Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 June	30 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rain man in music

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

Not clear what the article is supposed to be about. Ï¿½ (talk) 22:03, 29 June 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 June 29. Snotbot t • c » 23:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the most painful WP:OR article I have ever read. Apparently about either skit jokes in rap songs about someone comparable to Raymond in Rain Man, songs involving exotic dance clubs where rich people throw money in the air to 'make it rain', or supernatural topics. Whatever the case, there's nothing really to support this article. Nate • (chatter) 00:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty OR subject and the list reminds me of that old comic about indiscriminate lists about wood on Wikipedia. I also doubt seriously that nobody used the term "rainman" before 1966, especially considering that the concept of it as a mythological figure or a shamanic figure has been around for thousands of years. While at some level there might be an interesting paper about the whys and hows of where people mention a specific subject matter or person in music lyrics, this is at worst an WP:OR article and at best, an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article makes sense and doesn't make sense at the same time. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Improve. If you read rain man on wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rain_man), it simply says: 'rain man: An autistic, or mentally and/or socially impaired person.'. There is a lot more to say about it. As is mentioned above: 'the concept of it as a mythological figure or a shamanic figure has been around for thousands of years.'. Well... other people can improve this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Muller 71 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 June 2013‎

If you want to improve the article, it would be best to include information that can be sourced. Right now, the article seems to be nothing but original research. Also, considering you mentioned Wiktionary, you should consider that referencing another wiki generally doesn't hold much weight. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list/topic -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:LIST, and WP:MILL. We have frequently deleted random lists of ordinary stuff like this before. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really several different topics that have no significant connection to each other other than using the same phrase "rain man" with completely different meanings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 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 move to Colby College student organizations. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colby College Student Organizations

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

Non-notable organisations. No independent refs. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Recently added sources aren't independent. Merge and redirect to institution also an option. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but fix the capitalization in the article name). Information about student organizations is legitimately part of an article about a university. Furthermore, it's legitimate to split an article to reduce excessive length. This is one of several such splits off the article Colby College. If it were part of the main article, I don't think there'd be any objection to the content. Accordingly, there should be no objection to splitting it off. --Orlady (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to Colby College. Many of it's references are primary and self published; I've tagged it as such. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationale above by User:Orlady; makes sense as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Debt Relief

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

Non-notable business. Minor coverage only in unreliable blogs and websites. I'm not sure how a National Debt Relief company can ever be notable. Subject fails GNG and CORP. CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG, and reads as ad copy that would fit well on their never-ending mid-day cable news ads (where most know them from). Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As much as I do not like seeing the commercials myself, it comes down to sources. The Yahoo and AllVoices establish WP:GNG in my opinion. I am not familiar with the others so I cannot opine on their reliability. This is also a stub so not sure how much ad copy can really fit into it. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Yahoo item is from the Yahoo contributor's network where anybody can contribute an article. The same thing for Allvoices. This means they are no reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 19 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so little independent coverage in light of such a large television advertising budget indicates we are dealing with a profoundly non-notable firm here. Boogerpatrol (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fairly ordinary mushroom firm with illiterate web designers. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 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 Club Penguin. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Cadence

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

Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 19:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Club Penguin (although that article needs some more sources). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kombetare

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

~~This is a non-notable publication in which the editor of this article specified a circulation of only 2000. It testifies against its own notabiliity. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage, but I would not be against this being merged to Tirana if someone was willing to do that. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've linked across to the equivalent article on the Albanian Wikipedia, but it is unreferenced too (though it does feature an extraordinary picture gallery of front pages). AllyD (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Abernathy

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

~~Marginal claims to notability aside of that he is an editor with barely any real coverage of him as an individual. per WP:BLP. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [2]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to do a lot of interviews. [3] I'm not sure why anyone would care who edited something. Is that like a movie director? What does he actually do? Searching his name and the word "comic" showed ample results mentioning him. If they mention the name of the writer, artists, and the editor, when reviewing a new series, does that indicate its something notable? Dream Focus 22:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the sole cause for objection is a weak article (oh, and one argument of "I haven't heard of him personally even though I know absolutely nothing about publishing". He's edited a large number of notable series. And, yes, just because you don't know what an editor does, does not render that person unimportant to the publishing world. 220.237.19.26 (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have passed notability standards. Reads like a resume or self-promotion. If it is neither of those and is kept, it should be re-written.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also removed the nominator's vote inside the nomination. (Changed ~~Speedy close, speedy keep~~ to comment based on substantive comment above)Crtew (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kanamachi (2014)

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

WP:TOOSOON. Their first reference mentions the shooting of the film has not started yet and it'll start sometime in September. Tito☸Dutta 19:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too soon for an article. SL93 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER: no release date, no schedule for filming, and no reliable sources of previews available. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 FC Kremin Kremenchuk season

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

Non notable season for club not playing in its country's top division as per WP:NSEASONS. Also contains little in the way of sources prose as per WP:NOTDIR. Fenix down (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's very impressive, but as above, does not qualify for notability. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cronut

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

This subject is manifestly unnotable per the tiny amount of unsubstantial coverage it's received in reliable independent sources. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, or flash in the pan irrelevance. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 23:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though this food item may be a relatively new phenomenon originating in a New York City bakery, it has garnered more than sufficient attention in reliable sources across the United States and the article includes many of those sources. The article is clearly a work in progress, but the nom is itself "too soon," for an article started only two days ago. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LA Times, New York Times, so on so on.. what else does it need? I think it meets WP:GNG. -- œ ^™ 03:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP and because the topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mmmm. --do ncr am 23:01, 4 July 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 already speedily deleted by User:Tokyogirl79. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schultz & Forever

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

WP:TOOSOON for this young artist. Does not pass the notability criteria for musicians. The record label also does not appear to be a major one, which was the potential criteria that could have helped pass notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 17:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:48, 29 June 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mozart

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

WP:NOTABILITY. The article's sources contains just one that isn't basically subject's own material, and that source (thedailybell.com) is a questionable indicator of notability. Google search failed to find a better reference; gnews hits are passing mentions. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure The Daily Bell is a reliable source. But in any case, there is no other independent significant coverage. My own searches find minor mentions like this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominie

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

Belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. The article is nothing more than the dictionary definitions and etymology of the word dominie. Up and in (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It may be a dictionary definition at the moment, but I can easily see how this could be an article that deals with the role and status of the subject in education and Scottish culture. It easily meets the notability criteria.--SabreBD (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominee. Cnilep (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of sources on the role in Scottish and Dutch-American culture, including any number of books (see e.g. James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture). Clearly notable, even if the article needs work. AfD is not cleanup. -- 203.171.196.27 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 203.171.196.27 (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, it is currently a dictionary definition. However, it could easily be an article on education and the culture of Scotland, so it easily meets notability criteria. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to dictionary; then redirect (or possibly merge) to Minister (Christianity). This is the outcome that I am also suggesting for dominee, apparently the Africaans version of this: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominee. I will accept that the article might be expanded inot one on ministers in the Church of Scotland, but I find it hard to beleive that suchb an article would differ significnatly from my target. Peterkingiron (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: minister and domine are completely different subjects, That would be a highly inappropriate redirect.--SabreBD (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree totally with SabreBD. Dominie is both a definition and a profession, and the profession was an integral part of scottish life for 400+ years. scope_creep (talk) 1:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not enough reliable sources confirm this will be happening, and even if there was, there isn't enough detail on it to justify an article a decade before it occurs. Beerest355 Talk 19:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to !vote "very weak keep and improve a lot", because there's a source that says India has been selected to host. The problem is, a general google search and google news search both return nothing but editorials about China and jokes about Nepal or Afghanistan. Ansh666 21:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no crystal ball here, it's just been awarded and there is a reliable source saying so. The-Pope (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Actually, it would be even more notable if it didn't go ahead... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article as it stands now really has no information useful to the reader other than the host. It could really just be redirected to Cricket World Cup#Future, converted to a single sentence, and recreated when more information is available. It doesn't really matter either way, but the article is definitely a valid search term, and should either be kept or redirected to the main World Cup article. IgnorantArmies 11:19, 30 June 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 Hidy Ochiai and redirect Washin-Ryu Karate-Do . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washin-Ryu Karate-Do

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

I Proded this as Not notable lack of independent sources (similar to a previous Prod) but both were contested. I still think it is a non-notable cluster of schools. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding Hidy Ochiai for the same reasons - apparently he founded the style.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Washin-Ryu Karate-Do as a notable style. Looking at WP:MANOTE, this style has existed at least since the 1960s (claims a longer history), has notable practitioners (Hidy Ochiai and Mike Stone (karate)), is the subject of several books (notably Ochiai's The Essence of Self-Defense, Hidy Ochiai's Complete Book of Self-Defense, and Hidy Ochiai's Living Karate [4]--despite the titles having been selected for broader appeal, the first two are indeed on Washin-ryu) and mentioned in The Martial Arts Encyclopedia by John Corcoran and Emil Farkas and An Illustrated History of Martial Arts In America: 1900 to Present by Emil Farkas (verifiable by search at Amazon), numerous magazine articles (e.g., Karate Illustrated Jan. 1984, on its Sanchin kata [5] and Official Karate Jan. 1977 on the modernity of the style [6], among numerous others), basis of programs at SUNY Cortland [7] (see also [8]) and SUNY Binghamton. Notable, noted style. JJL (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found no reliable sources to show Mike Stone used this art (which he supposedly learned in the Army, although there's no indication it was ever taught there. Most of these sources deal with Ochiai and not the style.Mdtemp (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles, for example, were on the style itself. There are many articles on Ochiai, but there are also articles on the style, as well as his books on it. There are sites stating that Mike Stone did study Washin-ryu [9], [10], [11] but I haven't found a definitive source; other sites suggest Shorin-ryu. JJL (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hidy Ochiai as a well-known martial artist. He is a two-time Black Belt Hall of Fame member, as Instructor of the Year and as Man of the Year, which satisfies the general notability criterion for Wikipedia already. (This is mentioned in the article, so the nomination surprises me.) He is the author of several books, has had minor appearances in movies and done demos on national TV, has numerous articles on him and interviews with him. Per his bio., he was the "number one kata (form) competitor by the PKA (Professional Karate Association), having won the United States Grand National Karate Championship for five consecutive years". The PKA was the major org. at the time. Have a look at how many martial arts magazine covers he has been on: [12]. That's three times being on the cover of Black Belt (Dec. 1976, July 1980., Oct. 1991), among many, many other magazine cover appearances (with corresponding articles). Official Karate Feb. 1974 has him on the cover and includes a personal profile of him [13]; similarly for Karate Illustrated Feb. 1975 [14]. Few martial artists with Wikipedia articles who are not known as actors could match his level of coverage. This is a well-known, well-respected, heavily covered (esp. because of his sword demonstrations) martial artist. JJL (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hidy Ochiai and Redirect Washin-Ryu Karate-Do to Hidy Ochiai. Ochiai is a well known martial artist whose name has appeared in myriad martial arts publications over the years. The style is not notable, but a redirect seems reasonable. Note that the sources given in the article on the style are really about the artist. Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would certainly help if at least some of these references worked their way into the articles.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. On the other hand, per the info. box at the top of WP:AFD, AfD is not intended for article cleanup/improvement. Tagging for references is the appropriate path where this is the concern. A simple web search would have quickly verified the notability of Hidy Ochiai. JJL (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of magazines in which articles on Ochiai are prominent to his WP article. I also searched for Washin Ryu and found no mentions of it that didn't feature its founder. I don't believe either of these searches are complete, but they do seem to show their relative importance. Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hidy Ochiai. He appears to be notable, but I didn't find reliable sources to support claims the style meets WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Hidy Ochiai This martial art does not meet the notability standards for a separate article. My search found passing mentions of it, at best.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the word "not" in the first sentence of the above comment since I believe it is in keeping with the author's context. If this is improper or incorrect please feel free to remove it. Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pritz

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

Non-notable minor league player, nothing done in minors or college to suggest lasting notability. Wizardman 17:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's been out of the game for awhile and never amounted to anything. Spanneraol (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Spanneraol. Sucks because he's from the town where I live. Mpejkrm (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. While I don't think an article is needed yet (half of the article is generic plot sentences, with the development section being the only thing that's really exclusive to the article) it seems the consensus is that, while there isn't a lot of information, there's enough. Beerest355 Talk 13:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 4)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unlike other upcoming television seasons (Family Guy (season 12), for instance), there's no confirmed dates or episodes yet. Beerest355 Talk 17:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 17:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 17:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Personally I wouldn't have created this myself with as little as we have to go on now, but we do have valid sourcing that these season exists, just that it won't air for another 6-some months. It would be pointless to delete something affirmed to be happening. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been ample coverage about the new season, they turning the ponies into teenage girls. Dream Focus 18:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (That's the movie (My Little Pony: Equestria Girls), but needless to say, they've talked about S4 in relation to the movie as well.) --MASEM (t) 18:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem: enough RSs exist, even if the dates or episode names aren't released yet. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's enough reliable sources to justify an article. It's got coverage and will continue to do so until the release. Everyone, get your snowsuits out! --Yellow1996 (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion the only basis for opining delete is a strong IDONTLIKEIT for those brony weirdos. Which is quite rational, but not what we are supposed to be doing here. Passes GNG from sources showing. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. I don't think Beerest was attacking the show or its fans, just that, yes, we do generally require assurance that a season is going to air before we create the article on it. Just that in this case, we do actually have that assurance compared to what is claimed --MASEM (t) 03:01, 30 June 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 My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 1)#Episodes. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Is Magic

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

Non-notable television episodes. There's enough information on these two episodes at My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(season_1). Beerest355 Talk 17:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 17:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 17:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge + Redirect - As one that has done selected other episodes from the series, I've tried to see if I could find sources for the pilot and basically haven't had success to even come close to an article. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I agree a merge is better, I will note that by naming schemes "Friendship Is Magic" as a common name should likely point to the series page. However, that's not an issue in the scope of this AFD. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there's anything not already covered in the relevant entries of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 1)#Episodes, otherwise just redirect there. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 1) per Jclemens. Don't outright delete because people will still search this term and they should be greeted with the information they were looking for. --Yellow1996 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(season_1) per above. Ansh666 21:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as per above. While I agree that AFD is not typically used for "Articles I want to be a redirect", acknowledging that the title is worth redirecting is fine - and, on that point, this seems to be a clear case where a redirect would be beneficial. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Kelen

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

She wrote some books, but I'm not seeing any notability here. Muhammad: The Messenger of God got a few brief reviews, but that's about it.[15] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. achievements unremarkable. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 4 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What.cd

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

Non notable music BitTorrent tracker website. The sources that mention What.cd only mention the website in passing. There are also not many notable sources that are just about (What.cd). Andise1 (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What.cd is the most popular fully-private tracker on the internet with over 1,723,950 torrents currently on the site (compared to Oink's 200,000 torrents at the time of its closing). This goes for total number of torrents as well as seeds. If you wish Wikipedia to omit all articles pertaining to the vast world of private trackers, then by all means, remove it. But if you're going to remove what.cd then you should probably remove the oink.me.uk page because what.cd's current torrent and seed count greatly dwarfs oink's stats before they closed. 69.169.157.238 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 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 Gaza flotilla raid#Documantary. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Flotilla (film)

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

Iranian TV has broadcast a one-hour documentary by speedily deleted first-time director Saeed Faraji about the Gaza flotilla raid. I've already tagged this article for NPOV, as it presents the details in what seems to me to be a rather biased way. Thanks to Google Translate, we can see that there is only one independent reliable source about the film, #3. But even that is more of a capsule mention of a broadcast than in-depth coverage. Therefore, I believe this fails to meet WP:NF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For something released in Iran and in the Persian language, always best to look for available non-English sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In English:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

In Persian:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
That's a good point, I'd forgotten I could do that. Well, I checked the two Farsi links and at most I've found the same TV capsule blurb another time. The final link, for the guy himself, shows a decent amount of coverage of him as a documentary/war still photographer, to the point where I think a good stub article could have been written. No idea what the state of it was when it was speedied, but there is nothing to merge this to, and based on the additional sources, I still think it fails WP:NF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza flotilla raid#Documentary, the article about the event which inspired the film and a topic more suitable wherein this film may be mentioned. I cleaned up the film article some, but feel the event is far more notable than the documentary about the event. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
- It is misidentified in your redirect as a "feature film project," which it is not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No hard rule on what qualifies as a feature film, other than it must be "something" over 40 minutes. There is information at Feature film#Description, but I note that section contains claims about length qualification that have been tagged for cites for several years. Though not world-wide or industry-wide, according to the rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at 56 minutes long it qualifies as a feature film.[16] "Short films" are those under 40 minutes in length.[17] See also Feature length. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, in response to Mike's request on my User take page, here's my take on the redirect. I guess I have no big problem with a merge and redirect. But I do kinda have one giving it its own section "Documentary" in the main article. Stick in the list in the preexisting in Popular culture section, if need be. There were TV reports and no doubt "documentaries" all over the world on what happened, but I'll be swizzled if we're to create a separate section on some obscure TV hour (imo) from Iranian TV, a nation that is sworn to Israel's utter destruction and is unlikely to be a source of neutral information on the raid (as indicated by the NPOV language in the orig. stub). True, a section might one day be written on non-fiction works on the raid around the world, but the way it redirects now, suggesting that Iranian TV is the source of The Documentary on the Issue, is WP:UNDUE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That created section is not writ in stone and can be combined anywhere else in the target where sourced information will not be lost to readers. I created a temporary target section for the information at Gaza flotilla raid#Documantary only because the existing Gaza flotilla raid#In popular culture reads like a bulleted trivia list containing only tangentially related "popular culture" references, some of which predate the event of the actual Gaza flotilla raid by years. It can be fixed in any way wished. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a search in Persian both on the documentary and the director. Saeed Faraji is a photographer with close ties to the Islamic Republic (Sure, I don't blame him for this!) but I think that we should find some reliable sources independent from the subject. What I've found is mostly news articles about the documentary on the websites like Fars news agency and Jamejam daily (the newspaper of state-run TV). So I think that redirect to Gaza flotilla raid#Documentary is a good idea.Farhikht (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- another perhaps better redirect target is Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#Artistic response. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable propaganda film. Maybe add a throwaway line at Gaza flotilla raid#Documentary. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that it has since been added to Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Artistic_response. I have no objection to that -- and only that-- merge and redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza flotilla raid#Documentary Kabirat (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian Armenians

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

massive overlap with Armenians in Russia#Notable Russian Armenians‎, but with less information. Of course, one could argue that a difference between the definition of 'Russian Armenian' and an 'Armenian in Russia', but the distinction is not made by the two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll just merge it into Armenians in Russia Notables section. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A "Russian-Armenian" is somebody who's mama is ethnic Russian and daddy is ethnic Armenian (or vice versa). If one is talking about ethnic Armenians who are citizens of the country of Russia, that's different and already covered, as mentioned above. Delete as a fork. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by INeverCry. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The marksman(comics)

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

Non-notable, unreferenced comic character. reddogsix (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there and this seems to be something that someone just came up with one day. There's no notability here. I'd almost say that given the talk page comment, that this is probably a test page and could be speedied as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. This is a hoax article created by an SPA; ~~the article doesn't even state what comic strip the character is from~~, and a Gsearch for the supposed publisher, Shyaam Comics, comes back to ten hits: all Wikipedia or mirrors. (Even the talk page only consists of a test edit.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the comic strip name is listed after all, but it still smells of a hoax. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David O. Dykes

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

Non-notable individual lacking references that support WP:N. Subject notability is based on opening of State Legislature and U.S. House. References are name included in list and award is inconsequential. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dykes is a major figure in Baptist and Evangelical circles, he's given invocations for Congress and received the Southern Baptist conventions' highest honor for cryinout loud. Reddogsix removed references without fully checking them. He deleted a reference to Teen Mania from the Acquire the Fire website without realizing that Acquire the Fire is sponsored by Teen Mania. He put a "citation" notice on a ref that linked to Congressman Louis Gohmert's house page. The same ref that exists on his article. He also tagged a picture for deletion where the linked source clearly releases the all legal rights to the material in the first paragraph. I may be new, but this articles references were not fully examined by Reddogsix and I ask that all the source I added be considered for debate. -RedRaiderApache (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references were removed because they did not support the article statements. What exists on another page has no bearing here - feel free to fix it in the other article. The copyright of a picture cannot be removed in such a manner as described above. FYI - Adding the LBGH related comments in the article may help save this article by adding additional references. reddogsix (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do support the statement. The Acquire the Fire conference which is sponsored by Teen Mania , so Dykes supports Teen Mania. Ref supports statement. The needs citation you removed is a direct copy of the same citation noting that Louie Gohmert is a deacon and Sunday School teacher at Green Acres. Ref supports statement. I was just getting to the LGBT stuff. -RedRaiderApache (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement was, "He is close to Louie Gohmert who serves as a deacon in the church and teaches Sunday School." There is nothing in the reference that supports, "He is close to Louie Gohmert..." reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious to me, but if not you could have deleted the he is close to Gohmert. The ref clearly supports that he was a deacon and Sunday School teacher, but you removed it. -RedRaiderApache (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article appears to make the case for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, nominator's statements about failing BIO, even if true, do not matter, since either the GNG or a relevant SNG may be used to meet N. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG is clearly met, with plenty of news coverage (including coverage of his award, which on its own meets WP:ANYBIO). Cleanup may be needed, but that's not a matter for AfD. I find this nomination incomprehensible. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see nothing in the statemetns in the lead to indicate his notability. Opening a legislature in prayer is hardly notable, nor is campaigning about legislation in Uganda, not is his present pastorate, as it is of a church on which we have no article. I am in UK and do not know this books. I have to presume that these are sufficient to confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One claim to notability would be the Monroe E. Dodd award. -- 203.171.197.13 (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it is denominational service award given by Union, a Christian liberal arts university in Jackson, Tennessee. reddogsix (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, just to be clear, the Union award is different, although it has a similar name ("The Union award should not be confused with the M.E. Dodd Cooperative Program Award, which is handed out during each annual meeting by the SBC Executive Committee. That award honors a person, congregation or organization that has demonstrated continuous, long-term excellence in supporting the principles, practice and spirit of the Cooperative Program"). From the source in the article, it's the M.E. Dodd Cooperative Program Award which Dykes received, not the one from Union. -- 202.124.88.31 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 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 Boards of Canada. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Eoin

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

Biography article, unnotable for anything outside of Boards of Canada Murry1975 (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boards of Canada. Obviously not suitable for a standalone article, but a suitable redirect. --Michig (talk) 12:07, 29 June 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 June 29. Snotbot t • c » 12:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michig. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. He is not, at present, independently notable, so redirect to Boards of Canada. — sparklism ^hey! 09:52, 2 July 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. Consensus is about strength of argument, and Afd is not a vote. In this case I feel that those advocating deletion have made a much stronger point. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar White

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. References are for inconsequential mentions of subject (or from questionable sources such as blogs) and award appears to be lacking substance. Article lacks independent resources. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - All theses entries bellow come from the same user and should be counted as one single statement or vote, the user may not be aware of an Article For Deletion Nominee, AfD's outcome isn't based into vote count, but is closed and reach by consensus. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I did not intend for my comments to be considered as multiple votes, only as clarifications. I apologize for the misunderstanding. TEDxLUCY (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ABC News, Fox, Wonkette, and a few others seem to have covered this guy's work. I'm a little biased because I'm from Louisiana and know his work is actually pretty influential here in Louisiana. Also, the Ashley Morris award is a big deal in Louisiana. The winner is usually mentioned on the front page of the Times-Picayune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEDxLUCY (talk • contribs) 12:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being quoted as the last tweet subject before someone's death is hardly substantial coverage. The award seems to be a local small niche award. reddogsix (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Agreed. The entry should focus more on the work he did on Bobby Jindal's voucher schools and the Discovery Institute. TEDxLUCY (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The award isn't a niche local award. But that's not why this guy is notable. His work on Louisiana education reform and politics has been covered nationally. Unfair to suggest he's just a footnote to Breitbart's death. TEDxLUCY (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Is this better and more substantive? TEDxLUCY (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable individual, the award is more niche related, subject lacks substantial coverage. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep White is notable and well-known in Louisiana. Kid's broken several national news stories on Louisiana politics. We have allowed inclusion of entries on numerous other Louisiana people with far less notability and national press coverage. I think this entry should be scaled back but definitely not deleted. It is fairly thorough and the sources all pan out. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawkinjoe (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — gawkinjoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Being notable in Louisiana is not the same as WIikipedia notability and the sources are not independent or reliable. reddogsix (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion by a non-notable individual. Thomas.W (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose that since this is a recreated article, an article that has previously been deleted for non-notability after an AfD, the title of the article and all possible variations thereof (such as "Lamar White, Jr.") be salted to prevent the creation of a third incarnation of it. Thomas.W (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable individual in Louisiana, I deleted some of the self-refential content, but the entry nonetheless conforms to Wiki standards on sources/ His work appease nationally-aclaimed He's a sweetheart. No evidence of self-prpmpyopn//. Back3You (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Back3You (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Being notable in Louisiana is not the same as WIikipedia notability and the sources are not independent or reliable. reddogsix (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very non-notable individual. He seems to only be a regional figure, without much evidence of notability. Beerest355 Talk 18:45, 30 June 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 Boards of Canada. The consensus is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Eoin. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sandison

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

Biography article, unnotable for anything outside of Boards of Canada Murry1975 (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boards of Canada. Obviously not suitable for a standalone article, but a suitable redirect. --Michig (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. He is not, at present, independently notable, so redirect to Boards of Canada. — sparklism ^hey! 09:53, 2 July 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. But I'm stubbifying it to keep it neutral. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abbas Haider Bilgrami

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

Previously deleted as promotional, the sources if they can be called that do not show anything that is in the article, they show his name dob and that he plays hockey that's about it. I think ultimately there isn't enough coverage to justify this article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup as necessary. He competed at the 2008 Summer Olympics and is notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not the issue, article is promotional and unsourced, no sign of anyone prepared to salvage it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he played for the olympics, and there are good sources for it as here, it's always better to salvage the article. We can always stubbify it in the meantime because there are no sources for part of the career, but even if it had the one sourced sentence that he participated in the 08 Olympics, it would be a valid article. I agree with HIAB than sometimes the rule about the Olympics appears to be excessively broad, but its better to simply keep them all than have the thousands of arguments. BTW, is his current hockey club notable at the top national level ? DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable as an Olympic athlete. I just pruned back a bunch of the unsourced content and promotional language. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essential R&B the Very Best of R&B: Spring 2005

AfDs for this article:

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

Let's try this one again, as it received no interest when nominated two years ago. A non-notable album from a non-notable series. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not notable and fits in with the similar albums in this series that do not have pages. USM the Weather Whiz (Shoot me a line) 05:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Legend of Zorro 12:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable music album collection. Fails WP:MUSIC Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rosin Jolly

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

Non-notable upcoming actor. The reference provided is unreliable and fails to meet the notability guidelines for BLP. Google search turned no results for her specified debut movie Track. JK (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG altogether. There are sources out there, but nothing that would be considered WP:RS, including the one in the article. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malayalee House where she was a contestant. No prejudice to recreation after her career takes off but this article indicates it is very early in her career. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article currently is non notable, but assert another step towards CRYSTAL usage, I would suggest userfy, because the subject may have some notoriety somewhere near in the future preventing content loss in case of recreation. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essential R&B

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

A non-notable series of albums that do not even have pages. U.S. Man (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A NOW-like series I assume, and plenty of proof of various albums in the series on Amazon, Discogs, CDUniverse, but it is not covered anywhere --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nom. The Legend of Zorro 12:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable music album collection. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:49, 29 June 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 Michael Legge. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Glaze

AfDs for this article:

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

The only coverage that I can find are reviews on unreliable review websites which were brought up before in AfD. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first AfD still winds me up every time I look at it. This film didn't meet notability requirements back in 2005, and it certainly doesn't now. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sideshow Cinema (3rd nomination), which deleted most of this walled garden. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps best to Redirect this title to its filmmaker Michael Legge for now without prejuduce toward a return if this thing has a commercial re-release or a 5-years-later screening at a festival or retrospective. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:10, 6 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Sahay

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable mid level retired police officer,vanity page! Uncletomwood (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jussychoulex (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's recommendation for deletion, for reasons undisclosed, appears to be arising out of his bias against police officers. However relevant or irrelevant that may be to the present discussion, his remarks against presence of Uday Sahay in wikipedia smacks of this bias as it reads, "non notable mid level retired police officer,vanity page." It seems that nominator's understanding of Uday Sahay public career freezes at 2001 (When Sahay got out of police job), and he fails to see what all twists and turns Uday Sahay's career trajectory took there after.

The fact remains that today Uday Sahay is a known author (edited 3 books, including one by Oxford University Press)and a communication professional in India. He is the only IPS officer in India who has led the Communications verticals of a state (Delhi) government and of the biggest sporting event ever held in India - the Organising Committee of Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi. He is today communication adviser to several distinguished academic and public organizations in India,including Unique Identification Authority of India. If you google search Uday Sahay's name and examine his digital media presence, you will be able to sense whether opinion given to delete Uday Sahay's entry in wikipedia is an informed one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.173.87 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have no bias toward police officers,myself who served in the CRPF respects police officers but thats not the issue here!.Mr Uday may be respectable,may be famous in certain circles but the article on him is clearly not notable enough!Please read WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV.Uncletomwood (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the mentioned references can be actually cited rest just mention his name or his non notable books Uncletomwood (talk) 09:44, 2 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seda Pumpyanskaya

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeating the nomination of 3 years ago:

Hello. wmuk: received an email from the Council of Europe requesting the deletion of this article, which I'm passing on in a personal capacity. The request was (quoted with their permission):

"The article represents the biography of the former Director of Communication, and has become the field of a never-ending battle of edits and reverts. We would appreciate it if you could delete the entire article from Wikipedia, since it contains inaccurate information about the person and has no genuine informational value to the Wikipedia community." They also said in a follow-up email that "the tone of the article is not neutral as the Wikipedia rules impose for biographies, but gratulatory. The article might also not comply with the notability guidelines for biographies." I personally can't see any benefit to keeping this article, as the subject does not appear to be notable by our standards. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 4:04 am, 29 May 2010, Saturday (3 years, 18 days ago) (UTC+7)

The article has been consistently the target for reverts, and the references rather than about the subject are only listings where she has participated at conferences. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:47, 29 June 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 (bad faith nomination). -- Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of artworks with contested provenance

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

This "list" has been around for over seven years, but still has only two entries and one reference. Zipvox (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep AFD is not cleanup, complete failure of WP:BEFORE of a notable topic with multiple books and articles written. I have expanded the list by a few items, and added several references. Additionally, nominator is a brand new SPI account who's sole purpose appears to be hounding me, all edits except one are to nominate articles I have created for merge or deletion. I am quite sure they are a sock of someone I have pissed off, but I do not know who. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept. See further explanation; this was not a good-faith nomination. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 29 June 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Test Studio

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

The current sources do not support notability. The blog is not a WP:RS while the others are too brief to be substantial. The WP:SPA who created the article doesn't help. This is also the second nomination since the first article was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telerik Test Studio. No new sources have been provided since that discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sources added In.Che. (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:19, 21 June 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, L Faraone 01:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rostam: Tales from the Shahnameh

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

No evidence for notability of this comic, or at any rate, I can't find any Pinkbeast (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 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, L Faraone 01:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found plenty of false positives for the stories that the comics are based upon, but very little that could even begin to be considered a reliable source. The best one I found was this link from the State Library of Victoria, but that's not enough to give notability. As far as the award goes, I can't find where that award is so particularly noteworthy that it would keep on that basis alone. I can't find a lot of coverage about the award itself. I know it's a foreign language award, but the thing about awards is that if they're considered to be so notable that they'd keep an article for that alone then they'll have a ton of coverage. For example, the Golden Horse is considered to be the equivalent of an Oscar in China and has coverage in multiple language sources. Even if we count the GL award towards notability, there just isn't enough to really merit an article at this point in time. If anyone can find substantial foreign language RS then I'm willing to change my argument, but there's just not really anything out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:48, 29 June 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. Although a number of users who have advocated deletion here are IP editors making the same point, their point is well taken. Arguing over whether Bancel meets the strict wording of WP:ANYBIO doesn't help us establish whether or not there are sufficient independent, reliable sources to base an article on the subject. DGG's comment almost made me tip this over to no consensus, but I do not think that it has a firm enough agreement among the rest of the commentators nor a strong enough argument to overcome them by itself. Accordingly, I am going to close this as delete, but if someone wants to take this to deletion review and see if it should have been a no consensus or keep closure instead, please go ahead without discussing with me. NW (Talk) 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Bancel

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

The subject of the article lacks notability and a previous article on the subject was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stéphane Bancel. I never saw the previous article, but I don't see notability in the current one. I am One of Many (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is self promotion article. Similar article was deleted by Wikipedia. The link to the previous deleted article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St%C3%A9phane_Bancel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.105.47 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misleading references. For example reference 1 is given over and over again to support several claims, but it leads to Moderna Therapeutics company web site. The intention of the article seems to be mislead through irrelevant references. This article should be deleted.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.105.47 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not successfully verify the two basic claims to notability. The first is having been named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2009. The alumni website simply does not list him, and every reference in the article that does is a press release. I wonder what his board members would think of that... The second is "#1 CEO in the biotechnology sector" by the Thomson Reuters EXTEL survey. That is behind a paywall. Removing those two claims leaves us with just more press releases, primary sources and a business executive with no particular claim to notability. Having worked for lots of companies is not enough to pass WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ " As the CEO of bioMérieux, Bancel grew the company despite the worldwide economic recession.[1] This an unverifiable claim with misleading reference, Reference 1 leads to Moedrna Therapeutics web site, not an article to verify that Bancel grew bioMerieux despite worldwide economic recession. Similar misleading references are found through out the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.105.47 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can only "vote" once.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ref 1 is Mr. Bancel profile at Moderna Therapeutics. It confirms nothing. This profile could be a Conflict of Interest created by a paid agency or a friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.236.135 (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the World Economic Forum thinks this biotech CEO is notable, then I do too. The WEF Young Entrepreneur 2009 award is here: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/YGL/YGL2009_Honorees.pdf I'm seeing a lot of sources that were removed or didn't make it past Google Search. Passes WP:BIO on inspection. NaturalScholar (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting. Using the search function here does not yield the name, either by year or searching by the last name. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment. What info did you type in ctrl+F search? On page four I see: Europe France Stéphane Bancel Chief Executive Officer bioMérieux. Where: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/YGL/YGL2009_Honorees.pdf It looks like you're looking at a different list year. Note that your url is to something else that doesn't name any honorees.NaturalScholar (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are over 260 people listed as honorees and I assume that the number is approximately the same each year. Does being one among so many listed each year make him notable? I can find no write up about why he or the others are on this list. Usually, honorees in any field have some writeup about their accomplishments that led to winning the honor.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "#1 CEO in the biotechnology sector" by the Thomson Reuters EXTEL survey - This claim cannot be verified. Young Global Forum is a membership club for Five Years http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders. It is not a notable accomplishment. Thomson Reuters EXTEL could be a notable accomplishment but it refers to Moderna Therapeutics web site and press releases. It is not a verifiable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.228.95 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBancel name or the company he worked for in 2011 is not mentioned in Thomson Reuters Extel Survey. I am highly spektical of this profile and intentions of person who created it. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/idUS141774+08-Jun-2011+HUG20110608 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.228.95 (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Real notability is borderline. His notability would be based on his prior status as CEO of bioMérieux before he left to start his own company, a company which is not yet notable. The article on bioMérieux that establishes its notability is very weak--the only thing that would really indicate importance at present is the sale of over 1 billion euro. It needs a check for refs; if good ones can not be found I will nominate it for deletion. Nothing else is notable, neither his current firm or his various directorships. I don't think we have ever accepted Young Global Leaders as a sufficient reason for notability, though it can add a little to other factors. Here, I do not see other major factors.

However, there are references, . There is no reason they would be inaccurate, and we accept such sources for the routine facts of things--financial journalists do not make mistakes when they say who has acquired what position. All of them are based to some degree on PR. Journalists write stories because they get press releases intended to do just that, but responsible journalists assess the importance of the person or firm in the industry in deciding whether to run the stories. So the question of being RSs for the purpose of notability is whether the articles reflect the true position of the individual in his industry, or just the activity in promoting his role in the industry. It is very difficult to tell this in borderline cases, which in my opinion is one reason to be hesitant in using the GNG, and rely instead on objective criteria for notability.

I could equally well with the same information conclude as keep or delete, and in fact did a draft of it each way and thought about it to see where the balance would lie. Since our criterion is by firm consensus the sources as judged by GNG, ,and they are adequate as this field goes, it would be keep. I am quite puzzled by the attacks upon the sources as untrue, when the worst they are likely to be doing is giving him disproportionate coverage. Sometimes in AfD discussions where there is such undue skepticism, there is an obvious motivation, but I can think of none here. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG very well argued for Weak Keep. However, I have comment about your sentence "I am quite puzzled by the attacks upon the sources as untrue..." I was reading his current company review at the Glassdoor http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ModeRNA-Therapeutics-Reviews-E453959.htm. The claims of data manipulation by current and former employees of his current company will put every reference and statement by him in doubt - It is my opinion, you may disagree.24.34.105.47 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree; Glassdoor discovery makes Mr. Bancel claims questionable. Similarly, I do not find notability in his current company Moderna Therapeutics Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_Therapeutics. It should be nominated for deletion too. I do not know, how to nominate a page for AfD. Some reviewer may look at it. Mr. Bancel page and Moderna Therapeutics page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_Therapeutics refer back and forth to each other. It should be nominated for AfD too, as it lacks notability.71.126.236.80 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete World Economic Forum is not a notable accomplishment. It is given to hundreds of people each year. It is paid membership forum. I can think of no notability here except self promotion.71.126.236.80 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable through the World Economic Forum honor and multiple reliable sources citing him as biotechnology CEO and board member. Polterg1 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poltreg1, you are the creator of this controversial article. I am not sure about the weight of your vote? What the several reliable references you are referring too? Your excessive promotional language may have been reason to nominate Mr. Stephane Bancel profile for AfD again. Most of the references you quote are nothing but takes a reader back to Moderna Therapeutics web site's management page. That is not a valid reference.72.85.228.95 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are thousands of CEOs in the biotechnology field. Being another CEO in this field does not make him notable at all. There are hundred of hundreds Economics Forum paid members, that does not make him notable. Beside, Poltreg1 created Mr. Bancel controversial profile with questionable references, why should be vote on his own controversial article? He could be source of Conflict of Interest (CoI)!!! 24.34.105.47 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bancel is notable. The results of the EXTEL awards are available at the following web page: http://www.extelsurveys.com/Results/ResultsHome.aspx?ID=781. You'll need to create an account to view the page. Once logged in you can follow the instructions below to access this result. 1) Under the results tab, select "previous" and then "EXTEL 2011." 2) Check "corporates" and "sector" at the top of the page. 3) Select "biotechnology" as the industry. 4) Stephane Bancel will be located under the CEO section of the results. Videditor (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is a purpose of keeping a record hidden behind a secured area? Then, I would not consider it a valuable/notable accomplishment, if public cannot easily verify it. Is it one of those media "Reuters" advertising thing? Anything hidden behind a media secured account is not notable for me. 24.34.105.47 (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Extel is password protected and it gives no details. Also, anyone can nominate for survey award according to reuters. It is not notable. There are millions of CEO like him in biotechnology. I donot find any thing notable about Bancel. 66.87.80.221 (talk) 01:49, 4 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Schweinsberg

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

A big promotional love fest for this musician. While he has worked for a lot of groups it appears it is only as a session musiion or touring drummer so notability is not inherited from them. (eg not listed in members) The SGN Music Awards are not major. The Dove nomination is for part of a cast of multitudes playing for the Crabb Family. A small part in one of the many many dove nominations. His photography and graphic design shows no sign of being significant. Schweinsberg lacks coverage in independent reliable souces. Nothing satisfying WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC or WP:ARTIST. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:29, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protograph

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

WP:DICDEF. Not opposed to transwiki-ing it to wikt:Protograph. Ansh666 21:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that protograph is already in the wiktionary [18] where it means something different than in this stub. I am unable to find the textual criticism version of the definition, but [19] seems consistent with the wiktionary version. The more common meaning on Google seems to be in communication engineering, where construction of protograph-based codes is an active area of research. --Mark viking (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DICDEF. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Press Summer Fest

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

I didn't know we reprint festival programs. It might or might not be possible to produce a satisfactory article, but this sort of content in normally considered promotional . If it weren't out of my field, I'd have listed it for G11, speedy. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I base my keep !vote simply on the sources that I found here and here. There are plenty of sources out there to support WP:GNG and I hate to see articles deleted simply based on being promotional. With that aside, the "weak" has to do EVERYTHING with promotion. An article on the topic is likely to survive, but not in its current form. As such, I would recommend stripping the article to a stub if it survives AfD and use the WP:RS available instead of leaving the article, like DGG said, a reprint of a festival flyer. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Keep but trim significantly, or merge to Free Press Houston (it's already mentioned there). The schedule definitely needs to go, but there's a core of notability in an event attended by 80,000 people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing sufficient coverage for a GNG pass, such as THIS and THAT from the Houston Chronicle, or THE OTHER THING from station KHOU. South-by-Southwest it ain't, but it is bigger than a breadbasket and considering the ultra-low bar we regularly allow for underground music (rightfully, in my view), a big, multi-year, widely cover mainstream festival like this one should be an easy call... Carrite (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, nice Freudian slip for the festival with $350 tickets. I'll leave it. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Broadcaster Software

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

no reliable sources, nothing to indicate true notability Jac16888 ^Talk 19:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest a move into user space, since there seems one editor working on it. Clearly the article as it stands is not going to survive. And thinking a new category and history article would be created is even more of a delusion at this point. There are all sorts of projects with assertions that it "is quickly becoming popular". Only a few really do. Once it can be stated in past tense with a reliable independent source, then it could stay. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as per above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:49, 29 June 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. Evidence that this is a WP:HOAX and appears to have been created as part of a sockfarm's products - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A2P assault rifle

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

DePRODded. Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:RS. Someone might need to check for Russian sources, but to me just seems like an experimental prototype that never went into production. Ansh666 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the picture it's a pretty close clone of an AK-47. At best it could be mentioned in the main article as a derivative, assuming a reliable source could be found. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 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, L Faraone 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the extensive book Monetchikov, Sergei (2005). История русского автомата [The History of Russian Assault Rifle] (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineers and Signal Corps. ISBN 5-98655-006-4., which has something like 50 designs by Kalashnikov alone in it, but this A2P (А2П) is not in there. The naming scheme is somewhat consistent with Kalashnikov's designs, e.g. there was a A-3, and A-55, and an A-017 by Kalashnikov. But this A2P is either totally obscure or bogus. The claim that Kalashnikov made a blowback gun makes me think the latter is the case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I figured out what happened. This article was first created as 40-P, but for unclear reasons the author then pasted the whole info in this page and redirected. He was probably influenced by that Russian forum pic, but that seems bogus. There was actually a gas operated assault rifle called 40-P (40-П) designed by Kalashnikov in 1965 and in the unusual 5.6 mm caliber. But it's not the one in this picture. Anyway, the 40-P was a precursor of the AK-74 (in 5.45 mm). The info in this article is so bogus and useless that it should be deleted. This article is part of a batch created by problematic editor(s); see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uayoa. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Win the War stamp

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

Not notable by itself. Should be in the main US article or not at all. No assertion of notability. Article has not developed. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of America

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of many similar issue by the USPS. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Rajput

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

Might not pass WP:POLITICIAN Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Bajrang Dal and the VHP are right-wing rabbble-rousing groups and cannot even be considered to be political in the sense of WP:POLITICIAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand QED (talk • contribs) 11:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Outlaw

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

Not a notable person. Tyros1972 Talk 09:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in Art in America and work praised by several other reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in Art in America Kabirat (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets Wikipedia:ARTIST with "4.The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The article does need work but not deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete More references may help.--Benfold (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Artist's work has received coverage sufficient to establish notability. Aside from what has already been mentioned, a Google news search shows a lot of local coverage, but beyond that I also see articles behind pay walls in the Chicago Tribune and I found this item in the Daily Gazette of Schenectady NY. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystique GP

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

Not a notable artist, page links to advertising sales (amazon, itunes etc.). Tyros1972 Talk 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially BLPPRODed this, and it was just shy of an A7 at the time. It looks a little better now, but some actual research does not show a particularly good level of secondary coverage. For example, "Mystique GP interview" gives me a bunch of unrelated links. Nothing out there seems to support the claims made in the article, and what claims there are are tenuous at best: "ghost writer" for other artists - that would be fine if it could be verified, but I couldn't. The alleged collaboration, if true, would have generated some coverage, but apparently it didn't. So regrettably this fails WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 21 June 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, L Faraone 00:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Borders on WP:CSD#G11 as well.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PubCon

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

The page is written as an advertisement for the conference and the reference list does not show enough notability to pass GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added 3 books. The article is notable and doesn't look like an advertisement to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondertitel (talk • contribs) 09:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add these as actual sources to content in the article if you want them to count as references on the page, in addition the first two you added were 1) a compilation of Wikipedia articles (not a reliable reference) and 2) a self-published ebook (not a reliable reference). So far as the other source, it is passing mention at best, and not nearly enough to pass GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Secret ^account 20:01, 28 June 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, L Faraone 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article reads very much like brochure-style advertising copy. It's pretty much impossible not to see it as spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 30 June 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. I'm boldly closing this as the consensus is these articles either need to be submitted individually or in smaller chunks where the teams meet the same reasonable deletion arguments. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Bulls (American football)

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

These teams are all members of the BAFA National Leagues, a British American football league. They are all more or less unsourced, and don't seem to meet the notability requirements at WP:NSPORTS. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extraordinarily cumbersome bulk nomination. I've gone through many of the pages and some are sourced in a way that appears reliable, and some are not. Apparently the league was the premiere league in England for many years, so it is likely that sources can be found. But even if the some, many, or all of the articles are to be deleted, it is very likely that it would be for multitude of reasons and that just makes it unsuitable for a bulk discussion. Would reconsider individually (or in much smaller groups), but would prefer them to parsed out over time and investigated properly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot support deleting all these. I've only looked at Cornish Sharks, which though not particularly well sourced, garners regular comment from the BBC and local papers. Some more work in selecting which of these should really go would be helpful, I think. In addition WP:NSPORTS, mentioned in the nom., states "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." —SMALL JIM 12:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - Malformed AfD, this massive afd is not suitable for discussion here, because while some of these articles may be not notable some of them do have notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - There are WAY too many articles nominated for a reasonable discussion to take place here. ~~Requested for closure at AN [20]~~. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - One glance at one random nominee, Bedfordshire Blue Raiders, and I can tell ya that's probably a Keep on the merits (and a credit to the encyclopedia to boot) and that this is an overbroad, borderline disruptive nomination. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator - I assure you my intention was not to disrupt. Many of these articles are completely unsourced, and even the ones with sources are quite poorly-sourced. Is membership in the BAFA National Leagues alone sufficient to show notability? I doubt it, considering at least one of these teams' websites has an option to join the team. Anyway, if you find this AfD is too much to deal with at once, I'm happy to go through and nominate smaller chunks at a time. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether they as a class fail to meet a Special Guideline for sports teams, but whether each individual article meets the General Notability Guideline, which involves your doing substantial investigation, one by one, rather than a mass, semi-automated nomination. This is really ill considered here. Don't nominate "smaller chunks," do your due diligence and nominate teams that are not the subject of sufficient independent coverage one at a time. I'll bet that almost all of these pass GNG even if they do not meet the special guidelines... Carrite (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second random glance, Bournemouth Bobcats, looks like a shitty article showing nothing but self-sourcing. Then a quick peak at the Google machine, and HERE'S THE BBC covering their game results in depth. Put a few of those together and something from the local press and that's a GNG pass. Almost all of these are going to pass GNG, I'd grit my teeth and move along... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would only look at smaller chunks if you can logically combine articles based on researched reasonable arguments. For example, maybe (and I don't know) three of the teams actually never played a game and were just formed on paper--that would be a "logical chunk" to me. Smaller groups only make sense if they make sense as a group, otherwise we just have a bunch of smaller AFDs with the same problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now - it appears that the nominator hasn't followed WP:BEFORE to any degree, seeing as a lot of these either already show evidence of notability, or could easily be improved to show notability. I suggest this, GorillaWarfare: Improve each article, one at a time, and if you don't find anything of use on an article, then AfD it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this; to say that WP:BEFORE wasn't followed would be an understatement. Also, as Carrite says, this does seem pretty disruptive. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Shankland

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

Non-notable player (right now), hasn't played in a professional game in a professional league. WP:NFOOTBALL hasn't been satisfied. (Contested PROD.) — foxj 00:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and has not played in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. The only substantive coverage he appears to have received are routine transfer announcements which are insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to a section at Football in Seoul. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dongdaemun derby

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason provided. Original deletion rationale of "no evidence in reliable sources that this is a significant, notable football rivalry" remains a concern. --Fetx2002 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to a section at Football in Seoul. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gyeongin derby

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason provided. Original deletion rationale of "no evidence in reliable sources that this is a significant, notable football rivalry" remains a concern. --Fetx2002 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 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.