Web Design Business

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

Article consisting of what seems to be original research with no evidence of notability and no references. - Mr X 02:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent OR; delete per nom. dci | TALK 07:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, how-to advice article; not appropriate here. AllyD (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. New editor may not be aware of the need to verify the article claims through reliable sources and the need to substantiate corporate depth.Blue Riband► 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non encyclopedic. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian immigration to Mexico

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

Article about a non-notable subject, without any references. - Mr X 01:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, or important. The article gives us one fact: "According to the 2010 census, there were roughly 324 Haitian citizens living in Mexico." Besides there being no source for this, there is no way to know if these people are really immigrants or just people there temporarily. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and supremely non-notable topic. §FreeRangeFrog 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - odd, but it seems there should be a larger immigration. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The number seems especially dubious given this link in the article history which says "A group of 250 men, women and children arrived on Mexican shores over the weekend from earthquake-torn Haiti, bringing to 324 the total of Haitian citizens who have relocated to Mexico since the Jan. 12 disaster". Guettarda (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (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) —Theo polisme 08:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wong

AfDs for this article:

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

Due to the fact that the article has barely any information, a Wikipedia article on this person is not necessary. I am proposing deletion. -- SelfEx1led (talk)

Discussion page created on behalf of nominator. Proposed rationale copied from article talk page. KTC (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first AfD was a non-admin closure after a speedy for copyvio in 2005; the man meets WP:POLITICIAN. See for example this. §FreeRangeFrog 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Yes he's a politician - I understand that. But is he still active? I don't see how one sentence or two of information is grounds for having him on Wikipedia, unless there is more information available. I know a Google search pops up more search results, but the information currently on Wikipedia (after the copy-vio) regarding him is clearly inadequate. Unless someone wants to take the time to properly re-do his biography, keeping him on here is pointless, especially when it seems, historically, it has been left alone in this bare state for quite some time. Furthermore, the number of sources on the person right now is just one. In most cases, this would not be enough sources and would be nominated for deletion anyway.

SelfEx1led (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SelfEx, I'm striking our your "delete" comment since we are only allowed to "vote" once, and as nominator, your "delete" !vote is understood. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:POLITICIAN before nominating any more politicians for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As notability is not temporary, it doesn't matter if he is still active in politics. Being a stub is perfectly valid. Inclusion or otherwise is determined by the various notability guidelines along with other policies and guidelines, and not by the quality of the article. p.s. As nominator, you don't get a 2nd !vote, but expansion of your rational for deletion are of course welcome! -- KTC (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a former member of the legislature of British Columbia and a minister, Wong meets our notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN when I get a chance a bit later I'll see if I can add a little more to his bio. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep As a member of the provincial assembly he was automatically notable, and thus still is. Biographical information is available here: [40]. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2012 (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 Swissair. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindpearl

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

Contested PROD. My original concern was "Fails WP:CORP. I can't find any significant coverage of this company in any independent sources." I can't see any reason why that would have changed. SmartSE (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delele Company isn't notable. --Shorthate (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Out of date. Being a owned subsidiary of multiple significant notable airlines this does seem reasonable. I've spliced in the references that were suggested on the page deleter/restorer's talk page. This does have a significant way to go to being a good article, but IMO does pass the WP:CORP test. Hasteur (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, By clicking the "Find Sources" link I'm seeing at least 2 significant partnerships that are behind a Highbeam Pay Wall (If only we had someone with a highbeam acct to peek in and connect the references...) Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly an improvement, but I'm still not sure whether CORP is met. The first source is a copy of this press release so can't be considered independent. There are more sources out there but do any provide significant coverage? Can you link the highbeam articles? Someone at WP:REX can get hold of them, or I may be able to through factiva. Regarding it having been owned by other notable companies - that isn't relevant since notability is not inherited. SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before... As soon as I clicked the "Find Sources - news" link it was obvious how much broad based content there is. Has WP:BEFORE been tested since the AfD started? Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Alan Graham and I am one of the directors of the company. The discussion of whether or not to delete the article on Mindpearl has been brought to my attention. I have reviewed the current content and can see that there are many inaccuracies and missing pieces of information. I would like to address this and will begin to do so shortly. Thanks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 24 November 2012 (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) 01:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While there are several GNews items that mention the company, most seem to be republished press releases and routine news items in trade publications. I don't see the sort of coverage that would indicate an encyclopedia is appropriate. HighBeam doesn't bring back anything more susbstantial. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Swissair. I think the target article would be improved by a paragraph or two on their customer service. The Steve 10:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music (application)

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

Verging on an A7; I see no need for separate encyclopedia articles on these applications.

I am also nominating the following related article for deletion:

Delete I would recommend a redirect to the IOS article, but the titles for both articles are unlikely to be used or searched for that way. I say nuke'em. No need for two standalone arts that will be stubs for all eternity. §FreeRangeFrog 19:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — TORTOISE WRATH 17:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:47, 24 November 2012 (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) 01:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references apparent. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references. And the 2 sentence "content" says nothing useful.....doesn't even say 1 word on what this application is or does. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also the content on Videos (application), which was added only in response to its being listed as an A3. — TORTOISE WRATH 17:36, 2 December 2012 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repent Sinner

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

This topic about a graffiti street art campaign in Western Canada appears to fail WP:GNG. Source searching is not yielding significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I found this one dead link article: ([41]). Also, this custom search in Google News archive doesn't yield anything ([42]) and searches in Google Books are also not fruitful, including custom searches such as this one. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - suffers from many of the same problems as other street art articles. Often they are fads or short-term campaigns by particular groups or a particular "style" adopted by several artists. There are plenty of blog posts and social media references to "Repent Sinner" graffiti but they certainly wouldn't be considered reliable sources here. Interestingly, some of the social media commentary refers to its importance because it has a WP article. In reality, it must be important (notable) before it gets a WP article. Stalwart111 02:55, 26 November 2012 (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) 01:01, 2 December 2012 (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) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEVA Planks

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

No explanation of significance. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me. Short, but useful. An alternative would be to incorporate the content into the Kapla Blocks article, but that seems more cumbersome. I vote Keep. NCdave (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's no assertion of notability of Kapla either, except for suggestions that they have been used in a couple of notable exhibitions, something that could also be said of the subject. That's not an attempt at WP:OTHERSTUFF; I mention it because I wouldn't be strongly against a merge to Kapla with an explanation that the subject is a US-version of the same. My only reservation is that it's not clear from either article whether they exist in two distinct markets or if they compete. Having competing products listed under one product name could create problems. Stalwart111 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2012 (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 Tigger Movie#Soundtrack . MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Heart Will Lead You Home

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

Delete - no indication in independent reliable sources that the song is notable. PROD removed without explanation. Buck Winston (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (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/2012 December 2. Snotbot t • c » 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some press coverage does exist for this song, mostly because it was written by the Sherman Brothers together with Kenny Loggins. The other fact mentioned here is that the song is the "main theme" for the Tokyo Disneyland attraction Jubilation!; I didn't find an independent reliable source for this, although it is mentioned in a number of sources of uncertain reliability. I am not sure there's enough here for the song to require its own article, and I currently lean toward a merge and redirect of this article into The Tigger Movie#Soundtrack, where I've already added a reference to a Los Angeles Times article about the Shermans-Loggins collaboration. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either the movie article or one for its soundtrack if created.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Tigger Movie#Soundtrack as per Arxiloxos. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this song to warrant an individual article. The information contained in this stub would comfortably fit within the soundtrack section of the film article. Gongshow ^Talk 07:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:21, 4 December 2012 (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 Fushigiboshi no Futagohime. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Kingdom

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

This article about a fictional kingdom in the Fushigiboshi no Futagohime television show that fails WP:N. Google News archives and Books searches are not yielding any coverage in reliable sources (RS). Customized searches likewise did not yield any results in RS. Also, the article is written from an in-universe standpoint; it lacks sourced analysis and real-world context. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somehow to Fushigiboshi no Futagohime - I'm not fluent with Japanese but any relevant sources are probably small mentions and insufficient to start a separate article. I'm happy to recall my vote if other users prove this is notable, SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fushigiboshi no Futagohime. No need to have its own article if it is not the subject of enough reliable coverage. Any relevant content should be in the main article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge here, the characters are already talked about uin detail on the List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters article, which by the way has other deletion Kingdom candidates (Water Drop Kingdom, Seed Kingdom, and Windmill Kingdom). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have merged all of the external links in the kingdom articles to the List of Fushigiboshi no Futagohime characters article, someone just needs to put them into inline references. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Would also support a merge as a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacation^nine 00:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fushigiboshi no Futagohime.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the time this Afd has taken I have merged all the external links to the characters page and Prodded (Water Drop Kingdom, Seed Kingdom, and Windmill Kingdom) which were the same format as this article, those were deleted and nothing was merged but the external links so I ask again what from this article is there to merge that will better help the Fushigiboshi no Futagohime article?

Delete - no reliable secondary sources cover this topic. Claritas § 22:32, 3 December 2012 (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 Product lifecycle management. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed-loop lifecycle management

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

I see no differences between this and Product lifecycle management.

Though not cited in the article, it apparently is based on the book Michelson, Bruce (2007). Closed Loop Lifecycle Planning®: A Complete Guide to Managing Your PC Fleet. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 9780321477149 , a book held in only 100 libraries. according to worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Product lifecycle management, which seems to be the wider area that this is a subset of. I found enough that this is plausible as a search term. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Rendezvous

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

This fails WP:ORG. The references in the article don't look reliable, and the only mentions of Virtual Rendezvous I can find online are in "teach yourself Java" books written by Charles L. Perkins, the organization's founder. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find independent info online. Looks like an organization that hasn't found a business or validated purpose, and has not made a notable product or other difference.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, this has been around quite a while and obviously created by the author (judging by the initials), yet there is precious little information out there. I'd say this definitely fails WP:ORG, and notability is not inherited. I have my doubts about the notability of the author as well. §FreeRangeFrog 21:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the original author of the 2007 article, and I gave a public talk on the until then private project in NYC 3/2009 at DCIA.info that talk is archived as referenced in the footnotes. The article was not notable in 2007 since Virtual Rendezvous had only private influence until 2009, when it went more public, but I have been off the Net caring for my mother 24/7 the past two years and thus could not participate in the deletion discussion. I can give about 100 notable people who have worked on the project 1993-2009. Let me know how is best to proceed, I am unfamiliar with new wikipedia procedures. VirtualRendezvous at Gmail reaches me --clp §FreeRangeFrog 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.41.249 (talk) [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. DGG makes a fair point about the number of potential citations for his work, but the fatal flaw remains that – despite having been around for years – the article remains without a single independent, significant source on the subject. (And, indeed, nor can I find a single one myself that is not the University's or a simple directory listing). — Coren ^(talk) 23:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Erevelles

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability, due to no reasons for being notable which are supported by sources. At least, it should be incubated IMHO. But since the article has existed for over 5 years without sources, my suggestion is it is deleted. 1292simon (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, and for failing to say anything that distinguishes its subject from any other academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively short of WP:PROF, no distinguishing accomplishment.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone clear this up for me: I see in Google Scholar that his papers are cited, but I have no idea what the threshold for citations is. In the previous AfD DGG (talk · contribs) makes good points and I respect his views on article deletion a lot, so a 'weak keep' for him is tantamount to a "burn this thing to the ground" (I kid), however that was two years ago. Is the consensus here that what I'm seeing in Scholar is not enough to get this person past WP:PROF? §FreeRangeFrog 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair question indeed. Per WP:PROF: '"high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure."' As a business scholar who is has long been eligible for promotion to full professor (PhD from 1992, see http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Erevelles%20Sunil.pdf?osu1272294352), one would expect a citation track record of multiple publications papers with, say, over 12 Google Scholar citations per year (one per month) since publication. How many publications is not obvious, but this person has none.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is inadequate, but the citation record in Google Scholar makes the notability clear. His paper "A comparison of current models of consumer satisfaction" (Journal of Consumer Satisfaction 5) has been cited by 199 articles. His paper "The Role of Affect in Marketing" (Journal of Business Research Volume 42, Issue 3, July 1998, Pages 199–215) has the remarkable number of 158 citations. Use of th h factor shows its limitations: he has only 10 papers with more that 22 citations, but the one he does have are very important. Publishing lots of mediocre work does not make an expert; publishing highly significant work does. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T &C 's argument that counts per month are relevant makes no sense to me. notability here is permanent. By use of his method of analysis, a person who after 5 years of work is notable, but who publishes nothing further, and whose work was important to the research front at the time, but has since become incorporated into standard knowledge, would 10 years later not be notable. All that is required for notability of anyone is that one be notable once. One just has to be a major contributor to the knowledge of the subject at any time. The most cited papers are from '92 & '86. The college has probably decided not to promote him because he has stopped publishing, and that makes sense for them, because they want someone who will continue to be actively notable till the end of his career, and for their purposes, notability is not permanent. Using this sort of standard is like saying that only albums that continue to be on the charts count for notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG's argument makes no sense to me. First, 199 citations is hardly notable for a marketing article from 1992. That would put this article in the bottom half of citations to publications in tenure-caliber journals for that year, and nowhere near tenure-making criteria at major research institutions. Likewise, 156 citations is hardly remarkable for a paper from the Journal of Business Research in 1996; alas there is no foundation for calling this number "remarkable" in DGG's note. Furthermore, DGG's argument would make a mockery of notability, since massive numbers of academics who publish at some point would qualify by the lowly standard implied, even though many would not make tenure at a major research institution let alone satisfy other academic notability criteria. Relative to my reply to his query on my talk page, DGG's argument here ignores the fact that notability at any point in time cannot be established positively from cumulative data except perhaps if a paper has exceptional total citations (though it can be established negatively). In my reading, the sub-argument about "notability at any point in time" is spurious and dilutive: The number of "rich people" would surely spike if based on account balance at any point in time, but that would only make the concept meaningless (you had a lot of money in your account for a short while if you ever took a mortgage, but so what - ask the millions who lost "their" home in recent years?). I also showed in reply to DGG's query (at my talk page) that the publications of the subject are of such vintage that the argument I gave plainly applies, since tenure-caliber articles are benchmarked to a cited half-cite exceeding 10 years. Practically, an exceptional marketing paper from this subject's era would have many hundreds of Google Scholar citations, and a notable track record through tenure at a major research institution for someone who graduated twenty years ago would add up to over 1000 GS citations. This subject's cumulative citation record actually proves that they were never notable, even if one follows DGG's road to dilution. Remember, academic notability is a matter of awards, editorships and the like, all of which the subject fails completely; or of a rather exceptional citation record, which this subject also fails as a last resort.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have great faith in DGG's estimation of scholarly worth. His analyses are always on point and often conservative. If he says that this person has written enough influential articles in several well-known peer-reviewed journals, I believe him. Also, neither tenure nor tenure qualification are required to be notable. The Steve 10:19, 4 December 2012 (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) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask.fm

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for retention I created this stub entry, as the ask.fm website was receiving much media attention in Ireland, and had no Wikipedia Entry. Since the entry has been nominated for deletion, I have substituted an article in the Baltic Times Newspaper for the e-zine piece that was previously the main source used. This may address some of the verifiability issues identified. The entry remains a stub. I would like to see the entry expanded and improved, by the user community, rather than being entirely deleted. The entry has received 4400 page views in less than 30 days, so there is some interest in the subject matter. The said Baltic Times article, contains background information on the company, that may facilitate expanding the entry. Best regards --Padraigobrian (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.....apologies, if the above, should be in the talk section of this page--Padraigobrian (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You put your comment in the right place. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is fairly widely used from my own observations, the article just needs a lot of expansion and more references. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lukeno94, I'm a little suprised to see this up for AfD. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much a stub, but a widespread application with links to Facebook and Twitter, and notable even aside from the Irish bullying case. http://www.arcticstartup.com/2012/11/26/social-qa-network-from-riga-with-9-million-daily-uniques-ask-fm mentions "over 21 million users and 9 million uniques".Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2012 (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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 December 10.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

The result was delete. Despite having been listed for a month, the best sources found are, at best, insufficient to reach GNG (a review and an incidental mention in an article on a festival where they performed). — Coren ^(talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albannach

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

Fails WP:BAND. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Probably falls short of being sufficiently significant for an encyclopedia article. I did find a few news items: The News Press, Seminole Chronicle, Virginian-Pilot. --Michig (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: They have clearly performed in both the UK and the US, which would satisfy WP:BAND#4 Faustus37 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. on 22 November by Dthomsen8 Faustus37 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the refs above aren't really that helpful since the mere mention shown is photo captioning in at least one of them. Notability requires significant coverage and I've yet to see any. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject about a Scottish band fails WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources. After all, it is already tagged with the WP:N notice, which this article also fails. I did, however, run into a few items, as did Michig (talk · contribs) but none of which will ensure that the article passes WP:GNG and WP:N: IFA Online, Seminole Chronicle, and The News Press. That's all generally, though. TBr and ley 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note you have made an absolutely unique argument I have never heard before: Delete because it is already tagged with a Notability tag. In other words, some one person has doubted notability, which is proof we should delete it. Of course if an article fails notability it will be deleted, but that's what we are here to determine. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They seem to be regulars on the Highland Games circuit in Scotland and North America and this generates regular coverage in the press. I have added a citation of that sort plus an album review. The coverage I've seen is not especially deep but seems wide enough to establish notability. Warden (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the two inline citations added by Warden (talk), this band is documented well enough to establish notability, and the article should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that Warden's additions [43] prove its notable. I wonder specifically what awards their bagpipe guy won. Dream Focus 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems okay.--Auric 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 00:34, 6 December 2012 (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) —Theo polisme 08:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indore Management Association

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

Do not meet WP:ORG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 01:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or Delete - I checked the internet for information about this group and found next to nothing. I examined the website and have a hunch this may be a significant organization. If anyone has good references, including written material not on the internet, they need to include these in the article. Otherwise, it should be deleted, as the only significant source is the organization's website and we must have significant independent sources on Indore to keep its article. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bona fide organization, having organized 20 two-day conclaves per News link above. High-level national speakers. Featured repeatedly in the Times of India. Even associated with some academic research per the Scholar link above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Keep - I examined the scholar link above and, yes, a number of significant hits were made. Now, the author needs to document these as references in the Reference section of the article, so the importance of Indore can be seen by all who read the article. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitmore Gray

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

Non-notable law academic. No independent references at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he is notable it would probably be for his translations in the 1960s and maybe 1970s of Soviet and Japanese legislation, for example here. But I haven't been able to find anything describing the impact of those works, nor does anything appear in the article. JohnInDC (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professors at major universities, including their law schools, are almost always notable. In this case, his publications record [44] shows him as an expert in his subject , especially of Soviet and Japanese commercial law. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that CV is from his employer, so it's not independent and thus can't be used to support notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And except that there is no evidence of notable scholarly impact at Scholar. Publications far impact, not in major journals or presses, and with few citations. Would very much be near the bottom of even a minor law faculty in academic visibility.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't really pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics); no evidence of signficant impact of his work. dci | TALK 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Mediran ^{talk to me!} 00:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At tail end of career and yet falls far short of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), with just a few Scholar articles, spaced far apart and with trivial impact; no evidence of major editorship or leadership function. As befits law schools, even at a top university, being faculty is hardly evidence of notability or impact.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that his employer published his books lessens the impact, but still shows notability and does not apply to the book chapters or journals listed. The Steve 10:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be anything going for this biography other than "the subject worked at a top 20 school." That's not sufficient for notability by our guidelines, nor is it an indicator that there will ever be enough interest to flesh out a proper article. Ray^Talk 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnInDc. Lord Roem (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shevington Sharks

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

Contested prod. Amateur rugby team with a fairly short history. Nothing beyond routine coverage. One source simply states that one of their junior coaches died. I really don't see these local amateur clubs being suitable for encyclopedia articles. Michig (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article doesn't establish notability. Mattlore (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article probably doesn't meet GNG (though there many other sporting clubs of similar notability on Wikipedia). The club is within the scope of Rugby League Wiki so I'll preserve a copy there in case the outcome here is deletion. LunarLander (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't regard thirty-three years as a short history. The death of Molyneux wasn't simply an everyday incident of death by illness or accident or similar; it was extremely widely reported. I was able to find the three reliable sources currently in the article after only a perfunctory search; I'm sure there's more out there to be found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Molyneux does not make this club notable, read WP:INHERIT. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 04:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to suggest this team are notable; one reference in the article is about the U11 side (which is not Wiki relevant), another fails WP:INHERIT, and so does the third - about a player so notable he doesn't have an article of his own. Age of a club does not make a club notable either. Article, at present, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2012 (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2017

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, this article should be deleted, as it is simply too soon for an article at this stage. TBr and ley 08:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The championships have been awarded to Lahti in May 2012 by the FIS as the governing body. The article does not include anything prophetic or speculative things but mere facts, so that's certainly not an issue of WP:CRYSTAL... --Miebner (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is from a reliable sporting body. The organizer is credible for this sport and at this level, regularly organizing World Cups and possessing all the facilities. A five-year planning horizon is normal for such an event, and this article will only become richer and more relevant as the event nears.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by MediaCorp Channel 8

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are over a dozen programmes listed that have their own articles, plus many, many more that have been split off into separate sublists (see bottom of this list for links to those lists) that could be merged into one list. It is standard to index notable TV series by the originating broadcaster, so it seems to me that this list is at most a cleanup problem. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... maybe the remaining parts of the article can be moved to respective new articles, for example, currently list of programmes contain up to year 1999, and we can form new articles that cater to the respective dramas broadcast at the era. As for the upcoming dramas article, maybe we can help discuss with the people who deleted the previous article. If a consensus is NOT reached, then maybe we should keep the article. 2679D (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news and current affairs article has been deleted, so I see no reason for deleting. 2679D (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Precisely because the news and current affairs article has been deleted should we delete this one. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be a prima facie violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Programming evolves, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopaedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programmes being broadcast. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This just seems excessive and largely unsourced. I could understand the relevance of a list of (notable) programmes made by a notable company, but simply listing every programme ever to be made and broadcast on a channel, many of which will never have articles, seems unencyclopedic. There may be case for applying some criteria for likely notability and trimming the list (some of these will surely have received enough coverage that an article could be written), which is why I'm a little hesitant to delete. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2012 (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. There is just enough marginal notability about that company's software that it seems like a plausible destination for redirects. — Coren ^(talk) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soot (software)

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

Another article relating to the Sable research group, recently deleted at AfD. The only coverage appears to be from people associated with the research group. Michig (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=soot+jimple. I haven't taken an in-depth look at all the sources, but they appear to be both numerous and independent. A merge to Sable Research Group doesn't seem to be a possibility anymore. —Ruud 16:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first page of those results, all the articles that provide coverage of any significance are written by people associated with the Sable research group. It's common in academia for people to publish many papers on their own work and for associated research groups to cite each others work. I think we need some real evidence of significant independent coverage here, and if anyone comes up with it I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. --Michig (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many papers you have configured to display on your "first page", but for me most results on positions 10-100 seem to comes from a widely differing set of researchers form a large group of universities. Soot seems to be a widely used framework for the static analysis of Java programs in academia. Having individual publications with over 500 citations and nearly 500 article mentioning your work is an extremely non-trivial accomplishment in computer science. —Ruud 17:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added to the article:
In 2010, two research papers on Soot (Vallée-Rai et al. 1999 and Pominville et al. 2000) were selected as IBM CASCON First Decade High Impact Papers among 12 other papers from the 425 entries.^[2]

—Ruud 17:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that on that page? I can see one paper ('Soot: a Java bytecode optimization framework') which was written by the research group about their own work. --Michig (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to SableVM, which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if the close is merge, I'm happy to do it if you ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose a merge between Soot and SableVM. Despite being created by the same depeartment, they are separate tools, both independently notable. —Ruud 11:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 2 December 2012 (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 Soot (software). — Coren ^(talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimple

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

Apparently non-notable product of the Sable Research Group, an article on which was recently deleted at AfD. The only coverage appears to be primary. Michig (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Soot (software) —Ruud 16:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to SableVM, which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if the close is merge, I'm happy to do it if you ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Soot (software) Not notable enough for a standalone article Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2012 (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 Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Michig (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013

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

The article currently lists two sources, one leading to the frontpage of the official Junior Eurovision website, which does not confirm that the contest will run in 2013; and the second is to Ketnet (in Dutch) which is an application form for 2013, but no confirmation from the EBU of the 2013 contest taking place.

The article is essentially bare, no date, not host, and a bit WP:Crystal. [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the 2012 contest just ended within the last 24 hours, so this is very much TOOSOON. In similar "will probably happen but not for a while" circumstances, I've seen arguments for and against CRYSTAL, though I personally lean "for". There are absolutely no policies for keeping articles with which this "article" complies. Nevertheless, I would point out that we are an encyclopedia that is supposed to focus on third-party reliable sources with substantial coverage of events that have already occurred. There has been a trend lately to create articles on things that simply haven't occurred yet in an effort to make WP a one-stop fan reference for whatever it is without regard to any policies whatsoever, and that needs to stop. MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I dont care if it is delete because the article will be re-created fast when the contest is confirmed. but on the other hand I dont see a reason to delete a article that will most likely be re-created within weeks/months. But whatever consensus say im on:)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest per Lugnuts; a screaming case of WP:CRYSTAL, as it's in no way confirmed that a 2013 edition will take place. – Kosm1 fent 12:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Junior Eurovision Song Contest. assuming current notability is WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (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_universities_in_Somalia#Somaliland. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Somaliland

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

==Merge or Delete==

I suggest that this article should be merged with one already existing given that it contains no other notable information. 26oo (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard AfD templates, and to nowiki the header. I will also be transcluding it in the daily deletion log. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as to merge or keep separate, but leave a redirect behind if merge is chosen, as a likely search term and to avoid link rot. Siuenti (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~: The information is more likely to be useful in the main article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split relevant section from List of universities in Somalia#Somaliland and merge to this article: changing my !vote after Truth or consequences-2's reason below; I was not aware of the political situation of Somaliland. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For one reason: Somaliland has claimed and maintained de facto independence from Somalia since 1991, including through war, so it hardly helps to make the article part of a Somalia article. This would be like claiming that Harvard should be put on a UK list as of 1800.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_universities_in_Somalia#Somaliland. While Somaliland is not recognized as a separate state, a section in the Somalia list is adequate. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2012 (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 Dispatches (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Day the Dream Died

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

Hello, I'm nominating this article for deletion as it fails to meet the notability status as required by Wikipedia guidelines. K. (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard deletion templates. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. The article gives no sources and almost no information on this one episode of a TV series. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the series, because this lacks evdience of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such references are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dispatches (TV series). Seems to lack enough for a standalone article, and what we have at the moment isn't worth keeping. --Michig (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Naomi Smart

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

It seems likely that this person created an autobiography for self promotion. Regardless, I can't imagine that an actress in local theater productions should be considered notable, regardless of her level of talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Jaxelrod (talk • contribs) 21:40, October 5, 2012

Note to closer I have refactored the discussion to include the standard deletion template, and to add the unsigned template. The discussion was not trancluded in a daily deletion log, so I will be adding it now. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for the deletion discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Passage to Zarahemla for now - I recovered the first reference here and it mentions some of her work including a direct-to-DVD production Beauty and the Beast so I searched at Google News and found several reviews. It seems she was also in a play, Noises Off, which received reviews here and here. I also found a Deseret News article here with information about her. News articles here and here indicate she was also in a musical production of Legally Blonde. Although she played a lead role in Passage to Zarahemla, I haven't found much about this. Although she has achieved a fair amount of work, at best, I would say this is a case of too soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a search and I found where she has received reviews from other states, such as the Chicago Times. I also found some reviews of her work in some of the films as well. She's no Neil Patrick Harris, but Smart appears to pass WP:NACTOR as far as I can tell.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sound Keep per improvements and sourcing provided by User:Tokyogirl79, changing a porly written stub into a decent start class article to serve the project.[45] Such editorial prowess reflects the best of Wikipedia. Kudos!Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2012 (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. Discussion participants found the alleged film unverifiable, and likely a hoax j⚛e decker ^talk 07:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deceived (2012)

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

Contested PROD. Article about a film from Trinidad with claims of it being a "blockbuster" and a review without sources that I couldn't find anywhere. There's even a wikiquote template there that leads nowhere. I don't believe this meets WP:NFILMS. §FreeRangeFrog 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not a hoax, possibly a student project. Claims to have a film budget = $46 USD -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX. A "blockbuster" with a budget of only $46?--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources, no keepy. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YaHooka

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

Can't find anything that shows this to be really notable, other than forums. Cloudbound (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is referred to a lot by various websites (mainly pot alternative lifestyle related, as well as forums - gets 129,000 hits on Google. However, article could do with better references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Conditional" delete. The website does appear known, but not necessarily notable; at any rate, it doesn't currently meet Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and the current refs aren't exactly what's required. If RS's can be found, this is a definite keep. dci | TALK 01:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage only appears to relate to the controversy around the name being similar to Yahoo, which isn't enough for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2012 (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Sports Megaplex

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

This article is about a structure that was never built. Even its mid-1990s proposal is unclear in its significance, what with the completion of the Gillette Stadium in 2000. A recent prod attempt failed with the rationale "there is more data out there on how this would have changed the neighborhood and supposedly improved the region", which I doubt. More importantly, that sort of information would be much too speculative. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links such as this, this, and this (although there are some overlaps with the first one) show that there is sufficient coverage out there for the planned facility. Additionally, many of the links there talk about the plans for the stadium and why it failed, with some discussion even talking about the partnership between public and private enterprise. To say that this is of unclear significance is to ignore the discussions on where this went wrong, and what could be done in the future to make sure that this never happened again, as I doubt that an unnotable facility would have this level of discussion centered around it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very Notable planned project.[46][47][48], etc, ad infinitum. We have a number of articles like this one because the projects can be notable, see, e.g., List_of_proposed_stadiums#Cancelled_projects--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A10 -- article duplicates NWA East Three Rivers Championship. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NWA North Dakota Championship

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

This article is not about the NWA North Dakota Championship. It is about poorly done article on the PWX Three Rivers Championship which already has an article. Plus is it worth having an article on a championship that is not that notable? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. It might fail G2, it almost certainly fails A1, and possibly A10 as well, given that it does indeed duplicate an existing article under a different name. I've tagged it under A1, and even if that fails, all we have is a duplicated infobox, and a list of results - absolutely nothing to establish any notability or even that this exists - so it may even be a WP:HOAX for all the article shows to people (although I don't really believe this to be the case). Lukeno94 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A10 I've retagged it after declining A1, which I realize is perhaps a little pedantic, but in any case, the article should go. There may be a North Dakota championship, but this article currently contains no information about it, and it's not a new article. No prejudice against recreation if sources demonstrating notability are presented, and if the article actually discusses the putative ND championship. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does exist, but it's not that notable. The promotion the NWA North Dakota Championship is used in isn't that notable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:33, 3 December 2012 (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.

^ [49]
^ http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1925805

[1] [49]

[2] ttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1925805