Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 January	21 January >

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 speedy delete per A7 by Yunshui. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Churches (website)

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

No evidence of notability. It's interesting but should not be here - colossal amounts of detail about its history - undistinguishable from a million other sites the same. Sorry but I feel this is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia and should find a home elsewhere. DBaK (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: has been speedily deleted - requesting housekeeping close for this AfD please? Thanks DBaK (talk) 10:21, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Russell (author)

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

Non-notable public speaker. Orange Mike | Talk 22:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wrote "The Brain Book" which reaches 168K on Amazon -- not exactly a major selling book. It was published by Routledge - but scarcely any information about the person is to be found. Other than on his own website, of course. "Creative Manager" is from "Unwin Paperbacks" - at about 3 million at Amazon, and utterly un-notable. The rest seems even less notable - I would lean to delete here - one known book in a field != much. Collect (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't come close to listing all of his books, but none of them seem to have attracted much independent coverage. Non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found many websites saying he's acclaimed for this and that, but they're ones like motivational speaker registers which appear to be self-promotion vehicles. Have found nothing truly independent that indicates notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this might be a case where the book is more notable than the author. Everything I can find that might assert notability looks suspiciously like marketing copy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:31, 27 January 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 rename to List of pre-Columbian engineering projects in the Americas. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Columbian engineering in the Americas

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

Seems to be an unreferenced essay. Tagged for notability for over 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it currently stands, a large portion of the article consists of links to other relevant Wikipedia articles. A possible solution which preserves this useful categorization of links is to create a "Pre-Columbian Engineering" category containing these links or turn it into a list article by renaming to List of Pre-Columbian engineering projects in the Americas or something similar. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REname to List of Pre-Columbian engineering projects in the Americas, which is what it is. I needs some tidying up, but such list articles can be used to identify missing articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 19 January 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) 22:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/keep as list This is a topic that's under-represented on wikipedia (WP:Systemic bias) and the list offers links to existing articles and may also, as Peterkingiron says, spur the creation of new articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - as Peterkingiron said, its list article and should be titled as such.--Staberinde (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator I think making it a list is a good idea. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 22 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Of Chomania

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

Seemingly non-notable yet-to-be-established micronation. I believe many micronations are notable, but untill the time comes there are reliable sources, we can only guess it will become notable. I'm not adverse to incubating or userfying. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to establish notability yet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to AfC / userspace. It would be great to keep it... Regretfully, article cites no sources whatsoever and as of this writing it is entirely impossible to establish notability of the article's subject. kashmiri 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence this place exists other than in the mind of the page creator User:ChomanBaby, whose sole contribution to date has been to change the founding date of a Mexican utility company from "2018" to "Unknown" here (useful contribution though that was, it would have been more useful if they had reinstated the year "1937", which was showing before it was vandalised). A Google search for "Republic of Chomania" excluding "Wikipedia" gives no hits whatever. The article is completely uncited, and appears to be a hoax. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems the first step for any micronation is to create a Wikipedia page, but without any reliable sources, it's not notable (nothing in Google News, nothing in the first few pages of Google results). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of this page and in my defense i created the idea for this micronation i created the flag and all the ideas are invention of mine, as to what i know about the definition of a micronation the micronation can be imaginary it doesn't have to really exist. further more i still don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages that well, as to the vandalism i did on the Mexican utility company i was just trying to see if i could really edit pages on Wikipedia since i am new to Wikipedia and not sure how to do stuff that well around here. ChomanBaby (talk) 11:23:05 AM, Monday 21, January 2013 (CST)
Comment: No, let's make this clear. You, ChomanBaby, were not being accused of vandalism at Comisión Federal de Electricidad—you were being congratulated for undoing the vandalism committed by another user. It would have been better to have reverted the article to the form before the vandalism occurred, but despite this, your contribution was an improvement (and none of us always gets it right, especially on our first edit, so don't worry).

The problem with the Chomania article is that you need reliable sources reporting on this imaginary micronation, otherwise it counts as original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. To illustrate the point, the imaginary nation of Grand Fenwick is notable because it was featured in a number of published novels and films, and other people also went on to write about it. If other people write about Chomania (for example, if a newspaper wrote an article about the republic's website), or if something you write about it is published by a reputable publisher, such as a book publisher or newspaper (or film production company or television company) then an article would be appropriate. Until then, we just have to wait until the nascent micronation escapes the boundaries of your mind and launches itself into international consciousness. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above. Having an article does not confer notability, it's the other way around. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you want to keep this article on Wikipedia, you need to show signs that the micronation project is actually being worked on. An example would be a record of communication between you and local government or zoning officials. If you are simply using the page as a means of projecting Chomania as an idea that you came up with, then you might want to use your own user page for that. Inform us of the following: When are you planning to start the construction of Chomania? --71.225.105.104 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to rain on your good faith parade, but signs that the project is actually being worked on falls far short of any indication of notability. I would consider a chapter in one of the non-wikiderived, non-selfpublished, non-pay-per-print books of https://www.google.com/webhp?q=micronations&hl=en (Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations, Micronations: For Those Who Are Tired of Existing Incompetent, there are others which I can't quickly find) supplemented with magazine attention to demonstrate notability, but let's be frank, there is nothing here now, and it isn't looking there will be anytime soon. Things can change quickly, but there is no use in trying to predict the future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - While the simple action of the micronation "being worked on" will not indicate notability, the action may lead to a rise in popularity from outside sources, like media officials. For example, a local newspaper might publish an issue with the headline, "MAN'S ATTEMPT TO START HIS OWN NATION CAUSES LAND DISPUTE." Hey, at least that's a source. --71.225.105.104 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be a source, but probably not sufficient to demonstrate notability. I'd hate to send a new contributer on a wild goose chase to find something resembling coverage, and after that still having to go "no, that's not sufficient." It's better to clearly indicate what would be needed straight away. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, then I guess there are two options. Go on a wild goose chase or have the page be deleted. The only definitive source I could find, if that's what you'd consider it, would be ChomanBaby's Webs page for the Republic of Chomania, but that's not really a source, since it was created by the same person that created Chomania's Wikipedia page. Therefore, I guess I'm going to have to vote...

Delete: --71.225.105.104 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been deleted under G3 last week. Creator states it is something they made up. Mkdw ^talk 20:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self evident. Made me smile, though. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "micronation" is just a non-notable fantasy idea depicted on its own website with minimal content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Pine

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

I placed a WP:PROD notice on this article with the rationale "Unlaunched future product with no evidence of attained notability. See WP:FUTURE.". The Prod was removed by the article creator (along with the maintenance templates) without comment. The concern remains, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the product to be released by the company, the Neptune Pine, is a very innovative product in the field of wearable computing. There are currently no smartwatches on the market that may operate without the use of a smartphone; the Neptune Pine is the first such product that may do so. Therefore, it is of asserted importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symontian (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting "...the first such product that may do so": in other words speculation about what may be the position at the time when this firm may bring this product to market. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball on potentially notable future products. It depends on actually-achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. There have also been articles submitted about the company, one of which I have speedy eleted as no indication of importance, since nobody could rationally think a company that has yet to release it's first product belongs in an encyclopedia. Products are trickier to judge, & thus rightly excluded from WP:CSD A7. since some few unreleased products that are subject of active discussion before their actual release are notable. An alternative that has sometimes been used to delete articles like this via speedy is G11, promotional, on the grounds that the purpose of introducing an article about a product such as this at a time such as this could only be promotion. I considered doing this, but since it is here, let's get a community consensus, partly in order to convince the contributor that this is agreed policy. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors from a couple of Bell Canada IPs have been removing the AfD template (and other maintenance templates); I have reinstated these again, but obviously this is regrettable action which can limit knowledge of and participation in this AffD discussion. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a message from Neptune Computer Inc. The company has decided to post this article as it plans to submit a press release regarding the product in the next few days. Therefore, it is highly anticipated by the company that a large amount of traffic will be searching for the product's information on Wikipedia. The company merely did this in order to prepare for the anticipated traffic; Neptune has no intention of using the article as a promotional tool. Therefore, the company kindly asks the participants of this discussion to not delete the article; at least until January 27th, or 7 days from today. It is highly likely that reliable tertiary sources for the article will exist then; if not, then the participants of this discussion are free to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.253.11 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment verifies that DGG was right in his opinion above. The article appears to be envisaged as playing a role in a promotional campaign. It has been created for the benefit of the firm, rather than to further the Wikipedia project. I have flagged the WP:COI on the article, but am becoming inclined that a WP:CSD G11 is the correct action. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) The firm have also now issued their press release on PRWeb ([1]), quoting "Simon Tian, co-founder and CEO of Neptune Computer". AllyD (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I requested semi-protection given the constant removal of the AfD tags. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G11 The article is written exclusively from primary sources, it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The Slashdot reference is user-submitted and was not even submitted to the main page, it's essentially a blog entry. The Digital Journal article doesn't mention the product. The sole argument for keeping the article at this point "at least until January 27th" is to serve a promotional end, and using a longer process provides a method for marketers to work around our processes relating to promotional content, setting a dangerous precedent for the community. Additionally, having searched, I was unable to find sources which evidence that this product meets WP:GNG.... yet. Which is a pity, since the product looks cool. We should write about it, however, when it is encyclopedic, and in an encyclopedic manner. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally a speedy delete as G11, but as we are here now, let's get consensus. Lectonar (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this secondary source: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/22/the-neptune-pine-smart-watch-has-a-camera-runs-android-and-wants-to-replace-your-smartphone/
Keep Despite the obvious COI going on here, the launch seems to be catching the eyes of certain areas of society deeming this product as "the first full-feature smartwatch". [2][3][4][5][6] I'm not sure if these are all derivatives of the same article, but at least it's covered by various sources. Dengero (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That there is a spurt of coverage after a press release in some marginal sources does not establish notability. From Dengro's list, the Times-Union is a good reliable source, but it turns out only to be a press release. This fails to establish the product as notable. Coverage is not widespread, nor can I find any evidence of sustained interest in this product as covered in reliable sources leading up to the press release. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lets wait until it actually comes out so we can see if it's going to be a success, before we declare it notable. If it's as innovative as is being claimed here, it shouldn't take long. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CONNECT (Organization)

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

Self-promotion; orphan article. Ringbang (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:00, 7 January 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, MJ94 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The organisation appears to have had significant coverage in reliable sources. The New York Times article features the organisation as the main subject. Entrepreneur has much more than passing mention. The San Diego Union-Tribune article has them as teh primary subject. Also items behind paywalls appear to have addiotnal coverage, e.g. [7], [8]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 24 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecross

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Marginal coverage of a tour in which they were only the opening act is the only media attention they have gotten. WP:TOOSOON Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Detroitsteel (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning how to use Wikipedia but there are a a lot of references to be added. Marginal coverage for the largest heavy metal tour of the summer where they opened is untrue. There were over 600 articles in local and national press about the band during this tour, including a feature in Guitar Player Magazine. Much to be added. Give the user a break and let them finish the article. Fans are also encouraged to contribute. Detroitsteel

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or AT A MINIMUM redirect - The band now has a review at Blabbermouth.com listed as a reference in their article. If the verdict is not to keep the article, I recommend at a minimum, redirecting the article to Trespass America, a tour on which the band participated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a review of their album at Allmusic, which is a step towards meeting WP:BAND, so I've included that as a reference in the article. Some of the other sources cited are questionable, however, so I'm not !voting at present until I can carry out a more detailed search. — sparklism ^hey! 13:38, 17 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:50, 20 January 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, Courcelles 01:25, 27 January 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 agreement to keep amongst all people who have participated, including the nominator. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Countryside Live

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 14 January 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 January 14. Snotbot t • c » 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, sources added since tagging contain sufficient coverage, although some of them are only announcements of events. It could be merged to Yorkshire Agricultural Society. Peter James (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be quite a few sources out there, although I agree the style could be a little more encyclopaedic. I'm not sure whether to beef it up, or wait until the outcome of this discussion, in case my efforts are in vain. Now Definite Keep, as I have rewritten sections in a more neutral tone, and expanded the article using third party sources. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:24, 16 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep alternatively merge to Yorkshire Agricultural Society. The main Great Yorkshire Show also organised by them has an article, so that I do not see why theri subsidiary show should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, there are sources of this as an every day tradition show to show a variety of farm life. Something similar to the 4H Club and resale, however, other than the website shown about www.countrysidelive.co.uk, it is a reliable source to note of there times they annually facilitate, how they operate and manage, and how much profits they have earn while dealing in market showcase. There is a large amount of resources in the reflist to show how much notability was given to the site.--GoShow (............................) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 26 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Novothny

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

though he is signed with S.S.C. Napoli now, he is a reserve there, and hasn't played a league game there yet, failing WP:FOOTYN Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – and while he still has not played football at professional or full senior international level, the article should not be recreated. C 679 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has already played in a fully pro league, in the Hungartian second division for Veszprém FC and of course in the domestic cup. So what are we talking about?! Creed (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Hungarian 1st division is fully-professional. Giant Snowman 16:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the Hungartian second division fully pro or not? Govvy (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Giant Snowman 11:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but why not? And the domestic cup against clubs from the Hungarian first division? I don't understand you. And why don't the Hungarian second division a fully pro legaue..? Explain me please. Creed Creed 18:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it? Giant Snowman 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; the rationale from the previous AfD still stands - until he has played for Napoli, he is not notable. Though I'm curious why the nominator rejected my speedy-deletion tag, and instead nominated for deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Inks.LWC (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bivalent (genetics)

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

The article contains strings of copyrighted text (compare the text at "(a.) Chromosome pairing" with the entry for the "Pairing" glossary entry (in the shaded box, here) and close paraphrases (compare the sentence starting "By late leptotene" with the sentence "At late leptotene" here) ~~Additionally, there is a content fork issue as it is a synonym to Tetrad (genetics), merge would have been recommended in not for the copyright issues.~~Novangelis (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tetrad (genetics) appears to be unrelated to this article; it is about yeast tetrads. Perhaps you meant Tetrad (chromosomal pairing), which redirects at the tetrad disambiguation page to the Meiosis article? I agree that there are copyvio issues--the strings of copyrighted text should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I goofed. That was not a fork. Chalk this one up to laziness. When I though I had found a basis not to go through the entire article to track down the source texts, I leaped upon the opportunity without sufficient examination. Another shorter article by the same author, containing some identical text to this one, was just deleted for copyright violation at my prompting. In addition to the above listed text, the paragraph starting "The telomere bouquet" is found at the bottom of page 108, here. If I continue to search, I suspect that there will be nothing left when copyrighted material is removed. Even if I or someone else does not perform the search, I think the multiple segments of copyrighted material make everything suspect. For that reason, I am still recommending deletion on the basis of copyright violation alone.Novangelis (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just restore to this pre-COPYVIO version, intermediate edits are made almost exclusively by editor who seems to regularly copy-paste. Would have done so myself but it would remove the AfD notice Jebus989 ^✰ 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version listed above does look to be clear of copyvio issues. Other than numerous mirrors, I could not find significant text matches. I concur with the recommendation to restore, and would like to withdraw my recommendation for deletion.Novangelis (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 15:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miodrag Petković (fighter)

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he has no fights for a top tier organization. The article's only source is a link to his fight record (and the source is of unknown reliability). Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is he notable as grappler? ABHU DABHI EURO WINNER 2004, 2007 Hungarian OPEN WINNER, Multiple ADCC Competitor? Master Sun Tzu (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Good point. I couldn't find support for most of the article's wrestling claims, but I did find sources for his 2007 ADCC efforts. I will add them to the article. I would say this makes his case marginal, but that's enough for me today. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reviewing your comment I would that he is. Sepulwiki (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:WPMA/N for his participation in Abu Dhabi. Luchuslu (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — For his grappling titles. You can withdraw your nomination if you wish, Papaursa. Poison Whiskey 14:10, 25 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jocz

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA since he has no fights for a top tier organization. The rankings given don't show notability, even if true (they're not reliably sourced). The article's links don't show him as ranked.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough top-tier fights to pass WP:NMMA, not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NMMA, no fights for top tier organizations. CaSJer (talk) 15:18, 23 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phase2 International

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

Non-notable company. Promotional, out of 21 refs, all but 2 or 3 are self-published and thus not reliable sources. GHits are predominately social media and advert sites. GNews shows only 2 hits, both already listed as refs. GregJackP Boomer! 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Maybe a bit too many self-published sources, but this company is notable and the article is concise. The Redmondmag, TechCrunch, and CRN are reliable sources that all have oversight and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. 108.21.12.231 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Very few real sources here, and those that are don't go beyond [[[WP:MILL]], "Cloud computing business does some cloud computing" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by significant mention multiple reliable sources cited by article. Specifically: [9], [10] and [11]. -—Kvng 04:07, 8 January 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this article has a bizarre history. It seems to have first been created as a WP:FAKEARTICLE attached to User:Phase. Then a new user appeared and moved it (twice I think?). Now it's here. 13 of the 21 "sources" are actually pages on the company's own site - worthless for GNG and basically link-spam. Some of the others are directory listings, sales pages and the like. There's maybe 2-3 good sources (the ones provided by Kvng above, basically - nice work mate!). That's not really enough for me for a company with no other real claim to notability. Just an ordinary company that happens to have been mentioned in a few industry magazines. Coverage, sure, but nothing that suggests it's not just another tech company looking to use WP for WP:PROMO. But there is some coverage there, so I'm not strongly opposed to keeping it. I just can't see any great encyclopedic value in doing so. Stalwart111 09:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "bizarre history" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The company has multiple instances of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Maybe worthy of a copy edit or advert tag, but not a deletion. 77.223.133.20 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll note I didn't suggest it was. I suggested that the 2-3 half-decent references attached to the article wouldn't, in my opinion, be enough to meet notability guidelines. As Andy Dingley said, this seems to mostly be a run-of-the-mill company, not a specifically notable one. Stalwart111 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirement is multiple qualified sources. I have identified 3 qualified sources. Usually two or more meets the multiple requirement. What is your criterion? -—Kvng 00:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I suppose I've taken WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH into account too. Two of those sources (while obviously independent of each other) cover the same product announcement relating to Lotus on Demand. The third deals with other services. It's obviously a subjective quantification, but I also can't see the "significant or demonstrable effects" the company has had to otherwise get me over the line. But hey, my opinion was weak for a reason because the question, for me, has come down subjective criteria. Not enough for me might be more than enough for someone else. I'm always open to being convinced and, for me, a single extra source would probably do it in this particular case. Stalwart111 01:32, 18 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - As mentioned, the CRN article is pretty detailed about their services but the other links, techcrunch (talks more about pricing and reads like an advertisement, nothing useful for this article) and redmondmag.com aren't as much. After two different searches, I'm concerned at the amount of press releases, here (search #1) and here (search #2). A third search didn't even provide anything different and useful here (this third search provided all press releases except for the first result) and thefreelibrary.com provided another press release here. Some of these (particularly the first search) are irrelevant because "Phase 2" is commonly used for other things but I'm not seeing much notability. Search #2 provided two local news articles in Hawaii (Pacific Business News and Honolulu Advertiser) along with another CRN article here. Curious about their history, I searched for any useful results but I only found this (another Hawaii news article) and a press release for a new VP in 2008 here. I recognize that some articles from Techcrunch and CRN are reliable and Phase2 has been associated with IBM and Microsoft, and at some point Dell, but I think Phase2 may be under the bar notable (large amounts of press releases are usually a concern). SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 20 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam L. Brown

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE. — dain- talk 18:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all honor and praise to those who have died in service in uniform serving in our names. It is due to those who are willing to put their lives on the line, that others (such as us) have the freedom to do all those other things (including edit Wikipedia). Yet the Special Warfare Operator Chief is still not notable per WP:GNG & WP:SOLDIER, as although the Silver Star Medal is laudable, it is not sufficient on its own to establish notability. And his death, although said, is not notable in and of itself as the event falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Thankfully, there is elsewhere where SOC Brown can be memorialized, such as here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nomination. V/r EricSerge (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NCO with a third-level decoration. Worthy, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without wanting to speak ill of the dead, there are thousands of soldiers who have also stepped up and done what Brown did. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 27 January 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 English Opening. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halibut gambit

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

This article, about a very rarely played and unanalyzed chess opening, was originally merged and redirected by Quale to English Opening, but the creator has undone that. Actually, I think Quale's decision to merge and redirect was quite generous in terms of how notable this subject is. In the chess literature, I cannot see anything about this gambit, and this includes comprehensive opening books like Modern Chess Openings, and even specialized books on the English Opening such as Starting Out:The English. All of the references are games databases; coverage there doesn't give any more notability than an entry in a phonebook. A look through Google indicates that a few curious souls have asked about the gambit in discussion forums, but they cannot be used as reliable sourcing. The lack of coverage even in specialized literature indicates that there is no notability for encylopedic coverage, even merged into English Opening, and most certainly not for a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I know little of chess openings, from the article it looks like halibut gambit is a synonym for "Jaenisch gambit" which in turn seems to be a synonym for "Schliemann gambit". "Jaenisch gambit" garners about 3K hits on Google, including a discussion by IM Silman and another by GM Gserper, both at chess.com. Both of the alternative names are mentioned at the List of chess gambits under Ruy Lopez. It may by that this article is simply poorly named and a move to "Jaenisch gambit" or "Schliemann gambit" would be the solution here. Mark viking (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jaenisch is a completely different sequence of moves from the so-called "Halibut Gambit". The Ruy Lopez starts with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, and now 3...f5 is the Jaenisch/Schliemann. It is a sideline but at least a reasonably notable one, and duly covered at Ruy Lopez#Schliemann Defence. The opening sequence in this article is completely different: 1.c4 b5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. According to A10 English, Jaenisch gambit at 365chess.com, the Jaenisch gambit has the same opening moves 1.c4 b5 as in the halibut gambit article, so it looks like there are at least two different Jaenisch gambits. Agreed, the move suggestion doesn't make sense here. Thanks, Mark viking (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's occasionally called 'English, Jaenisch gambit' but Jaenisch Gambit is something different. However chess opening names are not unique, see for example Berlin Defence and Steinitz Variation. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Opening#Other variations – nothing to merge. Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are several references to this opening in chess websites, so I think this page should stay.Cliff12345 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as far as I can tell, halibut gambit is used as the name slightly more often than Jaenisch gambit, though I see no harm in changing the article name. I'd also argue that the article has a bit of useful info (listing most common response and success rates of different moves) and could be expanded in the future.Cliff12345 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to English Opening as General notability is not meet as no 'significant coverage in reliable sources'. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as minor footnote to English Opening.
Here's a published source:

Schiller, Eric (1998). "English Opening • Halbut Gambit". Unorthodox Chess Openings. Cardoza Publishing. pp. 135–36. ISBN 0-940685-73-6.
Schiller says the real name is "English Gambit", and takes credit for the insult-name "Halibut":
Volker Drüke lists this as the English Gambit, but I see no need to blame the opening on them. I am tempted to call this the Halibut, because it belongs at the bottom of the sea. But that might be offensive to the Halibut, who is surely more sensible. Black gains nothing tangible for giving up this pawn. (Schiller 1998:135)
He quotes from games Rachow–Dragoy, Germany 1990, and Schakel–Thedens, Germany 1990. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since Schiller admits that he made up the name "Halibut gambit", I don't think we should use that for an article title unless there are other paper references that use that name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Opening, nothing reliable in the article to merge. I don't have any current specialist chess opening literature on the English, so I suspected that I couldn't find any mention of the 1.c4 b5 gambit in any printed material I have. Of course I was surprised to find that I was wrong, as The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992) mentions it briefly. David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld give only the name Jaenisch Gambit, which is not surprising since it seems Eric Schiller hadn't published the Halibut name yet. Hooper and Whyld say only this about it: "considered risky by JAENISCH, who attributed it to SALVIO". That plus Schiller is enough for a two sentence mention in English Opening, but not even close to sufficient for a stand alone article. The scoring percentages in the article now are taken from a couple online chess databases which are not reliable sources. I could explain the reasons, but serious chess players already know why online databases are not reliable sources for that purpose, and I think people who are not chess players are unlikely to find the reasons very interesting. Quale (talk) 04:45, 25 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Frontiers

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

Non-notable journal; still unsourced (save to itself) after five years. Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only material I am finding about the journal are 2008-10 postings relating to submitting to it. That is insufficient to establish the journal as being/having been notable, added to which its site now appears to have gone offline. AllyD (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like AllyD, I cannot find any evidence of notability or even that it still exists. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terrible linkrot. Also, judging by this, it violated WP:PROMOTION even before the journal fell off the face of the earth (or at least the internet). Lord Bromblemore 13:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:08, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flubromazepam

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

Known chemical, but completely lacking any pharmacological data from reliable sources. ~~Apparently~~ Allegedly a street drug, but again, no reliable sources to document this. Boghog (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 17:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete and remove unsourced content immediately. The article seems to be original research. I was unable to find a single reference on Google news, Google books, HighBeam, Newsbank, Credo and JSTOR. I'm not even sure it actually exists. - MrX 17:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It exists:[12][13][14][15]. It does seem to be incredibly new and barely defined though. I can't personally see this being notable yet - I believe it fails WP:TOOSOON (and thus, by extension, WP:GNG) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It definately exists. Administred it intravenously to myself a few days ago and it had characteristics easily seperable from the 15-20 other benzodiazepines I know. Still a benzo though, not THET different. --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I concede that it exists. I am convinced. The article will still be deleted unless it is brought up to Wikipedia's inclusion standards in the next several days. - Mr X 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It IS a street drug, hence no scientific sources. Should it be ignored then? Lot's of people use it, and in the sake of harm reduction there should be an article about it and everyone involved in the pharma-part of Wikipedia should add facts as soon ass reliable sources occour and knowledge evolve. Every other benzodiazepine known to man has a WP-page, why not this? As you all know, you are free to improve it. Deletion would just be contraproductive at best in my opinion. --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the changes that now have been made, theres no redundancy over the main benzodiazepine article. Good, that's how a should have done it in the first place. End of discussion? --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Documentation that a substance is a street drug does not need to be scientific, but it does need to be reliable. Also a very large number of benzodiazipines have been synthesized (probably on the order of tens of thousands), but only a small fraction of these (those that have documented pharmacological activity) have Wikipedia articles. The existence of a substance in itself is not notable. It needs also to have a notable application such as being a drug, pesticide, dye, reagent, research tool, etc. and this application needs to be documented by reliable sources. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't necessarily need scientific sources, just reliable sources (news, magazines, journals, books). Wikipedia is not a place to dispense medical advice or original thought. Did you happen to read any of the helpful links at the top of the edit page when you created the article? - Mr X 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, arguing on the internet is like competing in the paralympics. No offence if any of you did compete. My intentions were the best, trying to contribute to human knowledge being one of the first humans exposed to the substance, let alone intravenously. In my opinion Wikipedia becomes useless without real sources - that is peer reviewed published articles. If my claims would be more substantial if they were referencing to just about anything I could write a report of my experiences with 60 mg over the last week, but scientifically that would account to fuck all. Let's just leave it there. I'll tell my friends what I've learned and let the rest of you learn by fucking up. As for aquiring knowledge, I'll go for primary sources as opposed to Wikipedia. --Katzenudeln (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Katzenudeln, please calm down. The fact is, we cannot have every single chemical compound known to mankind here, and there are several guidelines that I suggest you read - the most important being WP:GNG and WP:V. In addition, you state "should add facts as soon ass reliable sources occour and knowledge evolve" - which fails WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON, and "Every other benzodiazepine known to man has a WP-page, why not this?" which fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once the reliable sources appear, or in fact any real sources at all, then you can start building up an article. Writing personal attacks aimed at Wiki-editors, plus your remark over the Paralympics, is not going to help your cause. I appreciate your good intentions about this article, but you need to take people's comments in a sensible manner. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been mentioned above, the article does not pass WP:V and will not without reliable sources. Reliable sources are exactly what drug articles need; it may be safer to provide information when none is available but this information must be independently verifiable. §everal⇒|Times 04:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on a thorough search of the scientific literature (SciFinder/Chemical Abstracts Service, Reaxys/Beilstein database, etc.) it is clear to me that there is nothing to indicate that this chemical compound meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (it is not notable, at least not yet) and there is no reliable source upon which base verifiable content. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:58, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of items with the phrase and all I got was this lousy T-shirt

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

Fails WP:STANDALONE. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it does not have either a well researched article into "this is a lousy t-shirt", or "this is a lousy t-shirt in the media." Martin451 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No well-defined inclusion criteria, there are thousands of varieties of this shirt around the world that anyone can make. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the article and references? Martin451 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the title sent me into a fit of laughter, but I fail to see how this passes (or CAN pass) WP:STANDALONE or WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- re: WP:GNG this seems to be the only article about "this is a lousy T-shirt", and the references provided make the subject notable. It needs turning from a list into an article, with a history and notable examples.Martin451 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status took my article to AFD and all I got was this lousy DELETE! - once I'd picked myself up off the floor laughing. Way too extensive - you can get these ANYWHERE, as Reywas92 has said. Way too many variations, plus "this lousy mug", "hoodie", "scarf", "coaster", etc.... Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How many "mug"s "hoodie"s "scarf"s are referenced by the "Washington post", "New England Journal of Public Policy ", " Herald-Journal", " American Civil Liberties Union", "The New York Times", "The Daily Telegraph", or even an astronaut. Martin451 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a funny trend, but a total collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiscriminate; yes I agree, it needs a tidy up. But (correct me if I am wrong) wikipedia lacks an article about this trend, and this is a very good starting place. Martin451 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here to say delete, and then had a look at the article, it is not about lousy T-shirts. It includes TV series, songs and books. Every item on the list has a reference, and many of them seem political, or more in depth rather than just holiday T-shirts. This is not an indiscriminate list, but the starting of a rather interesting article. If the this was turned into a proper article, rather than a list, with a history of the phenomenon and examples with explanatory text then this would make a great article.
WP:Vote look at the article and references and think about this not as a list. Martin451 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at the sources, and although the silly phrase has appeared on enough T-shirts to be copied in jest to other types of media, passing mentions in news articles does not give the phrase encyclopedic notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur. Even if every single instance on the list is given a reference, multiple passing mentions do not accumulate to make notability for a phrase like this. Similarly, we do not have an article on "Kiss Me Quick Squeeze Me Slowly" hats or other similar catchy slogan garments. There's no question that such garments exist or that they are widely known, but are they in themselves notable enough for an article? It's a good question, now you raise it. The article, as it currently stands, should be deleted, but there is an argument for a new article such as all I got was this lousy T-shirt which would look at the phenomenon of the garment in itself, but only if it is sourceable from in-depth discussions rather than a multitude of passing mentions. My delete vote for the list still stands. Mabalu (talk) 15:12, 21 January 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 Green_Party_of_Canada#Leadership. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Garfinkle

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

He is an unelected candidate and does not need his own article. Aaaccc (talk), 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an unelected candidate he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, but I was more interested in whether he passes WP:PROF — an earlier version of the article said that he was "University Professor", an advanced grade of professorship that would probably pass WP:PROF criterion 5. Alas, this source indicates that he was the more usual kind of full professor (it lists several other people as University Professor Emeritus, but not him). I can find no evidence that he passes any of the other WP:PROF criteria, nor in-depth news coverage that might let him pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unless somebody can add some sourcing which indicates that he garnered coverage specifically for his role as a university professor while he was a university professor, delete per nom.~~ After reading more carefully, he was a leader of the Green Party of Canada — and party leaders are normally kept, regardless of their party's degree of success or failure in politics, if any passable degree of sourcing is present. More sourcing is certainly needed here — but as written, the article does contain sufficient sourcing to demonstrate his basic notability as a past party leader. Ergo, keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Canada#Leadership; subject does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF. Subject was an interim leader of a smaller national party, but is not notable himself per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO; therefore, a redirect maybe the best option. If more references can be later found to support notability, the article can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 13 January 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, Michig (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Ray^Talk 03:17, 24 January 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the Leader (Eric B. & Rakim song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS; there appears to be so significant coverage of the song to warrant a stand-alone article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve (and then see if it's worth keeping as a standalone article or merging to the album). The article as nominated was unsourced OR, and/or a possible copyvio, but there is scope for improvement. The single made several charts including three Billboard charts ([16]) and also no. 21 in the UK Singles Chart, and there is coverage available such as Mickey Hess's Icons of Hip Hop, which describes the song as an "event horizon that defined the stock in trade of the rap soloist", states that it was one of Melody Maker's singles of the year in 1988, and describes the video as "the first rap video epic", Damien Morgan's Hip Hop Had a Dream, from which some of the content here appears to be lifted (I edited it to remove this text rather than cite the book as it appears to be self-published), Craig Hanser Werner's A Change Is Gonna Come, which says the song "reminded the community of rap's visionary possibilities", a SPIN article which cites it as an example of rap as devastating literature, The New York Times describing it as "space-age". It's hit status back in 1988 would almost certainly mean that further print coverage exists from that time. Note that the tracks listed on discogs.com (which lists 15 different releases of the single) conflict with the B-side stated here. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article does need to be expanded and cleaned-up, the song certainly passes the notability criteria. It performed well on several charts and was a top 25 hit on both the UK Singles Chart and the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. Eric B. & Rakim are a rather influential hip-hop duo, and "Follow the Leader" is one of their more well-known and influential songs, as discussed in the sources provided by Michig. Holiday56 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following Holiday56's recent changes, the song most certainly has the required level of coverage. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 10:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, Holiday56 (talk · contribs)'s have clearly established notability of the song. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:00, 21 January 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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability has been demonstrated. Thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carnaval Brasileiro in Austin, Texas

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as plenty of reliable third-party sources exist (internationally [17], nationally [18], as well as in Texas [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]) so the verifiability and notability thresholds are easily crossed. The article needs improvement but AfD is not for cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 18:34, 14 January 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, Hue Sat Lum 14:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the new sources discovered by Dravecky, it appears to have a certain amount of notability. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dravecky. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 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. The editors that agreed to redirect did not specify exactly which article this should redirect too. Usually, these individual song articles redirect to the album on which is is listed. I have redirected it to Ascendancy (album). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pull Harder on the Strings of Your Martyr

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

Fails WP:NSONGS; there appears to be so significant coverage of the song to warrant a stand-alone article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Nomination is solid against WP:NSONG not enough coverage or content to warrant a standalone article and the main article already has a section on the album with plenty of space to be expanded. Mkdw ^talk 06:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 23 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Da Attitude Media Pvt Ltd

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

Article about a company, lacking reliable, independent references. No references could be found in Google News or books. Seems to fail WP:ORG. - Mr X 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability per WP:CORP, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Part of a promotional WP:Walled garden created by editors with an evident WP:Conflict of interest, though that alone isn't grounds for deletion. Altered Walter (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. article seems like an advertisement.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found that this company is notable. I have flagged the one specific claim in the article which could form some basis for a claim of notability, though it would need evidence of specific international film festival awards. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:CORP. The company exists, just as does its founder (article on him deleted 3 years ago), but as a company it has received no coverage in independent reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per aboveJethwarp (talk) 07:05, 23 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myphone QP29 Duo

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

This does not appear to be a notable product. The manufacturer does not have an article and I can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. GB fan 13:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, item appears not to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly I believe that MyPhone should have an article; if I recall correctly, the company has received significant independent coverage. But the phone? No. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:53, 22 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BillTrack50

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

Website/company with no assertion of notability. The references merely state that the site exists. Contributors to the article look to have a serious conflict of interest and have also been spamming the website across multiple Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is better of without this sort of promotional rubbish. Biker Biker (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to meet notability per WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the spam report. This site is now blacklisted. MER-C 11:44, 24 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli footballers playing overseas

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

Contested PROD - original rationale of "Non-notable list which fails WP:OR; consensus for deletion exists in this September 2011 AfD" was removed with comment of "This qualifies for wikipedia's top-tier football league list. If lower level leagues will be added, we will Talk about deleting this list." The original concerns stand - the topic is non-notable, there is no evidence that the subject of Israeli footballers playing overseas has ever received significant coverage. Giant Snowman 13:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It took me some time to reach this conclusion, after all, the article has good references. However it seems to me that this list, as an intesection, has no notability. It is on the basis that the intersection between Israeli and footballer and playing overseas that is not notable that I have reached this conclusion. The footballers' nationality and their playing location is available in their individual articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli expatriate footballers also more than suffices. Giant Snowman 14:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I see no difficulty with a list and a category providing twin entry points to the information. I will normally argue against the deletion of either. But this intersection is not notable (the criterion for a list) whereas it is most definitely interesting (a decent justification for a category). The list is also extraordinarily hard to maintain as a current list because of the complexity of the intersection and the fluidity of the players' movements. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no indication this topic is notable as an intersection. As has been pointed out the category provides an adequate way of grouping and navigation, whereas this list doesn't. C 679 16:54, 27 January 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 Sweet 7. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's a Mess

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

Considering WP:NSONGS I don't believe this song is notable. It hasn't received extensive coverage from third party sources as the primary topic. The background section is made up of almost all information from the recording booklet whilst the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song is notable for being the subject of significant coverage from two reliable sources. Neither were trivial mentions and prove that the topic has garnered coverage away from its parent album. This links back to first point of WP:NSONGS, so I am confused as to what part of that guideline the nominator cites. [31] [32] Till 13:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two small pieces about a lyric being changed hardly constitute significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? Till 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sweet 7. This can easily be covered there, perhaps in a section discussing the songs on the album. --Michig (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It barely gets a mention in the album article anyways (only on the track listing). The two linked sources above are very short almost identical pieces that mention that the lyrics of the song were changed. This information would fit perfectly under the singles section of the album article. All the other sources in the article are either primary or talk about the album as a whole. AIRcorn (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it go in the singles section? It wasn't a single Till 09:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to merge per reasons above. Till 03:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sweet 7. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:35, 23 January 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 Sweet 7. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the Heartbreak

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

Considering WP:NSONGS I don't believe this song is notable. It hasn't received extensive coverage from third party sources as the primary topic. The background section is made up of almost all information from the recording booklet whilst the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sweet 7. This can easily be covered there, perhaps in a section discussing the songs on the album. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as the song was significantly covered by two independent reliable sources away from its parent album. [33] [34] The same guideline that the nominator cites is one which states that receiving significant coverage in multiple sources is an indicator of notability. Till 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment, it also hasn't charted. Its not like the album's page is bulging with information, the information could easily be merged. Notice how album's like Killer Love have a section about the composition of songs. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to chart. That very guideline that you have cited above explicitly states that if a song has received significant coverage in multiple sources then it is an indicator of notability. It doesn't have to meet all of the criteria, just "at least one" which this does. Also, if your main concerns here are to merge the content in the album article, why on earth did you create a deletion discussion? Till 13:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re merging. --Michig (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to question whether idolator.com would be considered a reliable source and the digital spy one is not significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? The Digital Spy source is about "two new songs", of which was this one, and contained about six sentences of the song. How is that not significant coverage? Also, Idolator is a notable and reliable website about music-related content Till 13:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idolator is a blog, according to our article on it, and the Digital Spy article's entire content specifically about this song is "Then there's 'Thank You For The Heartbreak', a snappy electropop number that could have slotted quite nicely onto the Change album. There's a definite 80s feel to it, but it still sounds distinctively Sugababes." That is not significant coverage by any definition. --Michig (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how about the final paragraph of the source? It discusses both songs including "Heartbreak" which you have completely omitted. Per WP:GNG significant coverage doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material so your argument is invalid. Till 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a poor understanding of what constitutes significant coverage. That doesn't make my argument invalid. We're clearly not going to agree on this, so let's see what other editors think. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was stupid that you dismissed a paragraph germane to this topic without consideration, but stating that I have a poor understanding of significant coverage in retaliation is ridiculous. Clearly you need to find something more productive to do with your time other than make unnecessary statements about people's understandings and weak Afd arguments. Kthanksbye. Till 14:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Digital Spy is a news site, just as Idolator is. Idolator is a reputable website that is owned by a parent company, Buzz Media. It's not some random one-person owned website. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a news site doesn't automatically make it reliable and independent. The fact that one of Buzznet's major investors in Universal Music Group ("one of the first times a music company will be directly involved in developing editorial programming for a social media site, with both companies sharing in the revenue" [35]) and UMG owns Island Records, the label that the album that contains this song was released on, means we should be cautious about treating this as a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main album - Idolator is a blog, so that's discarded. Digital Spy would not be a reliable source for me - it has a very tabloid-esque/blog-esque writing style, and there is no way a handful of lines constitutes "significant coverage". The fact it hasn't charted also counts against it scraping through. In terms of what is in the article, the BBC interview is about the main album, as is the Telegraph article, the Entertainment Ireland article, and even the iTunes Store link! The rest is either similarly disconnected from this subject matter, or is not a reliable source. The main article is not excessively big - so this belongs there. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of your own opinion, Digital Spy is a reliable source. As for Idolator, being a blog does not matter one bit. I guess we would also have to discard every single Popjustice source used on a music article too since that's also a blog. Till 02:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does matter as we are looking for coverage in reliable sources to establish if this song is notable. Blogs can be notable if the person writing them is an expert, or at least well regarded, in their field. I am not convinced that Robbie Daws is. His profile page doesn't suggest any reasons why his blog writing should be considered a reliable source of information[36]. Even so the blog is relatively short, about six sentences about the song. The Digital Spy one (which I have no trouble considered reliable) is even shorter with just two dedicated to this song. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is that Popjustice is a blog just like Idolator, so it doesn't mean that if something's a blog it's automatically unreliable. Till 09:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, generally blogs are unreliable, unless they're being written by independent professional writers. And I fail to see remotely how Digital Spy can be a reliable source, based on both the writing style, and the fact that they're far from independent of the singers, as Michig pointed out. This is all irrelevant anyway, as there's far from significant coverage. I appreciate you seem to be a Sugababes fan, but you can't allow a COI to get the better of you :) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who is disputing the reliability of Digital Spy is you, and you are incorrect because it is reliable. In fact, it is one of the most trusted websites on Wikipedia for music-related articles. Michig was talking about Idolator (the blog) as being not independent of the band. Also, if you had bothered to look below you will see that I switched to merge this article, so your accusations of me having COI is out of line and unnecessary. Till 10:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize about that one, I did get the two mixed up, but I stand by my point: that's not a reliable source. And I had indeed already seen your merge vote before that comment, so I did "bother to look below". I suggest we kill this argument before one of us ends up in trouble. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to album. The information here can easily be merged to the album article as most of the sources used are covering the album. The two featured sources above (even if shown to be reliable) are not enough to provide "significant coverage" of the song to my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have switched my !vote to merge if the Idolator source is found to be unreliable. I still disagree with the nominator's attempt to have the entire content deleted instead of adding a simple merge tag to the article. Till 08:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sweet 7. Not enough reliable sources. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:36, 23 January 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futures wheel

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

~~No evidence of notability.~~ Seems to be part of a walled garden around Jerome C. Glenn (State of the Future and The Millennium Project). ~~In the absence of any good sources establishing notability: Delete.~~ Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per the sources found by Chiswick Chap. --Randykitty (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably. Article is currently unsourced but for a link to the associated Millennium Project website. A "News" search on google returned no results. There are however plenty of mentions in google books so it should be possible to put together a better article with reliable sources on Futures wheel itself (the other 3 articles look much more doubtful and should be put up for deletion). It appears that people in Geography and other subjects have identified the Futures wheel as a useful gadget for thinking about outcomes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a google books search shows masses of in-depth coverage from independent sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:37, 20 January 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 history merge. Graham87 02:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Warsi Movies

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

Unremarkable film production company. Can't find any media coverage on the company itself. Psychonaut (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to Arshad Warsi. While its founder is notable, his company has not yet met WP:CORP. We can at least send our readers to the one place where it makes sense to learn about him and his company in context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC) (Struck) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}[reply]
Study I could see no mention of "Arshad Warsi Movies" in Google News/web search and also in the following posters which the article claims they produced:

a) Zilla Ghaziabad poster informs that film is produced by Soundarya productions and Wikipedia article states it is produced by Showman International.
b) Hum Tum aur Ghost poster says "Indian film presents... Shooting Star production, in association with Studio 18"

I conclude the article has been wrongly titled, actually the name is "Shooting Star Films" (as mentioned inTimes of India article).

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

--Tito Dutta (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-title. Tag for expansion and sourcing per multiple reliable sources found under company's proper name. Just a few found using the correct name as pointed out byTito Dutta's excellent catch include Times of India writing"...by Arshad Warsi's production house, Shooting Star Films" and Indiaglitz writing"...the actor is turning producer for the first time, by introducing his home banner Shooting Star Films Production" and Business of Cinema writing"...Arshad Warsi’s Shooting Star Films will also be co-producing a film". TheShooting Star Film's official website has an "about" page that shares that IT is the production company founded by Arshad Warsi.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC) (STRUCK, See delete below) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ rationale etc above! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed my mind after further research. We already have an article under the proper title. I might have considered a CSD:A10 speedy deletion as this one is a duplicate (under an incorrect name) of another article... but this wrong-titled one was created a month before[37] the one with the correct title.[38] As we already have a sourcable article under the proper title. See Shooting Star Production Ind Ltd. "keeping and retitling" the wrong-titled one does not improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! This article was created before the other article, so should not be deleted, redirect, history merge etc can be tried! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hist merge makes sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. This AFD can be closed as it has become a matter of less controversial housekeeping not requiring discussion and requiring just a bit of finesse with the history merges of two identical but differently-named articles being editied during the same time spans. The "newer" written and properly named article Shooting Star Production Ind Ltd should be CSD:A10 speedied as being one duplicating the content of "older" and mis-named Arshad Warsi Movies. THEN the older mis-named article needs to be re-titled to the simpler and more searchable Shooting Star Productions. I could do so myself, but am not experienced in hist merges. Any other admin swinging by wish to handle it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:01, 24 January 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. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devonté Riley

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

Fails notability criteria for musicians GILO A&E⇑ 09:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Indeed he does. Mcewan (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that shows how this guy meets the criteria for inclusion, maybe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. — sparklism ^hey! 10:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - The article reads like a personal biography, it never clarifies his "acting" career, there isn't anything signficant about his modelling career and his debut album hasn't been released yet (some unreleased debut albums may be notable but this one obviously isn't) so there is nothing to sustain this article. Unsurprisingly, Google News provided nothing and it seems the only relevant links are self-created social network profiles, YouTube videos and the like. It is far too soon so I'm voting delete with no prejudice towards a future article when he is notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 22 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaldo Woolridge

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

fails WP:NBASKETBALL Mayumashu (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has gotten some press coverage that makes him borderline notable per GNG, but its all been in the context of his father (Orlando Woolridge), increased due to Orlando's relatively recent death. But very little has been because of Renaldo himself IMO. He's not an impact basketball player. Rikster2 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a flash-in-the-pan sort of notability, and like Rikster2 said, it's due to his father but not him. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy the specific notability guideline requirements of WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NBASKETBALL, nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I am also cognizant of the point raised by Rikster, Jrcla and Bushranger above, specifically that a great deal of what coverage exists is a function of the much more notable career of the subject's father. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 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 Charles Stross. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Brood

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

I'd originally come across this page while looking at the new books showing up in the category for 2013 books. I saw that the only source on the page was a link to the Amazon entry (which BTW is unusable as a source to show notability). I did a search and was unable to find any substantial coverage to show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. There are a few routine 1 line notifications that the book will be released, but no actual in-depth coverage of the book itself. There's primary sources, but they can't show notability. There are also a few blog posts about it, but none that would be considered a reliable source. Considering that the book won't release until July, it's just WP:TOOSOON for this to have its own article. Most books don't receive substantial coverage until about a week or two before their release date. Some don't receive it until a week or two after their release. Some never get to that level of notability regardless of the author. I'd previously redirected this to the author's page, but it was un-redirected with the justification that it wasn't too soon. Since the redirect was contested and I know a PROD would simply be removed under the same justification, I'm bringing it here for an official AfD discussion. This book doesn't pass WP:NBOOK in any format. There isn't any coverage and Stross isn't the type of author that would be so notable that all of his works become automatically notable as a result. Even Stephen King isn't considered to be entirely at that level of notability and he's a household name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the creator of the Neptune's Brood article:

Tokyogirl79 says that "Stross isn't the type of author that would be so notable that all of his works become automatically notable as a result". If you look at Charles Stross' publishing history, all of his previous 20 full novels have their own Wikipedia article, so arguing that his newest novel would not qualify for a Wikipedia article is just silly. If the previous 20 novels passed WP:NBOOK, then surely the newest books (in all important aspects identical to the 20 previous books) also qualify.

As for the other argument that "Considering that the book won't release until July, it's just WP:TOOSOON for this to have its own article.", I know that at least A Memory of Light had a Wikipedia article four years before it came out (and it was very useful, and had no negative consequences by existing!). Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - why is Tokyogirl79 so insistent on deleting this article? For people interested in this book, having an article even now is surely useful, as lots of information is available online. Google has 1780 results for "Neptune's Brood", and surely Stross' own summary of the content is reliable enough for an article (why would he lie?).

From what I have read about the publishing world, at this point 6 months before the declared release date, the book has to be practically finished here 6 months before. If you look at for example A Memory of Light, Brandon Sanderson had already turn in a full draft 11 months before the final release date. And as Stross has a publishing contract for this book and a track record of publishing, I think it is overwhelmingly possible that Neptune's Brood will be released (though I guess there is a chance that the release date will slip). Since there is therefore little doubt that we will have a Neptune's Brood article, why not collect whatever reliable information is available already now, and be useful now for people curious the upcoming book? Thue (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my return argument:

First off, just because his other books have articles doesn't mean that this book should. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just says that other stuff exists. It might end up that some of those other books don't pass WP:NBOOK and just haven't been nominated for deletion yet. Even if they do pass, that's not a guarantee that the next book will get this coverage. There are a lot of authors that publish multiple books and eventually attention just dries up. However I'd bet that if I were to search the 20 books for Stross, at least 2-3 of those books would probably not pass WP:NBOOK. (Update: Not all of his books have articles. I also noticed that many of the books that do have articles have some serious issues with sourcing. Again, an article's existence doesn't mean that all works by an author pass notability guidelines because another article exists. If you want to improve these articles, now is a good time but I will suggest reading over WP:RS first. Adding non-reliable sources won't save an article no matter how many you add.)
As far as author notability goes, an author has to be overwhelmingly notable. This means that he or she would have books written explicitly about them, their work is covered in various schools across the world, etc. Stross doesn't fit this category. Most authors don't. This is held for writers along the lines of Shakespeare, Poe, and authors who have entire shelves devoted to them. I don't mean this to come across as a "anything other than classical lit won't meet these guidelines" type of thing. I mean this in a "less than 1% of all published authors that meet notability guidelines in general meet this specific criteria" sort of thing. Most authors will never get to this level of notability. Being popular does not mean that all works automatically become notable. It just makes it more likely it will gain coverage.
We don't keep articles because they're useful. We keep them because they meet notability guidelines. WP:ITSUSEFUL has never been an argument that has kept a page on that basis alone. Everything and I mean everything must pass a notability guideline of some sort. This means that it must have coverage in reliable sources.
Reliable sources are things such as news coverage in sources that are independent of the author, his publisher, or any other WP:PRIMARY sources. Merchant sites do not count as reliable sources, nor do fan sites or 99.9% of blog posts. So far the only coverage this has received is a few brief WP:TRIVIAL mentions here and there. Trivial mentions do not show notability.
A book being published does not show notability. A book can be published and never actually meet notability guidelines. I've even seen books end up on the NYT Bestseller list, yet still fail notability guidelines for books because it hasn't actually met notability guidelines because it never actually received coverage in reliable sources. Notability standards for books have required in-depth coverage for years now and merely existing is no longer enough to pass notability guidelines.
The books mentioned above (the upcoming Robert Jordan book, for example) are one of the rare examples of a book that has not yet released that has established notability guidelines. Various reliable sources were reporting comments on the upcoming Robert Jordan book years before it was released, giving it a lot of in-depth coverage from places other than fan sites and primary sources. The same thing would go for the upcoming Song of Ice and Fire book as well. It's received coverage for years now and would pass WP:NBOOK even if it never came out. Neptune's Brood does not have this coverage at this point in time. Most books don't get this sort of attention beforehand, so it's fairly common for books to not get an article until the month of the book's release or sometimes not until a few months afterwards. If at all. Like I said above, books can get on the NYT list and not get enough coverage to pass notability guidelines.
Why am I so insistent upon deleting it? Initially I redirected it because it was too soon for an article. We can't make exceptions for articles because you personally like Stross or because the book is "likely to be notable". We have to hold all articles to the same standards of notability that we would for the book of an unknown author that's being released next month. If we start saying "oh gee, we have to keep this one because I like it and it's useful" and whatever reasons you could think of, then we have to do that for ALL of the articles. The rules apply to all of the articles or none of the articles. All editors should follow this rule, especially admins. We can't make special exceptions for articles that clearly don't pass notability guides. Not now. Not ever. Especially if the person involved is an admin. That sets a bad precedent that others could say is an example of favoritism. If you want to argue for a standard of notability that allows for books to pass notability guidelines if the author has had a set amount of notable books published, please do so. It'd make my job here easier. But so far the set standard is that an author only meets this level of notability if they're at Shakespeare type levels. People argue against Stephen King meeting this level of notability, so you'll have a pretty hard time convincing people to go for this for anything less than Shakespeare.
Now before you start pulling up examples of books, be aware that I'm one person and when I see one article that doesn't pass notability guidelines, I will go after that article. The only reason I haven't nominated This or That by So-and-So is because I haven't seen and researched that article yet. I don't think of myself as a deletionist. I just happen to think that the rules should apply to all articles and not just to select articles. This doesn't pass notability guidelines. Heck, if you want to argue about a book that will be "obviously notable and more than likely release", look at the upcoming Khaled Hosseini book And the Mountains Echoed. That's a book that's not only more than likely to be a #1 bestseller, but it's also likely to gain tons of publicity. But since it doesn't at this time pass notability guidelines, it redirects to the author's page. It'll probably pass notability guidelines in another month or so, but doesn't at this time.

There's more I can write, but this I'm going to stop here before it gets way too TL;DNR. I'm just more posting this because as an admin, you're expected to stick to the rules for notability more so than any other person on Wikipedia. You can't argue for an article to be kept by posting stuff that's already covered in WP:ATA.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination tells us clearly that the nominator wanted to redirect this and so is just coming here because they were reverted. But AFD is neither cleanup, third opinion nor a forum. AFD is only for cases where you actually want to extirpate something completely and make it a red link. Now the book in question is the sequel to Saturn's Children and so while it might be sensible to merge there, that's a matter of ordinary editing. The current draft is just a stub which gives the simple infobox facts and so it doesn't much matter whether it's merged or not. I've browsed the topic and find that, even though it's not published yet, there's more to say about it: that it was written using Scrivener (a tool which may be of interest to article writers here); that it is a pastiche of Heinlein's Friday; that it features a society of android mermaids on Neptune; &c. I further learn that Stross is a fairly successful author; that he wrote The Rapture of the Nerds with Cory Doctorow and that that's available as a free creative commons download. That sounds interesting and so I have downloaded it myself.

Now, if the issue is that we should not promote this author's work, note that the reason that I spent a good 30 minutes exploring the matter and actually obtaining a copy of the author's work is not because of the dull and uninteresting stub. The driver for this activity was this AFD — an amusing example of the Streisand effect. And notice that, by convention, we never delete AFD discussions. The best we can do to prevent this work getting undue attention is to shut down this AFD before it grows even more. See also WP:POINT, WP:WINNING and WP:BOOMERANG.

Warden (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought it here was to avoid a revert war with Thue. I'd redirected it and they showed every indication of getting into a revert war because they wanted to keep the stub, which by no means passes WP:NBOOK by any stretch. The options were to either bring this to AfD or have a few days of revert warring over the article until a different admin stepped in to put a hold on the article, after which point it'd either be a question of taking it to AfD or to the admin board. My point is that there are no reliable sources out there to show that this book passes notability guidelines in any format. My first thought was to redirect it and Thue essentially said that this wasn't an option for the article, so I took the rational next step. So if you've found anything to show that it does merit being kept and that it passes WP:NBOOK, please add them to the article. As far as the overly long explanation goes, it's more because Thue is an admin and doesn't seem to really understand how notability in general goes. That's a pretty big shortcoming for an admin to have considering that notability is the first thing you must have to establish any article, regardless of subject. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sources I found:

Paragraph on the announcement of the deal for the book
Announced cover art, along with US and UK synopses
Announcement, reliable primary source by the author

The first two are secondary sources; it is hard to say if the second of them would be considered in depth. My impression is that this topic is near the notability threshold, but it may be a little WP:TOOSOON. It's very likely that this topic will become notable in the near future. This article has potential (see WP:POTENTIAL), so deletion is uncalled for. Merger to the Charles Stross article might be the best option; Neptune's brood is already mentioned there and two of the three sources above are already cited. When this topic does become notable, re-creation of the article is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is overwhelmingly likely that the article will pass notability with flying colors once it is published. Why not start filling in the article now, and the useful in the mean time to people waiting for the book - what is the harm? In the very unlikely case that all copies of the draft goes up in smoke and the book is never published, the article can then be deleted or merged, with no harm done. Why the big urge to destroy? Thue (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing at this point that shows that notability is a guarantee. If there were more sources out there that showed any sort of coverage for the book at this point in time, I'd be more than happy to ignore the article for a few months. There's literally nothing out there for this book that would give notability for it. Neither of the two secondary sources listed above would really be considered anything but trivial. As someone who has edited many, many book articles over the past few years, I can vouch that "seems like it'd be notable" is not a guarantee with any author. Very few authors are actually "guaranteed to" have notability when a book comes out or even before that point. Please read up on arguments to avoid during deletion discussions. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument we use to keep an article. We don't keep articles simply because you personally find it useful. The article must pass notability guidelines. This article doesn't do this at this point in time and to say that it will is just WP:CRYSTAL balling at this point in time. And this isn't really destroying, it's maintenance. I expect all articles to be held to the same standards, regardless of who wrote them, what it's about, or whether or not someone personally likes the subject matter. Like I said above, either all articles are held to the same standards or none of them must follow the same standards. Besides, at this point there really isn't much to delete that isn't already on the author's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean seriously, if we were to keep this article because "it'll totally become notable" then we'd have to keep every article under the idea that each subject matter is just inches away from becoming known. We can't give preferential treatment to any subject matter. That's a dangerously slippery slope for articles in general. The same argument of "this will totally become notable one day so let's keep the article until then" might not sound like it'd do "any harm" for a book until you see someone trying to make that same argument for a website or a merchant of some sort. After all, it's a company/website that's "totally going to become notable one day" and they could argue that because "it's popular" that they'll more than likely get coverage once that event happens and gets them coverage. That's just not how Wikipedia works. In all good faith we can't make exceptions for one article, then turn around and tell another editor with the exact same situation that their article must be deleted. This is half the reason so many misunderstandings in AfD happen when they say "but editor X got to keep their article despite having no sources". The rules apply to everyone and to all articles or we should throw them out and have no rules apply to the articles and let everyone add their stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a good deal of Google hits already, to not be completely unnotable. A completely unnotable book would not have that amount of web coverage. We have a completeness argument for notability too, that we have an article on a book just to have an article on every book an author has - that argument should eb enough to meet the notability argument for this book, since we have an article for every other of his books. Also, I am not going to waste time to reply to all of you massive amount of arguments, evry if some of them are clearly wrong - I would rather spend the time to improve Wikipedia. Thue (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GHITS, the amount of google hits are irrelevant to whether or not an article should be kept. There are books out there that get dozens to hundreds of hit pages, yet do not pass notability guidelines. Having a complete guide to every book by every author is nice, but we can only have them if the books in question pass notability guideline. Wikipedia is here to cover the notable stuff, not to be a complete compendium on every small facet out there. (WP:NOTEVERYTHING)Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as WP:TOOSOON to author's article per Mark and spin out when published and notability established. Mcewan (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per WP:TOOSOON, the sources simply repeat the statements made by the author about his upcoming book(s). We might be able to find reliable third-party sources with in-depth coverage when the book is finally published, which would certainly establish notability, but until then, I agree with Mark viking on merging it to author's article. Nimuaq (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its author. We should not be having articles on books at least until there start being reviews, which in turn depends on it having at least reached a proof stage. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect or merge with author or prequel for now. Agreed that it's technically too soon, there's not yet substantial enough coverage. But the novel is all but certain to receive reviews in reliable sources, so it's not the end of the world if the article stays around until July. Sandstein 21:02, 24 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afraj Gill

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

Page does not meet notability standards. Specifically, subject is notable for one event, specifically scholastic achievements at the high school level. Although founder of two organizations, neither meet notability requirements. Achieving scholarships or recognition from a Lieutenant Governor does not qualify as an event. Subject appears to be an excellent student who has started some non-notable organizations. Article was created by subject and appears to be heavily self-promotional in nature. Goyston talk, contribs, play 05:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see the comment at the botton because I have changed my thoughts. - Maya) First and foremost, article was certainly not written by the subject - it was written by me (Maya), as an assignment for one of my classes. Starting two organizations, appearing in media and articles for several notable achievements, being actively involved in the community (and, consequently, being rewarded for the efforts) does not constitute one event. If you feel the article is self-promotional in nature, you are welcome to make edits to make it more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayaBR10 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at this diff, we can see that what writing you did was some copyediting and internal linking, and that the article prose was in fact mainly written by Afgman (talk · contribs), not you. It's not wholly unreasonable of Goyston to guess that Afgman is the subject, given the name. This edit to blank the AFD notice coming from the subject's university reinforces such a guess. Are you asserting with your claim to have written this that you and Afgman are in fact one person using multiple accounts? Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article was very clearly written by User:Afgman. Take a look at the history of the article and see who created it. Furthermore, look at Afgman's contributions to see more evidence that he wrote it in a sandbox and then transferred it into a new article. It seems reasonable to assume that Mr. Gill is the author. Furthermore, there was just now an edit by an IP registered to Queen's University (where Mr. Gill is a student, as you can read from his article) which attempted to remove the AfD notice, which is against policy. Inconclusive but, I would argue, suspicious. Goyston talk, contribs, play 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Acquiring scholarships is not an encyclopedic event - receiving a Rhodes_Scholarship, for instance, does not qualify you for Wikipedia, even local press writes about it extensively. Receiving good grades is also not an encyclopedic event, as should be obvious. Being actively involved in the community is not an encyclopedic event, as should also be obvious. Neither is starting an organization if that organization is not, itself notable. Please see WP:EVENTS for a definition of what is a notable event. This is an article about an accomplished young man who has not (yet) done anything that meets notability requirements. Strong delete. Goyston talk, contribs, play 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the nomination for deletion. The two main contributors to this article, Afgman and MayaBR10, appear to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting Mr. Gill. Both accounts have been deleted. I suspect these accounts both belong to Mr. Gill but that is merely speculation. The subject of the article is obviously an exceptional student but has not accomplished anything that meets notability requirements. Strong delete Thegoosler (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Maya again. And for your information, Arfan Gandhi (hence, Afgman) is my close friend who helped me get started on this page. I am very shocked at all your allegations that are aimed at Mr. Gill making this account (you went as far to say that both are HIS accounts, for goodness sake). It's a little funny actually. In terms of the IP address, I use my personal hotspot from my iPhone every single time (I don't have internet connection at my home), so the IP addresses change. Please don't make unproven allegations regarding the individual, but stick to the principles about wikipedia. And the points about notability you have mentioned are correct. I am a new editor and still have a lot to learn (I do want to contribute to this community because it's important, and will improve in the future). I know him quite well (so does Arfan), and we made this account to help make his Wikipedia page for one of our classes (which I checked isn't allowed, I should've done more research). I admit this mistake for two reasons: 1) I know him in person and 2) He does not meet notability guidelines.

My teacher has asked me to go ahead to support the deletion of this page, and I agree. I apologize to Afraj Gill if he is reading all this nonsense that's put him on the spot.

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. Courcelles 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lavish

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Hack (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient reliable sources found that cover the subject in a manor sufficient to pass significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:17, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:36, 20 January 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 January 20. Snotbot t • c » 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Although he has released albums including a recent free EP, he has not received any substantial attention and the references listed aren't substantial either. Despite multiple Google News searches, I found nothing to improve this article aside from short blogs. I'm voting delete with absolutely zero prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 22 January 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) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas songs introduced in theater, television, and film

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

Controversial and possibly dubious subject, tagged for notability for almost 5 years, no references Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, based on personal opinion rather than 3rd party sources. Not encyclopedic RadioFan (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom TheStrike Σagle 10:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be OR, but nicely researched! — ^Wylie_Coyote 17:14, 24 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players of Asian descent

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

Cites needed for three years. Overly broad list of players with ancestry in Eastern, Southeastern, or Southern Asia at some point, so it's excluding portions thereof, first of all, so the scope isn't right. Most of the players are of mixed descent, and almost all are American or Canadian in nationality. Therefore, the intersection is somewhat spurious and unencyclopedic. I would note the first AfD keep included comments to keep but improve refs (didn't happen) and keep but add Russians and Kazakhs as "Northern Asians" (also did not happen), as well as a comment that this was not really all-inclusive of the Middle East, either. In short, I think the article was provisionally kept, and none of the issues were addressed adequately. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The absence of a clear definition of Asian makes this a pointless article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vaguely defined, non-notable listkruft. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, easily construed as grouping by race, which we dont do. By continent, however, can be done, but I am opposed to using Asia as a descriptor, just cause its so huge. its like saying "people of western hemisphere descent". however, there is an informative discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 14#Category:American people of Asian descent, which makes a good case for keeping the category, thus a list like this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just like other pages. It is very rare to see any NHL players who are Asian descent in the White-dominated sport. As an Asian-Canadian, myself, it is not difficult who are Asian descent or not. Marc87 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Singling them out for being different doesn't help with diversity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 24 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reba Phukan

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

A non-notable actress. Fails to meet WP:GNGACTOR. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage in English online from WP:Reliable sources: if sources showing notability can be found in other languages, I might change my vote. Altered Walter (talk) 15:37, 15 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability TheStrike Σagle 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please Check I have added some more reliable sources to Reba Phukan. And I would like to inform you guys that she is a famous actress in Assam you can check in wikipedia's list of assamese people List of people from Assam User:Priyanku.PhukanPriyanku.Phukan^(Talk) 11:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC +5:30)
You cannot establish notability by yourself as you tried by adding them to the List of people from Assam. Times of India link added by you in the article, does not talk about Reba Phukan, it does not say that her daughter is a notable actress.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete, see her at http://www.rupaliparda.com/english/who%27s-who/rebaphukan.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankan Deka (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 January 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. Courcelles 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Bonkowski

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Appears to have written a lot, but I didn't find a lot of coverage of him, although there are several mentions of articles that he has written in GBooks. The best I could find was this, which may have useful content but the preview leaves me guessing. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:02, 14 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:37, 20 January 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. Courcelles 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Boyett

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best coverage that I could find of him was these: Amarillo Globe-News, Orlando Sentinel, quoted in a book, brief mention in a book. If anyone can find one or two decent sources to add to this I may reconsider. --Michig (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:12, 14 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:36, 20 January 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stratego players

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

This is a list of all redlinked individuals who will never merit articles, at least based on their Stratego prowess. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Competitive stratego doesn't appear to have been much noted so this doesn't work well as a list in addition to the problem of nothing but redlinked entries. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 17 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Red-link lists are basically worthless. This article is 95% red-links that will never be resolved. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.We don't want redlinked pages! TheStrike Σagle 10:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, every single listed person is a redlink. (Well, except for one, but the link goes to a disambig page.) JIP | Talk 10:29, 20 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Mäkelä

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

MMA fighter that fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization. In addition, the only reference is a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough top-tier fights to pass WP:NMMA, not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another round of NMMA clean up. Per WP:NMMA criteria #1 that they have not had a showing in 3 or more top tier fights. Mkdw ^talk 21:40, 26 January 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenboy

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

This band is not notable. Goldenboy does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. Perhaps they should noted in a sentence on the page of Elliot Smith, or perhaps Matt Sharp of Weezer, but, on their own, they do not meet the standard. WP:INHERITED. Zacaparum (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zacaparum (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three albums on Eenie Meenie Records passes WP:MUSIC, and the external links section includes three or four serviceable third-party references. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1; there are multiple reliable sources cited in the article which contain a sufficient amount of coverage to warrant an individual article. Gong show 07:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough coverage to be considered notable. In addition to those already in the article (which are already sufficient), there are The Aquarian Weekly, Oakland Tribune, Boise Weekly, ABC, Austin American-Statesman. --Michig (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 'external links' section alone contains enough coverage to meet WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say it satisfies criteria #1. Even though the coverage seems borderline routine, the fact that the sources are from a geographically wide area suggestions attention beyond local coverage. Mkdw ^talk 21:38, 26 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maiju Kujala

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

MMA fighter than fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough top-tier fights to pass WP:NMMA, not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and doesn't has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:04, 25 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Kobold

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

Female MMA fighter with no appearances for a top tier MMA organization, thus failing WP:NMMA. Playing in the Lingerie Football League doesn't confer notability either. In fact, she's not even listed on the roster given in the article. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the google news search above turns up a large number of articles about the subject matter. While she may not pass the specifics of WP:NMMA, she clearly passes the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is WP:ROUTINE sports coverage--fight results and announcements, no significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a far cry from basic statistics and scores. There's a large amount of coverage throughout--there's nothing routine about that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough top-tier fights to pass WP:NMMA. She got media coverage for fighting Gina Carano, but that's about it. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA since she doesn't have any top tier fights. Doesn't meet WP:GNG since the coverage appears to be routine sports coverage--just fight summaries, announcements, or results. I didn't find anything that meets WP:N--"significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear she doesn't meet WP:NMMA. I also agree with the above comments that say she doesn't meet WP:GNG because her coverage is just typical sports reporting. Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 25 January 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. Michig (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Joslin

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

Subject is an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. There is also no significant independent coverage of him since the article's only source is simply a link to his fight record. Even the external links are just to his fight record or his personal web page. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough top-tier fights to pass WP:NMMA, not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One top tier fight is not enough to pass WP:NMMA and the article gives no other reason to consider him notable. The only source given is his fight record, so that's another problem. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and doesn't has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above does not meet the requirement of NMMA, and subsequently no further content or reliable sources that assert individual notability under WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 21:36, 26 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live... In The Still Of The Night

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

Poorly referenced article about a music compilation, fails WP:NALBUMS. Does not seem to be notable on its own. - Mr X 20:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though not properly sourced, the article IS sourcable. ~~To best serve our readers, we might consider a Merge and Redirect to Whitesnake.~~ (STRUCK)Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix per sources offered by User:Michig. I have just tagged the article for editorial attention. What can be fixed does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 14 January 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, MJ94 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an official DVD from a notable band that has received significant coverage (e.g. [39], [40] and the Music Week article that the above Google search shows). We should therefore keep and expand it. --Michig (talk) 09:57, 13 January 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, Courcelles 02:06, 20 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aeileon

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC. Unsigned rapper. Being "associated" with a notable subject does not confer notability itself. He recorded an unreleased song on his own and was an extra in some films and television episodes. ... discospinster _talk 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails all parameters of WP:MUSIC, three of the four citations are for working as a movie extra and are unverifiable, remaining citation is to an article about someone else and subject is only mentioned in passing. Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Notability guidelines for actors & other performers states that actors are considered to possess enough notability for a Wikipedia article if the person:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

I see no indications that this person fulfills any of these parameters. Shearonink (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely unreferenced original research (the article's second paragraph is ridiculous and vanity) and multiple detailed searches with Google News provided nothing useful. Although he had a project with Bizzy Bone, that isn't enough for an article and notability isn't inherited. I'm voting delete with no prejudice towards a future article with appropriate sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love the photos of this rapper that are currently in the article, but sadly I cannot find anything to meet WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 10:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comments from article creator are at this AFD talk page*

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. Will userfy upon request if material needs to be salvaged for a merge, but there is relatively little content. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (wargaming magazine)

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 18 January 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, Courcelles 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the grognard source mentioned in the article, I could only find an entry in a list of wargmaing magazines and various sites selling issues of the magazine. Perhaps there are sources in the paper world, but to the extent I could search, this topic falls below the notability threshold. Mark viking (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the house magazine of the UK distributor for Simulation Publications and so the worse case is that we would merge there. This was pre-internet and so coverage will mainly be offline in other magazines and books from that era. I have a collection of such and will see what I can find. Warden (talk) 11:15, 20 January 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 Poestenkill, New York. Redirect/merge Courcelles 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pineridge Cross-Country Ski Area

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference is only a passing mention. Non-notable.--Charles (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Poestenkill, New York - there seem to be just about enough potential references to make it worth a short mention there as a significant local facility. PWilkinson (talk) 22:33, 18 January 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, Courcelles 01:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per above. Neutrality^talk 11:09, 22 January 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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability demonstrated - thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta-lang

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IEEE standards seem notable themselves, as evidenced by the many articles in the Category:IEEE standards category. I've added a reference to the working group for this standard; the working group counts as a high-profile secondary reference. I've also added a reference to a book devoted to the subject. There are a couple of articles in Electronic Design magazine devoted to Rosetta; Electronic Design is a reputable publisher, so these count as in-depth secondary references, too. One of these refs has also been added. All this adds up to keep. Mark viking (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What did the nom do to try to establish notability? The article cites two reliable sources including a book published on the subject. This seems to be adequate evidence of notability. -—Kvng 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination was before reliable sources were added. Thanks for the improvements - nomination withdrawn. Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's not an excuse. It is your responsibility to look for sources before nominating. -—Kvng 14:12, 22 January 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. Delete since Ungcel's valiant search for sources produced nothing substantial. Dravecky claims notability but cannot, unfortunately, produce evidence of it. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Seward

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk)

Delete or Rewrite - Of the three references in this article, only the one about The Monk TV series had a working link to it. However, it never mentioned Bill Seward. The link to Internet Movie Databas does say something about Seward and it should have been listed as a reference. I searched the internet and found significant information about Seward. If this article is to remain in Wikipedia, the author needs to use this new info to rewrite the article. Unless this is done, I will not change my vote, as the article references no valid sources. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Monk information that you missed was in fact in the episode cast and crew section. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One major problem with this article is that it started off as a straight lift of the promotional autobiography written at the IMDB, by one "BILL SEWARD", and has only been touched up in the five years since. Another copy of the promotional autobiography, complete with the same "Seward lives in Los Angeles with his wife and three children.", can be found here in the lead to an interview that pre-dates our article by a year. That, in turn, says that it took it from the promotional bio on an NBC WWW site. A promotional bio on an NBC WWW site, now a dead link as noted, was one of the same sources that was added here. Wpollard's I-searched-and-found-sources-so-delete argument isn't exactly convincing by itself, given deletion policy. But the fact that over five years even a good faith attempt to add sources by someone in 2010 ends up with another copy of the same single promotional autobiography is certainly a strong indicator that no independent sources exist.
My quick searches for sources turned up Waters 1993, some further brief mentions in items during 1999–2000 in the Times and the Daily News of Los Angeles, and a listing in a telephone directory of television people. This person's life and work don't appear to have garnered independent documentation in the decade since.
- Waters, Sean (1993-07-22). "Now He Talks a Good Game Media: Former St. Bernard High football Coach Bill Seward has found success in radio and TV". Los Angeles Times.
Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 11:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a five-year former anchor for ESPNews along with other high-profile sportscaster roles with the Los Angeles Dodgers Radio Network, in Los Angeles radio, and other positions, many in a time perioff without easily searched online news archives. His roles in TV shows and movies are not individually significant, but his real-life career is notable. - Dravecky (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they are easily searched. How otherwise do you think that I found Waters 1993? If the subject's career is notable, please point to where the world has noted it in the decade since those brief mentions during 1999–2000 that I mentioned. That decade is also easily searched. Yet here we are with multiple copies of the same single promotional autobiography, as both sources and article, and zero evidence, despite the ease of searching for news archives of the past decade, that your unsupported claim of notability has ever been borne out in practice. Uncle G (talk) 21:51, 26 January 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 RESULT:Keep (non-admin closure). Notability proved - thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for the Preservation and Advancement of the Harmonica

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously it needs work but a Google Books search turns up enough to convince me it's notable. Mcewan (talk) 14:44, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources contributing to notability are

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Playing The Harmonica, 2nd Edition mentions the SPAH in several places
Harmonicas, Harps and Heavy Breathers mentions the SPAH in 3 places
Harmonica For Dummies has a short pargraph
Billboard magazine paragraph on SPAH
Another Billboard magazine paragraph on SPAH
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on SPAH conference
Jounral of the Michigan Senate in 1975, the Senate gave the SPAH "the highest accolade of tribute" on the occasion of its 12th anniversary

The first six sources (the seventh was just for fun) are independent secondary sources from reputable publishers. Most are not long, but overall there seems to be enough depth here to achieve notability and to recommend a marginal keep. Mark viking (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work, nomination withdrawn' Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 22 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edo Stojčić

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

A minor journalist and writer. The article and the available online sources do not seem to add up towards the WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR criteria. GregorB (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've been away from Wikipedia for quite some time, so I am not sure how this goes, but I have a hard time understanding why you would question notability of a person who is a published writer, a journalist and a chief editor of at least 3 (two of them major) magazines throughout his career. The man published more than 5 books. So, please be more specific, That's what a 5 minute Google search gave me. --★čabrilo★ 09:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I thought I gave a rather clear argument: on the strength of the article in question and the available online sources, the person does not meet the mentioned notability criteria. Being an editor of a magazine or publishing books is not enough by itself - please see the criteria. Generally speaking, for a notable person, here's what I'd expect to find:
  1. A recipient of a significant award (WP:ANYBIO #1)
  2. A review of one or more of his works in a notable publication
  3. An in-depth interview with the person in a notable publication
  4. A work (article, documentary, book chapter or such) that deals in major part with the person's work and/or biography

Of course the threshold is not to have everything in the above list (e.g. just having #1 would be enough), but lack of all or most items would definitely point to a high likelihood of the person not being notable. GregorB (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Slobodna Dalmacija article (now added to the External links section) does count towards #4 in the above list, but I don't feel this is enough. Could find passing coverage and nothing else. GregorB (talk) 00:22, 7 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR, sources are not notable either. Vacation9 02:33, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:47, 20 January 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. Courcelles 01:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spazztic Blurr

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. They released an album on Earache Records and did receive some coverage back in the day, but maybe notability isn't quite there in this case. --Michig (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 11:04, 22 January 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. Courcelles 01:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Patton Associates

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

Promotional article for non-notable company. All the references are either self published or press releases or non-substantial mentions of their record at the BBB. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 January 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, MJ94 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 11:04, 22 January 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 Zoosk. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Zadeh

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

His company may be notable, but he has no separate notability. Half of the article is a personal account of his struggles to get a green card, and the other half duplicates the material on the company. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Zoosk, like the other one. No standalone notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 January 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, MJ94 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoosk like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Mehr. All of the sources are about Zoosk, not the actual person. Notability is not established. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. The attempt to make three articles when one would do is a standard technique of promotional editing that should not be encouraged. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Culture Caucus

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. I just added three separate references to the Visual Culture Caucus from books published in 2005, 2008, and 2009. These should establish notability. Grhabyt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those sources added by Grhabyt (t c) are just enough to verify the existence of the caucus. They definitely do not establish notability -- each book mentions the caucus for less than one whole sentence. I was unable to find any more significant coverage, and as per WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." —Darkwind (talk) 23:20, 19 January 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, Courcelles 01:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources indicate it exists in some form or another in relation to the CAA Conference. But the sentence in Kromm book, for example, is sourced from the mention in the introduction to the Dikovitskaya book, which doesn't suggest to me strong coverage. I can't see how its possible to verify who's a member and, in any detail, what it does. It is already mentioned in the (unsourced) CAA article. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 15:19, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Glowacki

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. I could find nothing through the usual Google searches, though this is indicative rather than probative. The article itself makes no specific claim to notability: being a music director at a small parish church doesn't meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSBIO and owning a small non-notable business doesn't meet the criteria in WP:BIO. That leaves the album, but the only relevant results I could find, 1 and 2, are on the subject's own web sites. The references given in the article are all user-generated and directly associated with the subject. (I should declare that I previously declined this article at AfC on the grounds that the subject hadn't been shown to be notable). Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a resource used around the world and I personally will always look to wikipedia for information. The article regarding Mike Glowacki is well written and informative. It provides factual information and there is no harm in keeping the article on wikipedia. While I appreciate your process for reviewing articles, I would not like to see this article deleted. As more information and resources become available, they will be added to the article to build the article's credibility. Thank you for your time and consideration and for giving others a great resource for information. 75.34.53.231 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Annamarie[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I curious as to how this made it through AFC given that none of the sourcing in the article uses a reliable source. The subject does not meet our inclusion citieria in general, or that specific to musicians. I was unable to find any coverage in independent reliable sources about the subject, nor have reliable sources taken any notice of his one recorded CD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 10 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. The last two relists have not resulted in any further input so there seemed little point relisting it again. Michig (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian football transfers summer 2011

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

Delete as "excessive listing of statistics", WP:IINFO. I have removed all the unreferenced transfers, gutting the article. The transfer is important to the player, for which he should have a note at his article. Nothing more. C 679 18:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am trying to see what is wrong here. Transfer articles are very common on wikipedia (See articles in Category:Association football transfers).--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm glad you removed the unsourced content but these type of lists are notable & have long been viewed as such given the amount of media coverage of the transfer window. These lists are often some of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia at certain times of the year (not specially this one). Not sure why you have single out the Hungary list? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a previous discussion at WT:FOOTY, questioning such lists and I thought that it doesn't give any encyclopaedic information. Sure it's popular during transfer windows, but WP:POPULARPAGE is not a reason to keep it, either. The purpose of a list is threefold, information, navigation and development. I believe this information is severely limited and of niche use only; navigation is already provided by categories such as Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I players and development is not applicable. C 679 19:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see why you targeted the Hungary article, but that is a very old discussion & I think views at WP:FOOTY have changed sustainably. Do you not remember discussing what was the best type of flag policy for these articles which was discussed for a month with many editors included & nobody questioned their notability. PS Popularpage was just a statement not my rationale. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know about this one, as my knowledge about Hungarian football are limited, but in general these lists are notable as they have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and passes WP:LISTN. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in general these lists are notable, but is this the case for this list? Even looking at one of the references, which is in Czech, it just says Marek Heinz returned from Hungary and quotes the player expressing his happiness to return to the club. There is no explicit link with the list in question in this discussion. Also, from the 44 references in the list, only four are not sourced from a primary source (one of the clubs involved). I would be happy to see a reliable source discuss such a subject as "Hungarian football transfers summer 2011" but I have yet to see such a discussion, rather only an assumption it is notable because a similar list such as England or Germany is. Let's go on the merits of this list. C 679 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course primary sources don't normally establish the topic's notability, but it was agreed in this discussion that primary sources where perfectly fine for transfers as news agencies frequently jump the gun, making prematurely announcements. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An important caveat, mentioned in that discussion by Struway2, is that "club sources only" should apply only to current transfers and that we should not consider the situation to be the same in an historical context, i.e. a year after they happened. Anyway to me, it looks like these primary sources deal with the player and not with the transfer window itself, so both of these things considered, that's why I sent the list to AfD. C 679 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:39, 20 January 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. Tone 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Seoul transfers

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

Stats overload, blatent violation of many Wikipedia policies including WP:NOT. This nomination also extends to the spin-off lists which I will note below the original nomination, these are six sub-lists grouped by date. C 679 18:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing the sub-lists here for consideration with the main article, for reasons discussed above:

C 679 18:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Transfer lists for individual clubs are not notable & total overkill, this type of content belongs in the clubs season pages. Transfer lists by nation such List of Japanese football transfers winter 2010–11 are ok however. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articles fails WP:NOTSTATS and this information belongs in the individual season-articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never Delete - Individual clubs transfer list is also notable. Not notable is just Cloudz679's opinion. I don' understant why do you delet detailed article? Transfer list By nation or Transfer list By club are both informative. As yo u Know I invest much time to write this article. But you want to delete by just your private opinion. private opionion was just 3-4 lines to write 1-2 minites. I really have spectisism on wikipedia. I crated andm improve this article 3 years. But this article can delete by just 2 person's private opinion to write 2 minites. In this manner Who contribute articles on wikepdia.03:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Footwiks (talk)

I really want to see only transfers page by club category like FC Barcelona, Manchester United. But In order to see transfers.....I have to look into club season page or League transfers page. But this page is not informative and not detailed. transfer lists are not accurate. South korea club transfer lists are not created before 2012 season. Article regarding transfers list by club are informative and important page. Dataes are too much and detailed. league transfer list page don't express detailed facts including transfer fee, trade person. dates. It can express just summary facts.. for example. A players from A team -> B team.

Please keep this article. I really invested much time. I investigated old newspapers and football magazines. If this article keep on wikipedia. Does Wikipedia go bankrupt? Take it easy. Don't happen to on wikepedia.Footwiks (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split - The info in these articles should be split into individual season articles about the club, which should include fixtures and results, statistics, transfers, etc. – Pee Jay 23:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough meaningful content or notability. Giant Snowman 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Merge into season articles I disagree it needs deleting it's good information and have you guys seen the club season pages? They don't mention the transfers. It's just in the wrong format. The transfer info needs to be added to the right pages, not seperated. Govvy (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information already exists at the season articles, which include relevant season information as you would expect, also unreferenced, e.g. 2012 FC Seoul season, 2013 FC Seoul season. C 679 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first looked, I thought it wasn't there, change my vote to delete then. Govvy (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before 2004 season, FC Seoul don't have all season page. Actually, I created transfer page first and somebody copied it to season page. Many people want to see transfer status at independant aritcle.Footwiks (talk)

No other club has a separate transfer page. C 679 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your reason. Many people really hope other clubs have sperated and detailed transfer page. Do you know that all football clubS don't have separate season page and records page when the wikepdia began in 2006. At that time, All wikepdia controller were lik you, Maybe We can't read football club separate season page and records pages at the momment.Footwiks (talk)

You don't accept his reason, but I don't accept your reason. There is no reason for there to be separate articles for each club's transfer history. Create season articles or delete this content. – Pee Jay 16:20, 14 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six delete votes (including me as nom), one against (author) and one author requesting split, which has already been done prior to this listing. Unsure how much more clear this discussion can be? C 679 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with C679 here. I'm not sure what the exact figure is for consensus but there doesn't seem to be any substantial objection to this deletion. The author is begging to keep a content fork that is covered elsewhere here. Funny ^Pika! 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see why this relisted either, because I strongly disagree with the creator's arguments, and no one else has argued keep. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 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 Open Text Corporation. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 06:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artesia Digital Media Group

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

Tagged for deletion for over 5 years; couldn't prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Text Corporation The firm was independent from 1999-2004 and has been a subsiduary of Open Text for the longer period since. Its website redirects to OpenText's, and subsequent press coverage is of "Open Text's Artesia DAM". AllyD (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:12, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the reasoning of AllyD. Mark viking (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Open Text Corporation per above - sourcing is not sufficient to establish notability as an entity independent of Open Text.Dialectric (talk) 02:14, 27 January 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. From the comments in the rather weak discussion, there seems to be a consensus for keeping under the condition that it is massively cleaned up. I have tagged the article appropriately. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birote

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

Looks nonsense and puffery. Many sources are facebook pages, other Wikipedia pages or sources impossible to check, even when you know the language and script like the source "General Maqsood Abbasi", what looks like own research. Rotten language. The Banner talk 02:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... The article is about a place or adminstrative division (current and historical versions of the article differ on this point) of a type which we generally regard as notable under WP:NPLACE or WP:GEOLAND. However, the article does suffer in large measure from the defects specified by the nominator, though much of this seems to have been introduced over the last three months by an new and over-enthusiastic editor who has been concentrating on editing this and a few closely related articles. Having said that, the state of the article when he started editing it was not at all good. While I think it may be a good idea to search through current and old versions of the article for any material that can be properly sourced and salvaged (the sourcing is mostly hopeless, but editors may have been working from local knowledge, some of which might be verifiable from reliable sources), it may well be necessary - at least for now - to stub the article and be prepared to start again. And finally, another complicating point - there seems to be another article on the administrative division at Berote Kalan, which however seems to be a stub with only primary sources. PWilkinson (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:13, 13 January 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic seems to be suitable for an article, but if this version is to be kept, it needs to be gutted of all the unencylopedic content, the original research, the promotion of specific individuals, etc. I'm not sure there will be much left after that. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – although the article needs a lot of copyedit. Zia Khan 02:00, 26 January 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Thaddeus Barleycorn Barber

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; can't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage of him, and it isn't really clear what his claim to notability is. --Michig (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. He sounds like an interesting person, and admittedly it is hard to find information about someone of his generation, but almost nothing in this article is verified. Even the article itself repeatedly says "little is known" about this and "it is believed" that. Sounds like part of a series about people named Barleycorn, but his relationship with the others isn't clear so I can't see any target for a merge. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Looks like a forerunner of an ethnic minority to reach a high educational status. It certainly needs a lot more citations. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 19 January 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, Courcelles 01:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added three more references after doing a brief search. The two from The York Herald (1887 and 1888) refer to his time in Elmfield College and are contemporaneous newspaper reports. Would anyone in Edinburgh be able to pop into the University to get fuller citations for the "University of Edinburgh Record Library" references? It's a bit too far for me to travel. We shouldn't be deleting articles just because Google doesn't hand us everything on a plate. Let's find a few more references and keep this fascinating article. — Hebrides (talk) 14:54, 26 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Beaulier

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't find evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a few mentions in GBooks but nothing that appeared really significant. --Michig (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:08, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, subject has been mentioned in multiple books, whether those mentions are of the level to meet the significant coverage requirement as defined in WP:GNG is debatable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The links RCLC provides have one-line passing mentions in the first two, and he isn't even mentioned in the others. Merely shooting down a MiG or two doesn't confer notability, alas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 27 January 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. Courcelles 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hills gold jewelry

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk)

Keep. A distinctive type of jewelry well-known in South Dakota, so much so that it was declared the official state jewelry in 1988.[41] There are plenty of discussions of this jewelry in South Dakota-related works[42]; I've added some sources to the article. (In addition, note that the trademark lawsuit, mentioned on the page with a cite to the 8th Circuit's opinion, appears to be discussed in an academic work entitled Tradition on trial: how the American legal system handles the concept of tradition, but GBooks shows only a snippet[43] so I can't tell how extensive this discussion is.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. This is a distinctive style of jewelery and the official jewelery of the state of South Dakota. Needs some cleanup, but sufficient sources exist to establish notability, making this pass WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:14, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Blee

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any significant independent coverage of this starlet, who was active from 1982 to 1987. During that time she either had very small roles ("woman #2") in significant films/series, or else she had significant roles in non-notable movies; only IMDb seems to have taken notice of her. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major work done on this unnotable since it was created in 2008, and that appears straight from IMDb. — ^Wylie_Coyote 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is admittedly a stub at best, she was in several movies that had theatrical runs in the 1980's, and was the lead in The Beach Girls. I certainly don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by deleting her page. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mporia

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

Fails WP:CORP, notability not established for 5 years, not referenced. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Seems to be a pretty straightforward (failed) service provider. Nothing of note for Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. -- BenTels (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Difficult to find real coverage among the chaff of press releases and pseudo-news based on press releases, but I did find these: [44], [45]. Not a strong case for keeping admittedly. --Michig (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:36, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's some additional independent coverage - [46], [47], [48], [49]. -—Kvng 20:23, 20 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh GAA Senior Leagues

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

No details about the competition here just a dump of game information Gnevin (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is an embarrassingly bad GAA article. Armagh GAA coverage in Wikipedia is gradually improving and this article is beyond redemption, someone needs to start afresh. Brocach (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Armagh GAA until sources are found. As it is a successful Gaelic football team and is the home county and league of Crossmaglen Rangers there should be plenty. --86.40.110.93 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In soccer, we only allow articles on clubs down to a certain level. Local leagues in which all the players are amateurs are generally NN. It is for a GAA taskforce to establish a boundary between the notable clubs, probably those playing at a national (here meaning all-Ireland) level and local amateur sport. My preference would be to redirect ot Armagh GAA, but I am not Irish and do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaelic Athletic Association is very much part of the fabric of Irish society, to a much greater degree than most other sports in most other countries. Every parish in Ireland has a club; the clubs compete with each other in each of the 32 counties, and onwards into provincial and national club competitions. The counties, each drawing the best players from its own clubs, compete in a national league and in provincial and national championships. It is a hugely important part of Irish life and the fact that all players are amateurs does not diminish the notability of any club or county. The role that a GAA club has within the parish is not comparable to that of a NN amateur local soccer team in England.

I am not saying that there should not be an article titled Armagh Senior Leagues. (The "GAA" is superfluous, since no-one else runs Armagh Senior Leagues.) But the present effort is just a stale list of match results and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The coverage of Armagh GAA clubs, players and competitions is gradually improving but this article in its present form should be deleted. Brocach (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brocach - this article is totally out of place here. I can accept a list of champions (and perhaps runner-up) but this seems to be just a list of results. Pmunited (talk) 17:25, 14 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contrary (apparently) to the title, this is just a list of result from one league season, which the creator seemingly got bored of and couldn't be bothered to finish. Nuke from orbit and restart with appropriate scope/content if anyone feels like it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude. C 679 21:01, 26 January 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Fensel

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of uncertain notability for over 5 years. I could find nothing to confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while he appears to be a prolific writer of published books I can't find anything about him beyond his university bios. I certainly don't see multiple independent sources. James086 ^Talk 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar gives over 20 papers with over 100 cites, a few with over 1000 cites. I lost count. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment How many of these 20 publications are really his own papers (his name comes on the first position), and how many are just joined work of several researchers or even only edited books, where sometimes tenths of authors could contribute? How many of these papers are papers of PhD students, where traditionally the name of the supervising professor is added to the list of authors? Is this number of citation significant if comparing it to other professors of computer science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.221.170 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 86.32.221.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@anon spa: Perhaps you would like to answer these questions yourself to help other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Re the insinuations of the anon spa: one of his multiple over-1000-citations publications is a single-authored book, Ontologies, and he is first author of another ("The web service modeling framework WSMF"). As Universitätsprofessor at Innsbruck he most likely also passes criterion #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For comparison: Work of Jim Hendler and Tim Berners Lee (the ones, who established the domain in which Fensel is a researcher) has almost 15K citations (The Semantic Web); The work of Thomas Gruber on ontologies - 10K citations (Ontologies). At the same time, when I look at amazon comments regarding one of the positions mentioned by User:David Eppstein, I see that they are rather moderate ([50] Amazon). The point is, that Fensel tried to be quite active in the Semantic Web domain 10 years ago, while aiming to establish his own field - Semantic Web Services. Here he failed and simply gave up on this work around 2007-2008 (see the latest drafts at - WSMO or check some of Semantic Web conferences - there are no Semantic Web Services tracks already for several years). It has happened not much after that - while he remains a professor at University of Innsbruck, his primary focus is the domain of e-tourism (e.g. SESA, where so far there are no evidences of notability at all). Taking the current state of wikipedia entry, it seems that even the main Subject (or any of his students) was interested in for the last few years to update Fensel bio on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.221.170 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)— 86.32.221.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Fensel is notable as an academic, and is also a public figure by virtue of having been involved in a minor scandal [on by the Irish Independent] -- comment added by Witbrock (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.32.221.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the clear pass of multiple counts of WP:PROF demonstrated above. Why on Earth was this relisted? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News throws up quite a few sources about him and his projects, although most are in German.[51][52][53][54][55] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 21 January 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. Courcelles 03:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chatelaine (singer)

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. See her website. Mcewan (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:07, 14 January 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, Courcelles 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Working musician, but insufficient evidence of meeting the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 20 January 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 procedural close. This is part of the bundled AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre (non-admin closure) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 gigametre

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

Merge into Gigametre and leave a redirection, Professorjohnas (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be part of a bigger series. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is part of a series of dozens of articles illustrating orders of magnitude, so the 1 in the title is significant. The associated gigametre article is about the unit of measure itself, although there is some overlap in examples. Mark viking (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No argument for deletion (merge proposed). Not even an argument as to why it should be merged. It's broken out from Orders of magnitude (length) so it should be kept for that reason because it can't be merged back there owing to length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a policy-based reason: Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. The fact that some things of a similar size does not seem reason enough to list them together. The articles gigametre and orders of magnitude (length) already provide some illustrative examples. We don't need spinout lists of arbitrary examples for each possible length too. Warden (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of arbitrary objects of about this size. In this case, the information is superficially impressive because this is an astronomical distance. But if you compare the equivalent article in a human scale — 1 metre — you can see how arbitrary this is - the height of a doorknob, the size of a hobbit, &c. What we don't seem to have in any of these cases is any sourcing to support the selection. The topic therefore fails WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two articles have different purposes. "Gigametre" provides the definition and comparison to the astronomical unit. "1 gigametre" provides a list of representative distances from 1–10 Gm. Both articles are suitable for Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of what? Not one of the examples listed is actually 1 gigametre. Where are the sources which show the notability of this particular range of distances? The way these articles have been constructed, you could find a place for any distance of any size. As they seem utterly indiscriminate, please explain how entries can or will be controlled to exclude every measurement which might be made or estimated? Warden (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Orders of magnitude (length) has sufficient examples. What purpose is served by adding more picked at random? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with the rest of the series. Orders of magnitude (length) is all that is necessary. These articles are redundant and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The little green pig (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles seem useful for helping with size comparisons, and reference many different fields of study. Alphius (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not useful for size comparisons. That would be Orders of magnitude (length). This article is about one instance on a scale which does not indicate how this one instance is independently notable as opposed to properly placing it incontext with overall orders of magnitude for lengths. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the rest of the series as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. PianoDan (talk) 00:40, 18 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the series discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre. -- 202.124.89.45 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot - This article was also bundled into the overall "length articles" deletion discussion here. The discussion should take place there as part of the group, not here - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 28 January 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 agreement to keep amongst all people who have participated, including the nominator. Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jos Chathukulam

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

Seems to be self-promotion. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: google books show 285 results, which seems to be high, given his area of work: rural management.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:24, 15 January 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, Courcelles 01:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - relatively high number of Google Books hits. Shii (tock) 11:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn thanks for your research, Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 26 January 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 Chinatown, San Francisco. Courcelles 04:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown Community Development Center

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chinatown, San Francisco. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 15 January 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, Courcelles 01:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect as suggested by MelanieN. Subject has received multiple mentions in news articles, but has not received significant coverage sufficient to be notable as outlined in WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:38, 26 January 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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability proved - thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desejo Proibido

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged as of unclear notability for over 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News search linked by the nomination procedure finds loads of coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 17 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 20 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Career diversity

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

Seems to be a non notable subject, tagged for notability for almost 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 16 January 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, Courcelles 01:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTDIC and NEO Greglocock (talk) 00:45, 21 January 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. Courcelles 04:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish and Breton twin towns

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems that the towns are actually twinned. It may not be very well referenced, but I looked up a couple and on both sides the Wikipedia results showed the twinning was true. Vacation9 23:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vacation and WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy keep Deletion sprees don't seem to fit under criteria #2. It appears that he's been nominating articles tagged as having dubious notability. Ryan Vesey 01:28, 17 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The towns themselves are notable and the subject of the list is confirmed by sources. As such I do not see notability concerns from preliminary searching. Perhaps a case for more clean up. Mkdw ^talk 21:09, 26 January 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Farrell

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

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for almost 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 credits for TV production design are not enough for notability. Mcewan (talk) 19:03, 15 January 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, Courcelles 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. Snappy (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB is insufficient as a sole BLP reference, and the "perhaps best known" line is hardly a bold assertion of notability. All that I have been able to find is a brief mention in an Irish Independent lifestyle article which describes the subject as "head of design at RTE" [56], Insufficient evidence of notability for a biography here. AllyD (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Moelter

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

Non-notable person whose claim to fame is looking hot in latex for fan vids and winning an award at an incredibly obscure film festival. Orange Mike | Talk 22:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Mcewan (talk) 18:57, 15 January 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, Courcelles 01:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not familiar with the two awards, Maverick and Chashama, but there doesn't seem to be much for an article. Google News searches provided this (mentions her twice for the Catwoman role), this (Blogspot interview), this (Las Vegas Tribune article for Dirty Step Upstage), this (also for Dirty Step Upstage), this (selling Dirty Step Upstage merchandise), this (blog for the Chashama Award) and press releases here (iPod giveaways) and here (a Catwoman project). IMDb shows she hasn't been very active recently and the most recent work was as a make-up artist. In addition, ambermoelter.com has a "coming soon" banner and the company's website almtalkies.com, also doesn't provide much. She is attractive but she is not notable yet so I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Diggle

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

Article filled with unverifiable, suspect and seemingly innaccurate claims - for example he did not win the John Moores Painting Prize 2010 (he was only a runner up runner up). Sionk (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since nominating this article I've found a London news source which described Diggle's career since the 1970's. I've also sourced the claims about the John Moores Prize. It's questionable whether this is enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, so I'll let others decide. Sionk (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A NN school art teacher. I note that nthe Moores prize article only lists winners, most of whom hav articles. I would want to see that article expanded to include runners up before I wanted to treat that as evidcne of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is mostly focused on the person's career in which I would say WP:ACADEMIC is not met. In regards to artist, I would say this article was rightly so no CSD, but being a runner up nor receiving a wide range of coverage suggests this person does not meet WP:ARTIST either. At such a time, delete is the strongest argument unless more coverage could be found beyond the 2nd place award. Mkdw ^talk 21:17, 26 January 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.