Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 August	31 August >

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 delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary empire

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

Bringing here for more eyes for a discussion. I've already done WP:BEFORE, this seems to be WP:OR. A google scholar search for the term only yields results related to a single book (Revolutionary empire: the rise of the English-speaking empires from the fifteenth century to the 1780s) which doesn't use the term as this article suggests, it's simple saying the English-speaking empires were "revolutionary" in that they were different from previous empires, it's using "revolutionary" as an adjective, not "revolutionary empire" as a term denoting a sub-type of empire. The only other source to even use the term is a book by a professor of religious studies, not an expert in poli sci (WP:FRINGE), (WP:UNDUE). Most, if not all, the "what links here" pages are previous versions of articles in which the creator of this article tried to insert a link and was promptly reverted as OR or Fringe. William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be an accepted type of government; it's just simply "revolutionary" as an adjective describing "empire". I've removed it from Template:Government type too. Ansh6 6 6 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a made up term not supported by the references. Caffeyw (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm cleaning up copyvio from this article's creator and another editor who may be the same person. Also raised issues about using categories from a strategy game at WP:ANI#Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make that several socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked earlier. It was mostly copyvio. It is now one sentence and a quotation. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've played that game a lot. How did I not notice this?! Thanks for shedding some light on that. Ansh6 6 6 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This user is creating articles around terms that are merely idioms for well established concepts that already exist on Wikipedia. Maybe it's possible to write a historigraphic article on the term itself but it would be a highly specialized and difficult topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Promotions, Inc.

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

promotion for unnotable company which does not meet WP:NCORP. Author is Early Mornings Man (talk · contribs), speedy delete removed by Space Dwelling (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep"' - I added content that helps confirm notability based on a reference that was already being used. InfoGeek 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Shai8181(talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. About the only coverage I could find was some minor news when they screwed up the wording on an anti-drug bracelent. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Impressive list of references, but they are all either Press Releases, WP:SPSes, or minor coverage. A great example of refspam that does nothing to satisfy WP:N. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Speedy deletion G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Jee

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

Why the page should be deleted This is clearly not a wikipedia material. This person is engaged into a self-commercial and this article has no importance and needs to be deleted. Please note that all those languages that this article was translated into by this user is already deleted. So I suggest to delete this self-commercialized nonsense from wiki. GEORGIANJORJADZE 22:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Not notable enough either on national or international level to have an article in Wikipedia.--Kober^Talk 05:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello From Alex... i don't understand why this article must be deleted? this article is on geo wikipedia too ...http://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Jee i think it's interesting material and PLZ don't delete it ... Best Regards --AlexSpancer (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was not properly formatted. I have reformatted it using {{Afd2}}. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Tagged as whole article is a word for word copyright violation. Caffeyw (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Robert

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

WP:TWODABS. Only one Michel Robert, the equestrian. He should be moved to "Michel Robert" with a hatnote that points to J.J. Michel Robert. I was unable to locate any other Michel Roberts mentioned on Wikipedia, as such, this disambiguation page should be deleted. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are two "Michel Robert", and not one as asserted in the nomination. That one of the two articles uses a more precise name of J. J. Michel Robert is in line with our policy WP:NATURAL. I don't see that there is an obvious primary topic between Michel Robert, an equestrian athlete, and Michel Robert, a former Chief Justice for the highest court in Quebec. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Rangers F.C. season

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

Non notable season for phoenix club in fourth tier non-professional football league. No coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Per consensus here and here, amongst many others, such articles fail WP:NSEASONS. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The scale of the media coverage covering rangers first season post-drop was staggering. Please, no more of these attempts to characterise as 'non-notable' one of the biggest sports stories of recent years. I'm an Englishman who doesnt even LIKE football but I know this is notable! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rangers are not a phoenix club and there is one thing for sure this article and any other about the club meets WP:GNG. Rangers don't play in fourth tier they play in the third. Suggest user is trying to make a point rather than this being a valid nomination, her views re the club have been made very clear in discussions previously and her view that Rangers are a pheonix club is not the consensus view here on Wikipedia nor the general view of sources in the media.Blethering Scot 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick google search shows plenty of additional sources to prove article would meet WP:GNG. So not only is nominator trying to make a disruptive point they have not carried out WP:BEFORE.Blethering Scot 22:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable article with many references. ///EuroCarGT • talk 22:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't believe that this is a real nomination, but even if it is, the article easily passes WP:GNG. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - not the first time the nominator has ignored the Wikipedia user consensus on the status of Rangers F.C. The continual mention of 'phoenix club' by Clavdia chauchat is unsourced, patent nonsense. All 42 senior teams in Scottish football in season 2012-13 have a season article, see: Template:2012–13 in Scottish football. Cheers, VanguardScot 23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep would rather see an article on the whole league season as this has the appearance of a Excessive listings of statistics especially the Squad information and Squad statistics sections, those sections need to be sourced and the a WP:RS provide for them flags or they fail WP:BLP and must be removed. LGA _talk^edits 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several issues with this nomination, primarily the fundamental logical fallacy that "phoenix club = GNG failure" - that needs a lot more substantiation that the nom has provided. Secondly, although, along with a large number of the other league seasons noted in the template link above, techinally this seem a clear WP:NSEASONS failure due to not being a club in a "top professional league", there does appear to be a degree of consensus established that all Scottish teams are notable enough for season articles. Personally, i would disagree, there is little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage and seemingly clear contraventions of WP:NOT#STATS in a large number of them, which arguably need to be dealt with; but the place for that would be at WT:FOOTY to establish a consensus for Scottish football teams, as is being done here for English teams, not through a random AfD. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no doubt that Rangers' first season after the change of status is notable. It received huge coverage, considerably more than the largely domestic routine coverage it's getting so far this season in the higher division now the novelty's worn off. What would be nice is if this article used some of it to talk about the season. There are pages and pages and pages of tables, much duplication of information, three match report links for each match, a totally insane number of MoS-violating flags, and eight (8) lines of prose. That's a touch unbalanced... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 12:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this subject passes the general notability guideline even if we only took Norwegian sources into consideration ([1] [2]). But LGA and Struway has some good points - the excessive listing of statistics should be trimmed and more prose should be added, but that could be discussed on the talk-page. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ultraman Ace. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yapool

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

This is a large plot summary that lacks any references. TTN (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the series article (Ultraman Ace), where the "List of characters/monsters..." was rd'd to as well. Ansh6 6 6 01:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultraman Ace. Article fails to indicate any notability and Google is not any help turning up references. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—works for me, but take a look at Template:Ultra Monsters. There's a cartload of similar articles that are all either unsourced, or sourced to primary materials (like photographs and such), making the articles WP:OR. Has anyone ever AfD'd 100 articles at a time before? WP has always had a horrible time dealing with situations like this. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, if someone wants to go through that they can probably all just be redirected. Ansh6 6 6 16:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Fulk

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

Biography of an unremarkable record producer. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Souring in the article is generally not to reliable source, or marginal at best (not lambgoat looks rather dubious). -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage or other evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gong show 19:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Typical refspam to press releases or trivial coverage. Fails GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting Paris

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

Unremarkable band. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails all criteria of WP:BAND and no sources can be found to meet GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•keep I found plenty of news articles for Cole. Still looking for more. Mercutio1400 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cole (author)

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

Non-notable author lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. His book has won a couple of minor awards, but not sure the book passes WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a number of secondary sources: Interviews [3], [4], [5], [6] his most well know book Sand Dollar has a good few reviews [7], [8], [9]--Salix (talk): 22:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that the sources you've given are all by places that are considered to be non-notable blog sites. The ForeWord review would be somewhat usable, except that it's reviewed through Clarion Review, which is their "fee-for-review" arm. That means that essentially that review was paid for by the publisher or author, which makes the review completely unusable for notability purposes. I'll see what I can find, but we can't use any of those sources for notability purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The award from Foreword is also dodgy and I'm actually going to say that after reading this I'd probably recommend not using anything from ForeWord Reviews. The award would be considered minor in any case, but that they pretty much tell people to "spend some money to advertise your award" indicates that it's pretty much a vanity award for the most part.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I did search for sources, but there just isn't any coverage in anything that would be seen as a reliable source. The awards are minor and the ForeWord award is somewhat dodgy since they pretty much hit the publisher/author up for money on the same page where they announce the winners. That gives off a distinct vanity award scent, as the more reputable awards don't do that sort of thing. The sources listed above are all otherwise through sites that are blogs and otherwise unusable as reliable sources, such as in the case of the ForeWord/Clarion review being a "fee for review" puppy. The only source that I found that was somewhat usable was this story about a signing event from a local paper, which means that it's greatly depreciated as far as notability going is concerned. There just isn't enough out there to show that he or his book passes notability guidelines for authors or books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete book and author Awards are vanity awards and reviews are vanity reviews ie. self-published unreliable. One legitimate review in Cranston Herald, the author's hometown, not enough. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—both. Piling on after the excellent research performed by Tokyogirl79... her analysis is 100% accurate. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man of Steel 2 (film)

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

WP:CRYSTAL Lady Lotus (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Principle photography has not yet begun, therefore the subject does not meet WP:NFF --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL, as filming won't even begin for around half a year. Not to mention, I'm not even completely sure the title is set in stone (everything I've checked still calls it Batman vs. Superman or Superman vs. Batman). öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Incubate as failing WP:NFF. However, it's obviously going to be notable when filming begins. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/incubate per WP:NFF and above. Ansh6 6 6 01:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Incubate or Userfy without prejudice for undeletion or recreation when consensus decides it ready. Because the topic of a sequel film has a GREAT deal of coverage in multiple reliable sources (see above alt find sources) ... it's almost enough to qualify as a reasonable exception per WP:NFF's cautions and instructions requiring that production plans for an as-yet-unmade film must be found as notable in order for those plans to merit a separate article. And yes, we do occasionally allow speculative article on unmade film under policy and guideline, but only rarely and only after much discussion and (sorry) angst. Under policy instructions the topic may certainly be discussed in other related articles, but let's revisit this topic in about a year. Let's get a little closer to filming date when we have a little less rumor and a lot more fact. Heck, we can even wait until the final title is decided upon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Man of Steel (film) per WP:NFF. Fanboys. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect of all the searchable titles to Man of Steel (film)#Sequel could work. But still, a userfication or incubation of this current sequel article will allow it to be worked on and improved as we wait. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film has not begun filming. Koala15 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veron (Software)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Also, seems like too much of an advertisement, and there's a major COI issue. I originally PROD'd it for this reason, and the author removed the PROD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— No reliable sources at all. No reviews. Not notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Small software project. No evidence of any coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Rester Zodrow

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

Blatant self-promotion with absolutely no attempt to provide evidence. Sgroupace (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Autobiography. Unreferenced BLP. I find nothing to substantiate the "International Best Seller" book claim. Film he wrote and directed was straight to video, with no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Considering the embedded external links it seems like nothing but promotion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Books are obscure and look self published. Man Against The Mob 1980s TV movie which he co-wrote and claims it won an Edgar. Even if true not enough. Will need WP:GNG and not seeing it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur J. Williams

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

this page has no sources and there is no evidence of his notability Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State legislators pass WP:POLITICIAN. The article has a dead link at the NC General Assembly's website. I found 3 other pages confirming that Williams was a state rep: [10], [11] and [12]. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Gene93k has noted, Williams passes WP:POLITICIAN by virtue of being a member of the North Carolina General Assembly. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 09:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with views expressed above. Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the North Carolina General Assembly. Finnegas (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique's 10th Studio Album

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

per WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS. We don't have a full confirmed track listing, name of the album, or the final release date. A redirect would be pointless, especially when it gets its final name. Erick (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic WP:HAMMER case. Ansh6 6 6 01:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. One man's opinion states "When you search the internet for new releases in 2013, enrique's album is not even listed there for 2013." Looks like everyone's keeping schtum on its release, so we'll have to wait. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, and WP:TOOSOON. STATic message me! 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HAMMER says "can't create this". Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Battle Angel Alita. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer Kunst

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

This only details the topic from a fictional standpoint, and it provides nothing to assert real world importance. TTN (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Does not seem notable and should be moved to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied the full history to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Panzer_Kunst Dream Focus 20:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle Angel Alita. This didn't need to go through AfD. --erachima talk 03:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention

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

First of all, I don't actually want to see this article outright deleted. Rather, I think it constitutes WP:UNDUE coverage and would rather see it redirected to 2012 Republican National Convention#Thursday, August 30: Eastwood, Rubio and Romney. I boldly carried this out myself, per WP:D-R a little over a month ago. It stood as a redirect until earlier today.

This event shows no indication of WP:LASTING significance. The volume of media attention it received at the time makes it appropriate to cover in a larger article (indeed, it already is). So I'm proposing deletion. Well, kind of. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nom (just to make that clear). --BDD (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This was arguably the most covered speech of any in 2012, including even Mitt Romney's convention speech. Colossally passes WP:GNG. The nom's claim there is no "lasting significance" is just original research speculation and not supported by any source. There's "no indication of lasting significance" of Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and that became a Wikipedia Main Page Featured Article! In contrast, as many sources say, Romney was upstaged by this speech [13][14][15] in what was supposed to be Romney's most important speech of the election. Karl Rove said this speech was one of the major contributing factors in Romney losing the election.[16]. No lasting significance? Redirecting this would bring WP:UNDUE weight of this speech in the convention article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence, at least, is demonstrably untrue, because I'm not calling for a merge. If the convention article already gives undue weight, redirecting this article won't change that; if it doesn't, redirecting won't change that either. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per Oakshade, This was arguably the most covered speech of any in 2012, included even Mitt Romney's convention speech. Colossally passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HectorMoffet (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)‎[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This incident received WP:INDEPTH coverage from reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. I'm not seeing the argument that this article is WP:UNDUE, as it incorporates a broad spectrum of viewpoints. As an event, the coverage has had WP:PERSISTENCE, with reporting continuing through 2013. It even has its own internet meme. As a political moment, I believe this incident meets WP:LASTING because it is among the most invoked events from the 2012 Republican campaign season when blame is laid for the loss. The fact that a controlled media environment like a convention can be upturned by a speech is a lesson that will loom large for future conventions. That the Chair of the RNC keeps the chair in his office as a piece of political memorabilia is telling. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect While it was an important part of the RNC I think as the nominator states that it should be part of the article on the RNC with a possible redirect to that portion, however I don't see it as a stand-a-lone topic. It was covered as part of RNC coverage, and if not part of the RNC I'm not sure it would have gotten the attention it did. Caffeyw (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very notable event doesn't suddenly become non-notable or not pass WP:GNG just because it was in conjunction with another. The 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address isn't non-notable just because it was covered "in part" of the 2004 DNC coverage. Like with this speech, that had a great amount of stand-alone coverage with coverage primarily about that speech. WP:GNG doesn't prejeduce against how something become notable, it's concerned if something is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Size Keep with Extra Fries - This was covered by lots of notable news sources and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. AnnerTown (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and widely covered event that easily passes WP:GNG.--Cjv110ma (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Purpura

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

WP:PROD deletion was contested on the grounds that Purpura had received a Guggenheim Fellowship, but I don't believe that that demonstrates notability as that fellowship is awarded to hundreds of authors annually. The article tries hard to make it look as though she is notable, but all of the awards seem to be local or very niche—for example the Beatrice Hawley Award was awarded by Alice James Books for a book published by, guess who, Alice James Books—and the sources in the article and found by the Google News search above all seem to be announcement of local readings etc., nothing that meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, though numerous the miscellaneous awards listed for the subject are minor and not nearly of sufficient magnitude to meet WP:WRITER. Triplestop x3 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-
1. Any biography - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" - Guggenheim Award, Fulbright Award (Scholar), National Endowment for the Arts (fellowship), Beatrice Hawley Award, etc., etc.
2. Creative professional - "(c) has won significant critical attention" - National Book Critics Circle Award - Works published by iconic literary magazines - The New Yorker, The Paris Review, etc., etc.
Tammytoons (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]

Strong Keep -- I generally agree with Phil Bridger, but I disagree on the overall conclusion he gives here (though I agree on the specific case of the Beatrice Hawley Award not being enough in itself). As a point of fact, the Guggenheim is not given to hundreds of writers a year. This year it was given to 197 researchers and creative professionals in all fields, about 30 of them tend to be writers of any sort and 5-10 are poets. But the numbers aren't the most important thing (in most recent years there have been 9 nobel science laureates -- that doesn't determine how many scientist bios we add per year); the fact is the Guggenheim is a major prize in poetry, one that guarantees tenure at almost every American university. Three books of poetry (two from very important poetry presses) and a triple Pushcart winner are very substantial accomplishments. Put with publications in the New Yorker and New Republic (if you're used to evaluating scientists, think of these as first authored articles in Science and Nature) and a series of other top venues (Iowa Review, Antioch Review, Paris Review, Ploughshares, Parnassus) and it's a staggering set of notable awards and accomplishments. This is a much higher set of accomplishments than we generally require for scientists (being at the edge of the arts and computer science, I see job candidates from both sides often); we shouldn't let the generally admitted dearth of biographies for poets and other creative artists on WP cause us to think that the smaller number that do have articles here represent the lower bar on exceptional talent. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add to this that her work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews: : Rough Likeness by Lia Purpura: -- Kenyon Review Star Tribune Sonora Review The Diagram; many more on her website -- most of the links no longer work, but are confirmed through a JSTOR, Worldcat, or other library searches. This is the sort of independent notability in the field that both the GNG and WP:WRITER are built around. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the Guggenheim Foundation her essays have won the Pushcart Prize four times (her cv says three, but either way). It may not be quite what WP:PROF#C5 intends, but she's held named visiting professorships at the Universities of Alabama and Iowa. Along with abundant literary journal reviews of her books, I found a few newspaper articles covering her or her work in nontrivial depth: [17] [18] [19]. (Also three reviews in Publishers Weekly [20] [21] [22], which is not itself a small press). So I think she's received enough attention outside her own milieu to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As David Eppstein notes, the awards that Purpura has won are substantial and significant (the Guggenheim in particular is one of the most significant fellowships given to living writers), and, more importantly, they collectively (between the NEA and the Guggenheim and her Pushcarts and her nomination for a National Book Critics Circle Award, Purpura has received a large proportion of the awards for which living American writers are eligible; this is even more impressive considering she is fairly early in her career) point to a major and growing reputation in American Letters, not just as a poet, but as an essayist. -- Ander Monson (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Angermonsoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five Minutes to Kill (Yourself)

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

Fails WP:N. I was only able to find one full review, and from what appears to be glorified tech blog site, as well as a few brief mentions and some press releases. As someone that's built video game articles before, I simply don't see the amount of coverage that would be needed to warrant an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG, not to mention WP:NVG. Ansh6 6 6 19:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Szabo

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

Notability of article subject is not established. Subject has a single film credit at IMDb, his main contributor appears to have a conflict of interest (please see edit history) and the claim that "Szabo gained public attention through his involvement in a gunfight with Salvatore Macagnione" is unsourced. This is a vanity article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, and I can't find any reliable sources. I agree that it looks like a vanity article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heap41a

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

Although article is about the virus, it is mainly promoting the AutoHotkey Sourov0000 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Googling, virtually all the coverage is in WP:QUESTIONABLE blogs and similar sources. The only possibly WP:RELIABLE source I could find was a one-line mention in a Telegraph article. This just isn't sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Best source I could find was Mcafee, but it looks like this is either a slightly different virus or there's no agreement as to what the name should be. Not enough in the way of reliable sources, thus not enough notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RX-77 Guncannon

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

This article only details the fictional aspect of the topic without providing any citations for a real world viewpoint. TTN (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral not sure about this one. The article claims that "One of earliest mecha designs in the Real Robot genre" ... "became the inspiration for various artillery fire-support mecha in other mecha anime and games." If this really is a pioneering design then there might be some notability. The problem is this claim is entirely unsourced. I don't know enough about Gundam to give a confident opinion either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam. If someone can come up with some sourced claims that establish notability, I see no reason why this couldn't be recreated, but my own searches turn up little to no reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NRP. The unsourced claim Andrew brings up may lead to sources being found, but at moment this article is written more or less completely in-universe and will need to be restarted from scratch if kept anyways. Ansh6 6 6 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balmoral at Clifton, Virginia

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

Actual area is a political/real estate organization. I also did a Google search, no data other than properties for sale in a real estate article which is having a picnic soon, if you live there, in a new home, that is Coal town guy (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another housing development, not an actual community of any kind; fails our tests of notability. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence found that this "community" is anything more than a high-end housing development. No reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Residential subdivision, not notable. --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a housing development, not an actual community, and I can't find any external sources discussing it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Creek Ridge, Virginia

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

Delete: Unsourced article about a place that seems to be nonnotable. My Google web search turned up a grand total of 72 hits, most of which were mirrors of this Wikipedia page. There were a few real estate ads, such as [23], [24], and [25], which at best demonstrate that this name has been used by somebody other than Wikipedia -- those aren't reliable sources and they don't indicate notability. No hits in Google news. Orlady (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable source coverage either. Nothing in GNIS. This place is a subdivision mentioned only in real estate listings. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a real estate listing in reality, no GNISCoal town guy (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not in the GNIS, I can't find any evidence that it's a community, and the only sources for it are a handful of real estate listings. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Muschallik

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

Non-notable actress. Although the article claims she has had a lead role for four years in the British program Dream Team, IMDb lists her as having appeared in only a single episode. No other reliable sources to be found about her. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Minor supporting actress. Did appear in Saving Private Ryan. May change. Tammytoons (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]
Delete -- a few minor appearances, maybe, but that appears to be all she has achieved in 47 years; clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Concerns about the article's claims may warrant further investigation, but coverage seems to be here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Tea Court

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

Non-notable company. Claims of notability (the "first authentic tearoom in San Francisco's Chinatown") are not verified, and even if verified, are somewhat specific to denote general notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added six refs to support the stub article, including the NY Times, Fodor's guidebook, the Atlantic Magazine, and several books. There are plenty of other references out there, it clearly meets WP:GNG. References refer to it as not only the first authentic tearoom in San Francisco, but in the entire United States. GregJackP Boomer! 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The added references really improve the article, and the company seems notable enough. However it really needs to be expanded. Ensignricky Talk 20:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few more references - it has gotten some notice locally (the article didn't mention that they are no longer in Chinatown, but in two other locations). But I am torn on this one. My problem is, I don't believe the hype about being "the first authentic tearoom in San Francisco's Chinatown". I grew up in the Bay Area and this sounds to me like BS, possibly based on a self-serving definition of "authentic". The place has only been in business since 1993 (according to one source) or 1983 (according to another source), so "first" seems very unlikely. The claim has three references, but two are not checkable online and the third doesn't seem to mention them; in any case, sources will probably just repeat what the owners told them. So chalk me up as skeptical about this place, despite it having garnered a few local reviews. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try these refs: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], and [35]. It may be hype, but it is well sourced. GregJackP Boomer! 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost half of those references do say "first traditional Chinese tea house" or something equivalent. Like there was never a "traditional Chinese tea house" in the 150-year history of San Francisco Chinatown? Color me still skeptical. I am not calling for deletion because this place does seem to have sufficient coverage, but I can't bring myself to say "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it is hype, but we use what RS sources say, don't we? GregJackP Boomer! 14:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In evaluating the reliability of the source, if we find that the source is just repeating the restaurant's own hype, perhaps we can evaluate that the source isn't reliable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The added sources and the references listed here all appear to be run of the mill reviews and guidebook entries for a local restaurant. I agree with Melanie's skepticism that a city with San Francisco's long association with the Chinese-American community cannot have waited until 1993 for its first "authentic teahouse" to open. I suspect that "fact" is just so much advertising hype that has been accepted unquestioningly by the review and guidebook writers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll Rock You To Hell and Back Again

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

Non-notable album. GregJackP Boomer! 16:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to suggest a redirect, but then I saw that the band's page seems to lack notability, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not to say there's a scarcity of websites mentioning this album, but most of them seem to be self-published review sites or the like. I can't find many reliable sources covering this album, so I think the article should be deleted. T C N7JM 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have those voting "delete" checked sources in Greek? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Before deleting due to lack of notability check the Labels website. The album is there. ^[1] i shall added as a reference to the article. User:CelestialTerrestrial (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)— CelestialTerrestrial (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A reference to the album from its own label is not a reliable source, it is self-published. If you are talking about the label's article on Wikipedia, you just added the band to the label, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for its own articles either. GregJackP Boomer! 06:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I had a good look round, but couldn't find any really convincing sources that would save the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Turner (scientist)

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

Declined speedy. My original rationale for CSD is that the article does not assert significance. Seems to be a fairly normal assistant professor, Fails the tests of WP:PROF. Is published, but simply having "published numerous peer-reviewed articles" is not an indication of notability. h-index of 8. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the de-speedier, I do think this is the right venue for a deletion discussion. I should point out that in addition to his ass. professorship, he is also "director of the Bioinformatics Core at the University of Virginia School of Medicine," whatever weight we are to assign to that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon. Does not even come close to meeting any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Too few citations for WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Compared to sportspeople who get away with a single listing on their home team website, I'm generally sympathetic towards academics, but I do think we need something more substantial in the way of refs here to meet WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF#C1. I've looked, but I can't find anything.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so I understand, he has published work that has been cited. WP:PROF#C1's section on "citation metrics" refers to the "h index" but doesn't offer benchmarks (from what I saw). So how high an h index should it be? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no benchmarks, because citation rates are field-dependent. Mathematics, for example, is a low-citation-density field. 1000 citations and an h of 15 or so would be excellent. Boinformatics, genomics, etc are high-citation density fields and the same figures would be borderline there. Takes some experience to interpret those figures. Also, low values should not be taken as proof of non-notability (how can you prove that anyway, there's always the chance that there are somewhere some good sources that you didn't find), but high values an be taken as proof of having considerable impact on ones field. Hope this helps a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much discussion of this matter in Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) and its archives. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It does, thank you. Well, based on what I see here, I suppose to editors who work a lot with academic bio articles this was at first blush an A7, though it didn't appear that way to me. Perhaps what I might do in the future in a case like this is despeedy but immediately PROD, in cases where I still don't believe it's sufficiently blatantly non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were correct in de-speedying this, as the article does contain what can be construed as claims for notability ("director of a core service", "numerous" publications, etc). A7 is only appropriate if there's no claim for notability at all. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - he's certainly on his way to notability, and tenture-track, but it does not appear that he's there yet. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of video game emulators. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little John Palm

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

This program doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect—Since the result of the first AfD was consensus to merge into a "List of Emulators" type article, and that was never done, is there any reason you can't just do that? Of course, if there aren't enough similar topics to create a bigger article, then that's a different story... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the original AfD, there was only one other of this type (the original merge target), and that one has seemingly been deleted as well. It doesn't really seem to fit elsewhere. It could potentially be shoved onto List of emulators, but I would think deletion would be the better route. TTN (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of video game console emulators. It can fit under "Other". We should probably just speedily close this and implement what the previous RfD mandated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANOMALIA 18

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

Non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not satisfy criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Blackberry Sorbet 14:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I attempted to find reviews, interviews, or other coverage of this band, but was unable to find any in either Greek or English. Group does not meet notability criteria for bands or the GNG. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage, in English or Greek, of the band, save a Discogs page. Sorry. hollyperidol 07:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A consensus was not reached for a merge closure. Discuss further merge proposals on the relevant talk pages. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice Guide to Travel

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

Not notable. Promotional. Declined CSD by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to VBS.tv, the website/online network which made it (unless there's another target among the articles about aspects of Vice). It's got some press, including praise from CNN[36], but nothing detailed and I can't find any in-depth reviews. It's not particularly promotional, and CSD seems inappropriate in view of the talent involved (anything involving David Cross and Johnny Knoxville would have some chance of being notable). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the most referenced and highly trafficked sources of video on the internet about north korea and karachi. Significant news source on rare topic -165.132.180.167 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, full disclosure, I am the original creator of this article. I understand Colapeninsula's point but agree with the anon user above. A few of these episodes, particularly the North Korea one, are extremely popular (millions of YouTube views). Additionally, episodes like the North Korea one and the Liberia one have stand-alone reviews from third party blogs and other news sites. Would adding a section with some info about these episodes that have legs of their own help strengthen the article above the threshold for deletion? Adam Kriesberg (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect—to VBS.tv. As the network (and this show) are defunct, there's little risk of this article getting bigger with huge episode lists. A redirect will still get people to the information they're looking for. The content is barely notable, with two good references. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I added some sources and info. I think if the episodes are listed in some sort of collapsing table, then merging to VBS.tv makes sense, though otherwise the list is convenient here Earflaps (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as copyvio (non-admin closure). | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madants

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

Non-notable band. Coverage is all local media or self-published. Fails WP:BAND. WP:COI editor and promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 13:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete—Copyvio (I just CSD tagged it, too) and already deleted once Themadants. Blatant promotion / blatant copyvio, take your pick. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Freak Hideout

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

Both the article talk page and the notability banner, tagged since November 2011, lead me to the conclusion that this fails our notability threshold for web sites/web based material Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is inane.HotHat (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It even meets WP:GNG, although the sources are now dead links. Perhaps we should find new sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep—GNews search shows that they've been quoted (or conducted interviews which were then quoted) three times, by two RSes... and dissed once by the Guardian. While not a super-high level of notability, I think it's just barely there. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to what has been said in the above comments, the site has also received notice for its compilations: [37], [38]. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources (archive)#Jesus Freak Hideout.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. I disagreed and argued against the placement of the notability tag in the first place. Royal broil 04:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments on the original AFD. This site seems to be one of the mainstays of the Christian music scene and if it were a magazine with similar reach it would not face questions about notability. I quite understand, by the way, the natural caution about creating articles for websites, but the scepticism is more than met here. JASpencer (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ship (band)

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

This does not appear to pass our notability threshold. Fiddle Faddle 12:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, this BAND passes No. 2. It has an album chart on two charts.HotHat (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HotHat. ^King Jakob _C2 13:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy keep in fact, per our notability threshold's item No. 2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I advise the nominator to go look at The Good King to see that notability.HotHat (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charting album, plenty of independent non-trivial coverage, meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 07:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11 Jokers

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

The film has not yet entered production. It does not meet WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 10:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 14:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFF. I'm also concerned about Pocket Gangsters and Puneeth Dixit, which I've CSDed or PRODed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not entered production, and no evidence that pre-production is notable, so fails WP:NFF. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No notability currently, but can be considered in future. Personally i am in favor of deleting but recreating the article once the movie production commences.Mr RD (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as simply being TOO SOON. Allow back once filming begins and it actually gets usable coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Ansh6 6 6 01:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has been written too soon. There is hardly any press coverage at this moment. Let's delete it for now. --Tito☸Dutta 19:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney Empire New Act of the Year

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

Non-notable award. The one article referenced even states this is not an important award, but should be. All hits are PR or because someone has included the award on their bio. Note there appears to be a fake book listing by the name, which upon going into seems to only contain information from the Wiki article. Another user had PRODd it, but it was removed without comment as to why it should be kept. Caffeyw (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see there are quite evidently major clean-up issues, for example verification issues about the winners list and removal of some WP:PUFF. However, the nominator should know full well that the Guardian critic does not say this is an unimportant award, in fact he says it is "the most important comic talent contest in the country". A cursory search reveals several high quality news sources about the competition and, considering the participants and the notoriety of the venue, there will no doubt be others since the event commenced. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sionk makes a clear and compelling case. The article certainly has issues, but we should bear in mind that almost all awards articles are prone to self-promotion and other puffery. Edwardx (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly purging). We do not allow award categories, preferring lists. The converse is that the lists should be allowed. Most of the winners seem to have articles, suggesting that they are good at selecting notable people. However, the article could usefully be purged of those who were mere finalists, and evidcnetly failed to become notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Operation Petticoat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USS Sea Tiger

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

Some duplication of information in the film Operation Petticoat, some unsourced speculation, zero notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge to Operation Petticoat, the one place where much of the information in this stub belongs and CAN be sourced.(see the find sources above) And while it is arguable that this topic might have enough sources available to show notability, it would certainly not overburden the target and it makes sense to place this information where our readers can get in in context to the work of fiction of which it is a part. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Petticoat - from what I can tell all relevant info is on that page already. Ansh6 6 6 01:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If sourced, some of the information could bolster Operation Petticoat#Production. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Hotel (Washington D.C.)

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

Article is about a non-notable no longer existing building. All information is already on the page for the address (1111 Pennsylvania Avenue), where it discusses the building. All this article does is go over the history of the site that is already on the main article page, instead of talking about the hotel itself, and then refer you right back to the page on the site/current building. Caffeyw (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Raleigh Hotel was extermely notable and notability doesn't expire. Even if all the content was contained in the 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue article, a redirect would be appropriate. No need for deletion. It looks to me like all the content is not entirely overlapping? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability isn't temporary and passes WP:GEOFEAT (basically WP:GNG) as far as I can tell. Ansh6 6 6 02:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources discussing this building, and notability doesn't vanish when a building is demolished. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . An historically important building and well documented. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable hotel easily passing our guidelines. Hyperlink (although not required) to one of the book sources found within seconds. [39] The nom doesn't explain why it's "non-notable" nor how do the sources establishing passing WP:GNG somehow do not establish it. And what's with this "No longer existing" rationale? I dare the nom to AfD the Colossus of Rhodes with the same "no longer existing" explanation.--Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Story (2013 film)

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

Non-notable movie, not even scheduled for release for another month. Fails as TOOSOON Caffeyw (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 14:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The edit history will show that this was inadvertantly closed too early. I have reversed that action and re-listed the film on the above delsorts. User:Titodutta is invited to offer a comment and/or an !vote, but we we can let this run its course. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to Vikram Bhatt with history. This has gotten quite a bit of coverage, but at the same time is a little lighter than I'd like for an upcoming film. It's considered to be a decent amount of coverage for an Indian film when you take into consideration how their media covers films and actors, but if this isn't kept then I think it should redirect to Bhatt's article with the history intact. It's likely that this will get more coverage as the release date grows closer, although I know that this is no guarantee. In any case I suggest Bhatt since almost all of the media focus so far has been centered on him moreso than anyone else involved in the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The release date is only two weeks away and it meets WP:GNG with a fairly notable cast, and as per the points above from TokyoGirl about decent coverage, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film is to release in two weeks (i'ts completed) and has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG now and will meet WP:NF in 2 weeks. User:Tokyogirl79's suggestion of redirect would be far more sensible if this were to release in 4 months rather than in two weeks. WP:NFF requires completion ( Done!) and ample coverage ( Done!). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and comment: The nomination has not followed WP:BEFORE. Their two concerns are a) non-notable film (a simple search proves its notability) b) film will release in one month — which is a reason to keep and not to delete. Editors think nom's AFD are creating lots of unnecessary work. So, few suggestions, you have nominated the film's article because it is not going to release in next 2 weeks, but actually Bollywood film articles are written much before their releases. There are many articles where the films are not going to release in next 6—8 months or more. Consider following WP:BEFORE and WP:INDAFD and if you have question on Indian films or AFD process, you can post at my talk page clicking here, I'll try to help. Best --Tito☸Dutta 13:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Notability. Mind clicking 'More links' at bottom. Anup Mehra ^✈ 16:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Clearly notable. Yes, I realize it links to an argument to avoid. But, come on. It's clearly notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus routes 340, 341 and 342

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

Orphan, no sources. Not notable as far as I can see. aycliffe^talk 07:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's content is still unverified five years after its creation and there's no evidence that significant coverage of these routes (or the 40 and 41, which they were renumbered to according to the article) exists. Routine coverage such as bus timetables and trivial mentions isn't enough to meet guidelines. Peter James (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Peter James - Non notable list! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. We had a mass cull of bus route articles a few months ago. This was evidently missed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please discuss renaming suggestions on the list's talk page. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian sports personalities

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

a list of sports "personalities" as opposed to sportspeople either who have WP articles or who would seem to pass WP:Notability (sports)?? where is the line between the two supposed to be? if the intent here is alternatively to list all Canadian sportspeople either who have WP articles or who pass WP notability then the scope is too great for one WP article Mayumashu (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nomination - I did a quick scan through the list and found no redlinked names, so presumably all of the names pass WP:Notability. What "line between the two" is the nomination referring to? PK T(alk) 14:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused -- we have many similar lists, throughout the Project, as can be seen here. If nom's comment relates to the title of the list, or is a suggestion that the people on the list be notable (which they appear to be, as a matter of fact), then that is a conversation he might raise on the talkpage, but I'm confused why this is being brought as an AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raider (piracy)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially for made-up definitions and "facts". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Keep~~ but substantially re-purpose. I don't think the term is "made up", I just think the article is contextually incorrect. There are plenty of references for raiders (in the piratical sense) employed by the Confederacy during the American Civil War (like this, this and this) but most reference a "Confederate Navy" or "pirate-like" raiders as distinct from an activity associated with The Golden Age of Piracy and the like (which is where the article sits with references to "plunder"). These were far more military-minded groups under the direct command of military personnel. We already have Quantrill's Raiders which covers a particular group of such raider/pirates under a particular commander. As it stands, the article is pretty bogus and the nominator was right to bring it here. But I'm happy to adopt it and do what needs to be done. Stalwart111 05:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Confederate Navy raiders were not pirates, nor were land-based units. Plus we already have Commerce raiding. The current title and contents are useless. Anything useful would have to be built from the ground up anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - don't disagree with most of that. We also have Confederate States Navy#Privateers which could probably be expanded too. We're probably more accurately looking at a WP:TNT situation but I'm happy to do the work to start from scratch. I think the tactics used and the prior use during the War of Independence probably give us enough for an article. Quantrill's were certainly not "pirates" in any real sense of the word (being land-based). But the North certainly referred to Confederate raiders as "pirates" ([40]) - it's just a question of whether we should make the same distinction and also cover the non-Confederate WoI "raider" history too. I think there's a space for it but I'm happy to discuss it. Stalwart111 05:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth pointing out, too, that Commerce raiding#American Civil War refers to commerce raiders hired by the Confederacy as being distinct from privateers, though sources suggest both privateer raiders and naval commerce raiders were employed. It would be the former that I would see being covered by this title as Commerce raiding covers the latter. Stalwart111 05:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a bit of a play around with the text of the article and have added some stuff that I could find in reliable sources. Having done some work, I'm probably at weak keep. There's definitely a distinction, I think, between the commerce raiders aiming to work within the Declaration of Paris and the piratical raiders hijacking ships and using them for other purposes (an act of piracy in the traditional sense). But where I've got the article at now is a bit WP:SYNTH and it's not all that great. I can promise further work but I won't fight to the death to keep it. Stalwart111 08:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't really take us beyond the dictionary definition "a person who raids." Of course raids can be done by pirates and other criminals, irregular and regular military forces, as well as by the police, and others. Historical types of raiders should have their own articles, as well as notable individual raiders. However I don't see a need for an overall article on all types of raiders, or even pirate raiders. If a pirate didn't raid he really wouldn't be a pirate. We already have the articles Raid and Piracy. Borock (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak Keep~~ Everything here is basically covered in the pirate article.
Delete - Borock puts it well. This term is used mainly as a synonym for privateer and/or pirate - the terms and the articles are essentially the same thing, so no need to have another article on it; redirect is useless because of disambig. Ansh6 6 6 01:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of female drummers

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

We're not going to genderize drumming. List is redundant to List of drummers. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia recognizes arbitrary changes, no matter how many, nor how often in a person's gender. Toddst1 (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Drmies nomination statement sums this up nicely - there is no need for this list. — sparklism ^hey! 11:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Warden makes a persuasive argument: changing to keep. — sparklism ^hey! 08:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list of drummers is quite large and so it makes sense to have more selective lists such as the list of jazz drummers too. Particular entries such as Lori Barbero don't appear in the larger list and a merger would then exclude the possibility of deletion per WP:MAD. Female drummers are considered by sources as a distinctive group. For example, see 'Not bad - for a girl' which states that "women drummers still struggle to be taken seriously". Deleting our list of them would be a contemptuous action in this context. Note that there is a magazine dedicated to the topic with the clever name of Tom Tom. And there's plenty of coverage in books from When the Drummers Were Women to Gender in the Music Industry: Rock, Discourse and Girl Power. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the list is no argument at all. Might as well divvy drummers up by age or ethnicity, or sexual preference. That Barbero is not in the "main" list is easily fixed--wait, I just did. Now, I am perfectly happy to accept that there are fewer women drummers than men drummers, but that in itself is no argument to divide them, and there are lots of arguments against them, none of which seem to be anticipated here. For instance, should List of drummers include boys AND girls? Just boys, since there is a list of female drummers? But if so, aren't we excluding female drummers from "drummers", essentially ghettoizing them? (Anyone remember Category:Female novelists?) And how does having a separate list serve the purpose of promoting equality--how? and was that our mission? BTW, I foresee that if Bradley Manning takes up drumming we might need yet another list.
  My main problem here, besides the ghettoizing by gender (and you can look that up), is that no argument is given in the article for its existence. And look at Drummer--if you want us to refrain from "contemptuous action", maybe you should re-write that article, bringing up the issues and their sources. Without any actual text on gender and drumming, this is just a lot of hot air and helps advance no one's cause. (And I note that none of the proponents of keeping this list have been bothered to turn their activist interest into verified text.) Drmies (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:EDITATAFD which states, "Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes." Now that you've copied content to another page, we can't delete this page. Warden (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's called article improvement, Colonel. Do you really want to make people believe that one entry not being in the one list is an argument for keeping the other? Besides, I didn't copy it from the list: I copied it from your text here (note that I didn't include the band she's in, cause you didn't, and my summary indicates I got it from you; I don't think you ever edited the article). Drmies (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lori Barero was just an example and there seem to be plenty more such as Rachel Carns. A systematic reconciliation of the lists would be a merger, not deletion. Warden (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - (EC) Oh come on. Even if a delete consensus were to emerge here, it would ahve had to be merge and redirect anyway. Any female drummers not in the master list (and properly referenced of course) would need to be added to that main list, and the editing history preserved. LadyofShalott 23:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden and WP:CLT - see Category:Female drummers. Ansh6 6 6 01:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden. I'm also a Tom Tom reader. I know of no other instrument that gathers such gender-oriented interest, almost to the point of being a contemporary phenomenon. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN; this list complements Category:Female drummers. Drumming is a traditionally male-dominated sphere and female drummers are of interest to researchers who seek to understand the role of women in music. This list meets WP:LISTN because of the many sources that treat female drummers as a group. There are magazines, websites, and books dedicated to female drummers (e.g. Tom Tom Magazine). Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 05:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - List of female drummers is not an equivalent sublist to List of jazz drummers. List of rock dummers, List of classical percussionists, and other such genre-based lists are equivalent. List of female drummers would be equivalent to List of male drummers, if it existed. If this this list is kept, every member should still be in List of drummers or some reasonable genre-based sublist. LadyofShalott 13:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the discussion occurring above, I find it curious that nobody has seen fit to reply to my remarks here. LadyofShalott 23:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Aren't you reminded of the "female novelist" issue? Drmies (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course: the word "duh" comes to mind. LadyofShalott 00:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have many lists of women writers. There are so many sources which organise the topic in this way that we have a list of them too: List of biographical dictionaries of women writers in English. It is therefore standard practise for both the world and Wikipedia to organise content in this way. Warden (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's because there are biographies for female writers. In other words, that categorization has already been made. That drummers need to be segregated by gender is yet to be proven. (How about bass players and guitarists?) Drmies (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic and educational. — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suphot Dhirakaosal

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. all I could find is 1 line mentions confirming he is an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems to be an important Thai diplomat. He was previously Consul General to the United States, ambassador to Burma, ambassador to the UAE, second secretary to the United Nations and currently(?) ambassador to Russia. Generally, ambassadors to major nations like the United States, China or Russia are the most important diplomats of their country. Also appears in the Europa World Yearbook. Given the frequent coverage in English sources on Google, one presumes that there must be more and deeper sources in Thai, Burmese and Russian. Pburka (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he "seems important" is not a criterion. We need coverage to establish notability. The Thai coverage appears to be one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because he was considered the best diplomat to be posted to the US/Russia doesn't mean he's notable. Otherwise we would have articles on every countries Ambassador to the US/Russia. Being highly regarded within the government, does not mean notable in general. Caffeyw (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no firm evidence of notability. Neutrality^talk 14:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Plush_(film)#Novel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plush (novel)

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

Non-notable e-book/novel. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find the book in Amazon's catalog, appears to be self-published ebook fan fiction. The author, Kate Crash, appears likely non-notable as well. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Amazon link is [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddogsix (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks; issue remains self published and no book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just isn't a notable book. I can see where Crash had some limited involvement as some of her songs are on the soundtrack, but I don't see where this is actually an official book for the movie in any context. IF it can be proved that the book is an official tie-in or it gets any actual coverage in relation to the movie (it gets mentioned in press for the movie, etc) then it could be added to that article in the future. I'm just hesitant about adding a non-notable person's self-published book to an article when you figure that the book isn't an official part of the film and was "inspired by" the movie itself. For that matter, I'm kind of leaning towards redirecting the film to the director's page if we can't find enough sources to show that the film passes WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I missed the big honking mention of the book on the official movie website. I don't know why it didn't show up when I was first looking in Google, but oh well. I'm changing my vote to redirect to Plush_(film)#Novel. Other than a brief mention on that page, it doesn't merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street characters (1967)

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

This article is far too short on its own. I mean, there is only two characters listed here, and thats it. I really don't see why this list should even exist, nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm merging here the discussions for similar articles that were nominated at the same time by the same user:

Diego Moya (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (I'm not going to bother to repeat for the remaining lists). List of Coronation Street characters is already ordered by when the characters first appeared. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have notified WikiProject Coronation Street and WikiProject Fictional Characters of this debate. –anemone projectors– 09:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. ~~1) I think this would have been best handled under a single nomination, since five similar articles have been nominated for deletion. 2)~~ I don't think it's right to delete them just because there aren't many characters listed. I think it's possible to improve on them, but also they could probably be merged with adjoining years. I don't understand the comment "nor do I think we couldn't just list every single character in the Lists of characters article", and as for Clarityfiend's comment that List of Coronation Street characters is in chronological order, that only lists the present characters, and List of past Coronation Street characters is in alphabetical order. –anemone projectors– 09:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged all discussions per WP:MULTI, closing the others as non-admin procedural closes, to facilitate discussion and because all nominations are related. Diego Moya (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks for doing that. –anemone projectors– 13:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I agree with AP. Some of these lists could be merged together, like the List of Emmerdale Farm characters (1972–73). Although I reckon they could all be improved. I have some free time and some resources that might help, so I could take one of the lists and see what I can do with it. The purpose of these lists is to stop poorly sourced and developed articles from being created too soon. We can build up the character's entry in the list first, then when there's enough info, we can split them off. We want less of this and more of this. - JuneGloom Talk 12:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at improving List of Coronation Street characters (1975). - JuneGloom Talk 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the nominator - Don't forget to re-tag the articles you've added to this one. Some of them are still on the Bad AFD list. Are there others that should be here as well? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the links in the articles to point to this AFD. I don't think there are others because I found these from article alerts in the WikiProjects and they were the only ones. –anemone projectors– 19:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: I think that there is potential for something here. Me and a fellow editor have put some work in and what we have found is that despite the characters being written and developed in the 60's/70's - there is information and signs of improvement. All that is needed here is work. So we can certainly offer help with that and keep improving. If certain years are not as notable or there is not enough information recovered at this time they can always be merged to form a grouped list as suggested by others here.Rain the 1 22:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No reason for each of these lists to exist on their own. Merge into either article on the show itself or a master list of characters. Caffeyw (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think it would be more sensible to merge them with adjoining years? What about the lists that have already gone through improvements since this AFD started? –anemoneprojectors– 12:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would make more sense wouldn't it. Despite me and JuneGloom07 perfectly demonstrating all that is needed is a bit of work - no one cares. Throw away comments about merging here, there and everywhere. Unfair to ignore the potential.Rain the 1 19:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into one or into main article of Coronation Street. Technical 13 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of these lists is that they are chronological, so merging these articles nominated here into one would corrupt the chronological order. If merged, it should be with adjacent years, not all int one. Merging them into the main Coronation Street page makes no sense either because the chronological character lists exist for other years and there is no place in that article for character descriptions. Doing this would made the main article way too cluttered. Did you even look at the Coronation Street page? Where in that article would you suggest putting all the characters from 1967, 1970, 1975, 1976 and 1977? –anemoneprojectors– 11:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging into the Coronation Street article? Unlikely. Please keep comments serious and avoid making jokes.Rain the 1 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' but consider merging adjacent years; for a series as major as this, a little duplication that would be helpful to the reader seems to make sense. The relevant guideline is NOT PAPER. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like a legitimate content fork. Coronation Street is for casual (eg: non UK) readers. List of Coronation Street characters is for people coming into regular watching of the soap now and wanting to catch up. The "by year" articles are for current and former watchers of it who are trying to remember old characters. All are or can be reliably sourced, and all have a place on the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AriOS (operating system)

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

Yet another Ubuntu fork; WP:N dubious. Has a few reviews linked at distrowatch, but no WP:RS in sight. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Kabirat (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could also be redirected to an appropriate list, but I see notability issues there, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Helix Process

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

Non-notable business process. This article, and the company's own website, appear to be the only mentions of this process to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not close to passing WP:GNG, even if it sounds cool. Let it WP:SNOW. Dea db eef 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created in a cluster with others about the consulting firm (now deleted) whose "new project management model" this is. I have found no evidence that the model has achieved notability. AllyD (talk)
Strong Delete nothing in gnews. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammurapi (software)

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

I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found, so fails WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few brief mentions in software directories, and it did get an extensive article in JavaWorld back in 2005.[42] But it does not reach the notability level.--Salix (talk): 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wenham Magna. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gipsy Row

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

Non notable subject. Gipsey Row is a tiny hamlet within Wenham Magna Parish. It has no real notability, there is not a lot that could be written about it anyway. I have searched and searched for information and history to add to the article, but I can't find anything. The only reference the article has is an atlas, just the prove the place even exists. The sensible option would be to delete the page and include Gipsy Row as a section within it's parish's page (Wenham Magna). This is in-keeping with the majority of other small hamlets who have no notability and about which not a lot can be said Rushton2010 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an inhabited place, a village without a church. Wikipedia includes features of a gazetteer, according to our core policies WP:5P. We should not be deleting articles on any inhabited or formerly inhabited hamlets or villages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wenham Magna, the parish in which it is, which itself has a population of only 150. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Support the redirect proposed above. Way to small for an article, but since it is an actual place just deleting it seems incorrect per our policies. Caffeyw (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect- Agree - noteworthy as distinct community, unjustified as separate article Tammytoons (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of RADIUS servers

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

The list header says 'This is a list of notable RADIUS server implementations.', but it is unreferenced, and only three of the listed servers have Wikipedia articles. I could cut this down to just the three notable entries, but it would seem better to delete this than to have a three entry list. I first put a PROD tag on the list, but it was contested so here we are. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Directory-like. Neutrality^talk 14:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar J. Jones

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

Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation. MilaPedia (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.

A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”

WP:Politition states- 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in. 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.

The banner stated - If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it

Following the specific instructions, the concern was met by meeting section 3 of WP:POLITICIAN by additionally citing each article from a book, in addition to existing citations. The notation was marked in the summary, and the AFS tag removed as instructed. The following entry was posted on MilaPedia’s talk - Thank you MilaPedia for your efforts to make sure all new articles related specifically to Howard County Elected Officials are to be deleted. The articles are works in progress, however each has been significantly cited from a variety of sources which meet criteria #3 of WP Politician (listed below). Some of the articles recommended for deletion are politicians that have also sought higher office and are also notable for their influence in their respective fields. In addition, the guidance clearly states alternatives to AFD "deletion" as a first step. I hope you will direct your future efforts toward expanding and improving these articles with accurate information and relevant citations.

Recommendations were given in Lieu of deletion. Six of the same articles were recommended for deletion again August 14, 2013 with the following notation – "Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation." Each article is in progress, and has been well-cited by a variety of sources, and extra care has been taken to exclude the extensive amount of voting history and procedure that may be considered trivial or not independent of the subject. Although notability is subjective, each is relevant in the history of a rural county that became one of the 10 wealthiest counties in America during their terms and provides supporting information to historical articles. Notification was provided to the user, and noted in summaries. The AFD’s recommended are very specific with similar articles in the same categories not facing the same scrutiny, such as Janet S. Owens or Calvin Ball, III. FlugKerl (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, *HO-404 Hagen House was considered historically notable by the State of Maryland, because its resident Omar J Jones was "notable" as author of the charter form of Government for Howard County.FlugKerl (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note Vote Posted Below to correct copy/pasted error - Fails notability. Apparently someone believes that being a county executive/board member qualifies people to have a page of their own. Lack of any references where the person is named as anything other then "candidate" or simply listed as holding said office. In fact for at least a couple the only articles about the person is their obituary. Caffeyw (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Caffeyw (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* This particular article uses one obituary reference with six additional non-obituary newspaper references. FlugKerl (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For some strange reason, "Caffeyw" decided to post the above, exact, same "delete" vote in 6 AfDs all over the course of 2 minutes time. Something odd seems to be up with this user IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Now, everyone: stop copy-pasting your comments. Mysterious Whisper 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails notability. Any hits on Google are purely because their name is listed as being the office holder, or running for office. No hits otherwise to provide notability. Caffeyw (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple voting in numerous AfDs is highly discouraged. I understand that you claim to be new to Wikipedia, but competence is required here. Guy1890 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See posting on J Hubert Black above. It's not a multiple "vote" it's to clarify that fact for you and a few others that didn't like it being copy/pasted despite having the same issues, on subjects similarly situated. It was suggested that I post a clear message for each one to ensure any complaints about copy/pasting where overcome. I thus did as requested, however this seems to be evolving into a discussion on copy/paste. No one seems to be posting a comment on the actual issue, instead copy/paste has taken it's place. Caffeyw (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "It's not a multiple 'vote'". Yes, it clearly is & that is really not allowed on here. You've made your opinions (whatever value will be assigned to them by an administrator when they close this AfD) abundantly clear...now move on & learn from these negative experiences. Once again, I have no opinion on whether this article should be deleted or not. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet notability indicia - Caffeyw has a critical intelligence and is capable of analyzing material. What is wrong about their making a contribution of these skills? Why is this "odd"? How expert can one become on a minor local politician not mentioned in any independent biography?Tammytoons (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Tammytoons[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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City of Dunedin Pipe Band

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

Another non-notable pipe band. James^x1 2345 20:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 14:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of localities in Nagpur

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

The topic is not notable and has few or out of context references. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 14:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nagpur is notable. The only concern I have is whether "localities" gives us useful inclusion criteria or is indiscriminate. Are these what we'd call in the western world "neighborhoods", is there some formal or legal definition of "locality" applicable here, or is this "any named place within the boundaries of Nagpur"? postdlf (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locality in this context is same as neighborhoods. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 17:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For smaller cities, most neighbourhood might not meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria, so we can have an article enlisting the neighbourhoods and creating redirects from those neighbourhood articles to this. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 18:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: The article cites 4 references:
Ref 1: No problem with notability, cites population of Nagpur.
Ref 2: Rotted/spam link.
Ref 3: No mention of city name/locality.
Ref 4: Only mentions city name.
No citation against all 20 localities mentioned in article. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 09:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck your "delete" !vote as duplicative of your nomination. On your comment itself, read WP:BEFORE. We do not delete articles based only on their current state, but rather their potential. And WP:V requires content be verifiable. postdlf (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a city with a population over 2.4 million is bound to have some distinct localities/neighborhoods that we should expect coverage of in the encyclopedia, and we even have separate articles on at least two of them. After waiting quite a bit of time, no valid arguments for deletion have been raised, and no one has challenged whether these are verifiable. Satisfies WP:LISTPURP both as a navigational index of the localities that merit articles, and as an informational list WP:SPLIT from the parent Nagpur article. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rodeo Ruby Love. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Why We Don't Have Nice Things (album)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Only one WP:RS, the rest are user edited, WP:SPS, or blogs. Group is currently at AfD for lack of notability. Declined PROD. GregJackP Boomer! 13:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Rodeo Ruby Love - Definitely fails WP:NALBUMS and also, seemingly, the GNG. I couldn't find any reliable sources aside from the one already used in the article. T C N7JM 21:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over past discussions regarding merging album pages to band pages and have decided to switch my !vote to merge. T C N7JM 22:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 22. Snotbot t • c » 07:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to band's page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous title. Redirect is useless and would be confusing. T C N7JM 23:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to band's page. This record may actually have borderline notability--it does have a few reviews--but not so much that it demands its own page. However, I don't understand the claim that "redirect is useless" or "confusing"; if anything, deleting this title will be more confusing for the user who's looking for this band and instead gets directed to This Is Why We Don't Have Nice Things by Every Avenue. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's confusing as it is now since they're both collections of music and only one is marked with a disambiguator. T C N7JM 23:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band's page per WP:NALBUMS. We don't need a redirect because nobody is ever going to type in the title, complete with "(album)" on the end, apart from hardcore Wikipedians. The confusion can be resolved by adding {{for|the album by Rodeo Ruby Love|[[Rodeo Ruby Love]]}} to This Is Why We Don't Have Nice Things. Simples. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess you're right. I changed my vote to "merge", as well. Maybe it's a bad sign when you automatically append (film) and (album) to your search terms. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as above. Neutrality^talk 14:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xing Xin

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

WP:COI, (evidence). Also those two users also engaged in cross-wiki spam on Chinese Wikipedia. Mys 721tx (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indulgent dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. His piece at the Venice Biennale may actually be notable [43] [44]. But the article as it stands is in such bad shape that WP:TNT may be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need I remind people that neither a conflict of interest nor an article being "indulgent dross" are reasons for deletion? I would agree with David Eppstein that the article may require a complete rewrite to bring it up to standards, but articles in the LA Times, Il Giornale, Express India and Telegraph and possibly some Chinese-language publications establish notability as does the artist's exhibition record. There appear to be a number of other WP:RSs that further help pass both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The conflict of interest can be dealt with and the "dross" can be edited out. If the book Personal Structures: Time-Space-Existence can be verified to include substantial material on the artist (I can't find a table of contents or index online), that would also go towards firmly establishing notability but I believe that is already established by the other sources available. freshacconci talk to me 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Credible sources that establish notability. Elfpunk (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese Baike http://baike.baidu.com/view/2866215.htm demonstrates significant, multiply-referenced coverage on individual whose anti-government stance would normally be grounds for suppression of information. Photos ; videos ; massive media coverage by China.-165.132.180.167 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal champions

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

Article with no independent sources about a web site that's created their own list of world boxing champions. Nothing shows notability. Jakejr (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spawned this article out of Lineal championship because a user was constantly amending that article to reflect their opinion that the CBZ list is somehow a definitive list of lineal champions. See Talk:Lineal championship#rm lists, and revisions 563369247, 567998686 et seq. I have no opinion on its notability, though it does have input from something called the "International Boxing Research Organization". I personally don't care if it's deleted, but presumably the user who wants its data listed at Lineal championship would be even less happy to see it removed altogether from Wikipedia, while I would hate to see it being given the implicit Wikipedia approval of being on the main lineal championship page. Perhaps an alternative to deleting the page would be moving it to Cyber Boxing Zone. Category:Boxing websites is pretty thin at the moment. jnestorius^(talk) 11:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that shows this list is any more WP notable than a list I'd create and put on a website (no heavyweight champion from 2004-2009?). An admittedly quick google search didn't show me significant independent coverage for CBZ. If such coverage could be found and an article on CBZ was created, then I'd be OK with merging this article into that one. However, that's a lot of IF. Jakejr (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gaps in the lineages are not a mere oversight; they are a consequence of champions retiring or changing weight class. I have scraped together enogh references for a Cyber Boxing Zone article if you want to merge it there. jnestorius^(talk) 13:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had some difficulty accepting a List when there was no main supporting article. How could a list be notable when the subject is not? Since the Cyber Boxing Zone article has now been created I think the list can be kept separate or merged. I would like to see a little more added to the Cyber Boxing Zone article to make a case for notability (ie. why is it notable).Peter Rehse (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Peter's comment. I don't think the CBZ article shows notability--it's not even mentioned in some of the sources and there's a lack of significant independent coverage. If CBZ isn't notable then the list certainly isn't. Papaursa (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cyber Boxing Zone This keeps the information on WP at least until the Cyber Boxing Zone is determined to not be notable, if that decision is ever reached.Mdtemp (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As others pointed out, I think this comes down to whether or not the Cyber Boxing Zone is notable. I'd say we need a notability discussion about CBZ to settle this.Mdtemp (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated Cyber Boxing Zone for deletion on notability grounds as part of this discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a valid list and there are plenty of blue links in the list to validate a use for the list. Technical 13 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Of course the article has plenty of blue links--they're to recognized boxing champions. However, that has nothing to do with the notability of CBZ. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither Cyber Boxing Zone nor this list show any sign of meeting notability requirements - as Papaursa points out above, links on the CBZ page don't even mention that site, giving an initial false impression of notability StuartDouglas (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find significant independent coverage of this site and the article's sources are mainly primary, don't mention the site at all, or are passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Costescu

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. No reliable sources. The external link is not in English but as what I've understand is that the person is 39 years old while here it is listed as 29. SefBau : msg 11:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While I did find a few mentions of him on Google, those pages were in different languages and mainly pertained to him being named a new coach for a Romanian basketball team. I'm not sure if the team he coaches is top tier, either, so I don't have enough to go on to say keep. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find sources to show he meets WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources and the top Romanian League is not high profile enough to demand notability like top leagues in Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. would. Rikster2 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against speedy redirection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assi Nabbe Poorey Sau

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

It is a shelved film. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Incubate. The film was shelved, but production has been revived. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like the project is going to be revived. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect: But the debacle of its original version Neethane En Ponvasantham may affect its chances of being revived. Until the film begins shooting, the article better stay as a redirect. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100% Swiss Stored Data

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

Not a notable term or brand. Could possibly be morphed into an article about Swiss data storage, which is a concept covered by RS: [45], [46], [47] Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually about to tag this one earlier, but had to leave the house. Non-notable label that has yet to catch on. It might at some point, but that is yet to be seen. If anything for a merge I'd recommend a overall data privacy page, not one restricted just to the Swiss. Caffeyw (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, this label only has 1 user and is not notable. 2q2q (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it could be merged into an article on the promoting company, but Pattle AG itself does not even seem notable. W Nowicki (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not enough coverage. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cypher (video game)

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

Lack of sources, lack of notoriety.

The game has no notoriety. As the editor doesn't publish sales statistics, as the press doesn't speak of the game, I tried to guess notoriety by alternative means. During this search, it appears: (1) it doesn't get a nomination at the Independent Games Festival or any notorious indie gaming manifestation. (2) the game isn't available in torrent on The Pirate Bay or other popular trackers, whereas the smallest notorious indie games could be found (3) there are only 80 000 views on the first YouTube video returned by Google (versus 1.6 millions for the first Deus Ex Human Revolution video).

There are 16 sources on the article, 2 comprehensive reviews, 4 self-references, the other ones very short reviews. The 12 links seems to be the comprehensive directory of reviews about this game on the net. As such, even if 10 websites have reviewed the game, this is only temporary, and as such, WP:N#TEMP doesn't seem to be met.Dereckson (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - those two "comprehensive reviews" you mention are enough to bring it above the bar IMO. Everything else you say isn't really a reason for deletion. Ansh6 6 6 01:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure I follow the nom. He acknowledges all of the sources in the article, then links to WP:NOTTEMP and that somehow makes it so it doesn't meet the WP:GNG? Regardless, this game definitely has the coverage to have it meet the GNG. Significant coverage from sources that have been deemed reliable through consensus at WP:VG/RS includes:

The Verge
Rock Paper Shotgun
PCGamer
GameZebo
Penny Arcade
Kotaku
Polygon

I can keep going if necessary, but seriously, there is plenty of coverage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad nomination. Seriously, if you believe some of the reviews are comprehension, then obviously it meets the general notability guidelines. Plenty of reliable sources do cover this. Nominator is advised to learn how Wikipedia works before making more pointless deletion nominations. Dream Focus 02:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, some indie games get more coverage, but the sources that Sergecross show that there was clear secondary coverage of the game by reliable video game web sites and thus meets the GNG with no problem. We do have to be careful with indie games as they are a dime a dozen and often self-promoted but this is not that type of case. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.frontiers.it/album/4584/

[1] ttp://www.frontiers.it/album/4584/