Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 September	1 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to World of Eberron. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xen'drik

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

This does not establish notability independent of Eberron through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into World of Eberron. BOZ (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fansite that would love this trivia. as for Wikipedia, subject fails WP:GNG in having no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. which leaves the options of merge redirect or delete. Since the proposed merge target is suffering from the same issues as this article, being bloated with primary sourced inuniverse content, merging would seem to be an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. i have seen no evidence that the word is a likely search term to leave as a redirect, and the history of the redirects in this subject area being restored without meeting WP:GNG would mean that it would need to be locked. Deletion seems to be the viable option.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into World of Eberron. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M seems to apply here, Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. --Mark viking (talk) 06:01, 5 October 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 Multiverse (Marvel Comics). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-98

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Multiverse (Marvel Comics), where this subject is mentioned. Gong show 20:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Multiverse. Given the dearth of editing history/investment, I suspect that this could simply have been redirected without having to do the rigmarole of an AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 1 October 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. Nomination withdrawn, and only delete !voter consents to article being kept. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 21:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An American Journey: My Life on the Field, In the Air, and On the Air

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

Withdraw - new sources found/added. It's still not perfect but OK for me anyway. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBOOK. No book reviews in national press, the two San Diego "reviews" are local author type article (and one possibly COI). LibraryThing shows only 3 members own the book, very low.[1] Seven libraries in the world hold a copy.[2] Green Cardamom (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article’s editor, I’m proud to have contributed a Wikipedia article about one of the country’s finest, best known, and most highly respected sports figures. Admittedly, baseball biographies may not be the most popular book genre, but Coleman’s book was reviewed favorably by several San Diego media outlets (Coleman is the long serving announcer of San Diego Padres baseball games) plus the New York Daily News. Of course, there's also a number of baseball and U.S. Marine Corps web and blog sites that discuss the book which is not surprising given Coleman’s war record and National Baseball Hall of Fame credentials. As well, the book is located in 37 libraries, including the Library of Congress, according to worldcat.org. [3]EdJF (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~changed to WITHDRAWN. As noted by GreenC, it fails WP:BOOK with respect to sources-- "...Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary..."--Larry (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note - though the nominator has withdrawn, as there is an outstanding delete !vote from User:Traveling Man, the discussion cannot be closed unless he also withdraws his !vote. Go Phightins! 19:19, 3 October 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) 01:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BOSS Flow

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

This article cites no third party sources, so I believe it does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I initially placed a PROD tag on this noting that, but it was removed by the article poster with the edit summary 'Remove 'deletion' tag, external links and verifiable information have been added.' Unfortunately, all of those links were written by the software's author, as were all of the other links I could turn up in my own reference searches. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the project BOSS Flow is just about 9 moths old and it is mostly used in Czech Republic, so discussions and texts should be currently available just in Czech language, even the page and all project documentation is in English that's used as the international language. I guess it will be a short time until it is possible to find new references to verify the content, even though I'm not sure if it is right now despite Wikipedia policy that is a hard reason for deletion immediately or not. MartinStrejc (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources pop up, per WP:TOOSOON. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:15, 4 October 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) 01:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees

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

Appears to fail WP:LISTN no indication that the subset of Oscar winners and nominees who are Indian is a notable intersection. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly notable, presuming the inclusion criteria will soon be adequately defined. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence of that notability are you using to make that !vote? There are no references discussing the topic as a whole in the article. Certainly sources are available for each member saying they are indian, and that they won/nominated, but that is not the same thing as saying "Indian Oscars" are being discussed anywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it seems like a perfectly reasonable intersection, as long as we can define what "Indian" means. There is plenty of chat on the web (e.g. Times of India) about Indian people or Indian films winning Academy Awards, I don't see the problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"seems like a reasonable intersection" is found nowhere in WP:N. Are there reliable sources discussing this topic as a whole? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you looking for a lookie-likie list, or just evidence that Indian Academy Award winners have been noted? Naturally the former may be a stretch, the latter is blindingly obvious in numerous reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For discussion purposes, lets step away from Oscars directly, and to the larger topic of acting. Certainly there are many books discussing the history of Indian actors (in India) and I would presume there would be sources discussing the history of Indian actors in America (as there are similar works discussing east asian acting in hollywood such as [4] [5] and [6]. I am not aware of Indian specific sources that are analagous to these, but I think the existence of such sources is plausible. Are any of those sources about Indian Oscars? (Or dedicate signficant coverage to the concept of why indians dont meet, meet, or exceed the expected rate of oscar nominations/wins, politics of the oscars etc. Obviously there are passing and newspaper references to individual winners, and some minor notes saying "so and so was the first since" or "first in category X", but it is my opinion that those sources lend notability to the subject of that article (so and so) and not the concept of "Indian Oscars" which I have yet to see any evidence that anyone has written about or studied in depth. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, okay, you're probably right, there's no "list of Indian Academy Award winners" out there. So let's delete this one. And all the others that Lugnuts has noted. A helpful move for an eclectic encyclopedia. It's not important to me, so please, continue to argue amongst yourselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is almost purely based on unverifiable WP:OR content since no source is available for the big picture. Many in this list are not even Indians. It is better to remove this dubious article alltogether. -- Dravidian Hero 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why do you think that Ismail Merchant and Deepa Mehta should not be in this list? Why do you think that Ismail Merchant although being Indian-born (born in Bombay), is not right to be placed in this list? Please explain to us, that's all I ask for. I respect everyone's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.240.231 (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Mehta had Canadian citizenship when she was nominated. In case of Ismail Merchant it's not clear from sources whether he was Indian or American at the time of nomination. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons there shouldn't be questionable content about persons.-- Dravidian Hero 14:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, they can be removed. 117.200.240.231 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.- Salaam Bombay was the second Indian film to be nominated in the foreign film category.117.200.240.231 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Nair wasn't Indian at that time anymore. I don't know the criteria for Indian submissions though. I believe it's the language of the film which made it elligible.-- Dravidian Hero 14:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oscars official page [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.240.231 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dravidianhero has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppeteer. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the user was sockpuppeeting.117.200.240.74 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that the subject of the list "Indian Academy Award winners and nominees" is the subject of the sort of secondary reliable sources that support the idea that this subject is notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that there are 20 or so similar lists here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although certainly "otherstuff", I think many of those fall into this same boat (but possibly not all). I will likely use this AFD as a trial baloon, and depending on the result do a group AFD for the others that do not have evidence of notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you do find one with your version of notability, please be sure to let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, play nice, children. While I can't speak for Gaijin42, what I would like to see in support for this and similar lists are independent reliable sources that substantively discuss the concept of being of a particular nationality or ethnicity and being nominated for or winning an Oscar. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Who is discussing the overall topic of indian oscars, as opposed to the particular winner who happens to be indian. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you both talking about? I just asked for the prime example to be notified to us, once it's found. I have no idea what you are talking about Gaijin42, but that's not surprising. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of Oscar winners/nominees and nationality is often of interest in the home country, and certainly so in the case of India. Coverage of "Indian Oscar winners" and highlighting links of Oscar winners to India is frankly an annual ritual in the Indian press as demonstrated by these links: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], . The article's inclusion criterion needs clarification, but that's matter for the article talk page, not AFD. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the proffered sources, they seem to be several varieties of "Indian people like it when Indian people win Oscars" but there's not the same thing as discussion of the list's subject of being Indian and an Oscar winner/nominee is itself notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abecedare. In the first link that you told, there were two Indian nominations not added in the list. I have added them.117.200.240.74 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Abecedare. Define the inclusion criteria without any ambiguity (especially the word "Indian"). Salih (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nominator keep The sources found by abecedare are exactly the type I was hoping for. Particularly the ones discussing the topic outside of a recent winner, but a true discussion of the entire topic from a historical/meta perspective. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean some from the Times of India which I indicated to you earlier? Interesting insight into your modus operandi. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mention a giant newspaper and expect me to crawl through it. And then respond in the most sarcastic method possible. Interesting insight into your modus operandi. Thanks.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. You see, I was correct. Never mind. Thanks for changing your mind; next time try a search on a mainstream Indian newspaper before wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a withdraw and close then? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 2 October 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) 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Oliver Hill

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

AfD seven years ago was closed as no consensus essentially because it was determined that the person actually existed. No sources were presented there, nor could I find any now. Searches for "clay oliver hill" -wikipedia and "populist democratic viking party" -wikipedia are just returning noise. Not that we have any prejudice against stunt candidates, but they still need to meet WP:GNG. Vermin Supreme this guy ain't. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [19] provides a good source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He's just an unsuccessful, fringe candidate who barely rates a mention here and there.[20] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:52, 1 October 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 Planeswalker. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serra (Magic: The Gathering)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Magic: The Gathering through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planeswalker. While as usual TTN's nominations border on trolling (only things that talk about X talk about X, clearly we should delete X, tautologies are cool), this is indeed just fancruft. SnowFire (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - totally non-notable subject, plot only coverage. Deletion would also be appropriate, but despite the implausibility of the search term, redirects are cheap. --Simone 08:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planeswalker Beyond the basic card info, I haven't found any authoritative sources online. Existence is verifiable, so redirect is best option, per WP:ATD-M. --Mark viking (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zuoken

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Greyhawk through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary TTN (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fansite that would love this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG in having no significant coverage about the subject in independent reliable sources, which leaves the options of merge redirect or delete. The proposed merge target is already bloated with similar trivia also supported only by primary sources and so a merge would seem to be doing nothing more than shoveling shit from one corner of the stall to another. As for redirect we have been down that path before and so it would need to be locked. In addition, i have not seen any evidence that the word is a likely search term to need a redirect, so delete seems the best option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into List of Greyhawk deities. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M states Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. Difficulty in maintaining a redirect is an editor problem and not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. --Mark viking (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, largely per Mark Viking. A brief summary of this article's contents would be appropriate on the List of Greyhawk deities, although it is dubious whether the broader topic is notable either seeing as none of the "authoritative" sources qualify as independent. --Simone 17:30, 1 October 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) 01:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SWAT Environmental

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

I don;t see evidence that this company is notable. "Fast growing" a/c Inc. means only :might be notable someday" DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dubious...per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - They have a good cause but I have to say that I've found very little that isn't PR or substantial. I searched several times at Google News until I found this but copying the little snippet in the preview revealed to be a republished press release. It states this was covered by NBC News which I finally found a vimeo link through a local NBC affiliate in Lansing, MI. Very good cause and the Inc. rankings are promising for the future but there really isn't much for a detailed article not to mention two of the current references are PR so the short vimeo link wouldn't help. Absolutely no prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 2 October 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) 01:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell S. Freeman

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

He might just possibly be notable, but this bio reads like a press release, and there's not enough accomplishments to be worth fixing. I don't think it should have been accepted from AfC in this state. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and yes it does read like a fansite. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the lead, Freeman's main claim to fame is his involvement in Zycron, Pinnacle Construction Partners, and Reliant Bank. None of these companies is notable. Thus, Freeman is not notable as well. Jeff5102 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 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) 01:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbinder

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

Notability and lack of sources. Prodded a couple of weeks ago, but it's back. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found to establish notability, either as the company or their CMS software. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Start up article for a start up company that was apparently created only this year but I went ahead and searched Google News including the archives and found nothing. Additional searches conflicted with other companies or people with the name "Goodbinder" but nothing substantial (primary sources) for this Goodbinder. Lack of substantial news coverage if at all emphasizes how new this company is but the lack of even that many primary sources is more emphasis. The bottom line is that there isn't much to support this article. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 2 October 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) 02:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Strakosha

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. The original rationale of "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL" remains valid. Giant Snowman 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article claims he played for Albania in their friendly against Lithuania in March. If true, he would pass WP:NFOOTBALL, but I have thus far been unable to find the line-ups for that match........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He wasn't in the original squad called up for the Norway and Lithuania matches, which is here, about halfway down a long and incredibly detailed page. Nor was he in the line-up for the Lithuania friendly according to the Lithuania FA website, not even as an unused sub. As he's played neither for the national team nor for his club's first team, he fails WP:FOOTY. He is (genuinely) an under-21 international, but under-age internationals don't convey notability, and there's no evidence of his passing GNG. Perhaps there are Albanian-language sources, but I wouldn't be competent to assess them.
Mr Strakosha's name was first introduced into the Albania national football team article by an anon in August. Might be an idea if someone checked out that article. Where most national team articles list the latest squad, this one seems to have someone's idea of a "best squad"..... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication this player has genuinely played a minute of senior international football. Seems to me to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No problem with recreation when he plays either in an FPL or internationally for the senior team. Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for his country's national team, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, but keep the article safe, so that when he plays his first match with a prof team, the article may be easily recreated. --Shqipnia apo Shqiperia (talk) 19:02, 3 October 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) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Donovan

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

No supporting documentation to demonstrate notability. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The chivalric order is not a significant one in particular by the time he received it. Article created by a SPA with name of Donovan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mildly interesting article but fails to demonstrate what this person was notable for. Snappy (talk) 16:23, 4 October 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) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Creevy

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. No indication that this player has achieved anything worthy of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:50, 6 October 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) 05:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angel MedFlight

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

Page has been deleted before for promotion. Needs review, still seems promotional. Looks like a copy-paste recreation. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this may be a related incident (reported relatively recently).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance Martin451 17:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD-G4 Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion. (edit) G5 (blocked user) may also apply given the sock puppetry involved in the previous AfD, and that this page was created by a brand new user. Martin451 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't believe G4 applies, as it is somewhat different from the previous editions both at Angel MedFlight and Angel Medflight. This does smell very much like a G5 though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator blocked as part of a huge sockfarm; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aviation geek. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 3 October 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) 01:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Abdelmohsen

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Only references in the article are to his YouTube Channel and I can't find any other reliable sources. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biography created by a single-edit WP:SPA and lacking in anything beyond links to the subject's Youtube entries, despite the tags signalling the need for improvement to the article. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 October 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radeon HD 8000 Series

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

This card series never came out, it went from 7000 series to Rx 200 series. Cky2250 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Cky2250 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Richland APUs (HD 8XXX) came out! --DrSeehas (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not APUs. The article is about GPUs.Cky2250 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richland APUs are APUs!
The GPUs of the AMD APUs were always mentioned in the equivalent Radeon HD X000 Series articles. See Radeon HD 6000 Series and Radeon HD 7000 Series. --DrSeehas (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that they have been in one article, but this is all about GPUs with one table (3rd down) saying anything about APUs. The 8000 series GPUs were never released and never will be. The article should be about APUs then and not about speculations of what 8000 series could have been.Cky2250 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then modify the article but don't delete it! --DrSeehas (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Caldwell (politician)

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

Not sure why this was passed through AfC, it was a largely unsourced and heavily biased campaigning article about a Queensland politician. He hasn't been elected to national office and, of the local news coverage that does exist, it seems to be largely very negative - which is not reflected in the article and probably would be challenged if anyone added it! Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Ordinarily, I would agree that a candidate who was only nominated but not elected is not notable. In this case, the fact that the nomination was withdrawn (he was "deselected", in Australian terminology) for having visited a swingers club is sufficiently unusual to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BLP1E in my view. If you remove the totally unsourced biographical stuff (most of it) you're left with "he ran for office, then he didn't because of a scandal". That's not really the purpose of Wikipedia and what other purpose does this serve? Beyond the one-off scandal, what else is the subject notable for? Stalwart111 14:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Stalwart111: fails WP:BLP1E and WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article on the same person (I think) was deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Caldwell. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty sure it's the same guy. Stalwart111 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, if I'd seen that I would have tried to speedy delete it! Maybe that is still an option? Sionk (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per March 2012 AfD decision. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete without prejudice against restoration after a deletion review of either the older article or this one per sometimes Wikipedia needs to be a bureaucracy and follow protocols. I was going to say "keep" per Eastmain, and I would probably go for "restore" in a DRV for the same reasoning, but this AFD is not the forum to overturn the previous deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete never elected as a poltician. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to LibStar: Past and present political candidates may qualify for reasons other than being elected - see Eastmain's comment above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

his other "achievements" don't qualify him for WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - I'm the one who approved it from AfC because it has several sources that demonstrated significant coverage and was part of a political scandal that received some media attention. And, though i don't entirely understand the process in AUS, as I read it, he is holding office. Not a great article, but a decent start. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain why you approved the article - that's appreciated. I can understand the confusion but the subject is not an elected representative or office holder. He was endorsed by a political party to run for office but was later disendorsed without actually standing for election (being on the ballot). So while there might be coverage, it relates to one event (the "scandal") and he still fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article could only ever be about the scandal, which is not what WP is about. If you let me know which political system you are familiar with I'd be happy to give you a relative comparison, but that's the short version. Stalwart111 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American, so I only have a passing familiarity with Parliamentary systems at best. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the sources don't say he was elected. For some reason I thought I'd read that he'd lost an election then was appointed to fill a seat. I think I was mistaken. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! We have "pre-selections" which are the equivalent of your "primaries" to select candidates for each party in advance of the "general election". Once you've won a pre-selection you become the endorsed candidate for that seat but of course you can be disendorsed if you "do something wrong". The subject never made it to the general. Stalwart111 12:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 5 October 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. Consensus is also clear that the article is in need of major improvement, thus no prejudice against future relisting if the article hasn't been improved in a reasonable time. —Darkwind (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Total Drama characters

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

This article is 100% composed of in-universe trivia, ridiculously over-burdened with overly-detailed character bios, and outright fails to establish any out-of-universe notability. The sources are generally not reliable, or say nothing about the characters, just the show. Giggett (talk · contribs) seems to be borderline WP:OWNing the article, as almost all of it has been edited by them. The article has a whopping seven maintenance tags on it. Strongly suggest WP:TNT at the very least — this is just a clusterfuck. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page has more than 5000 revisions, so if this closes as delete, a steward needs to carry out the actual deletion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose:~~ This article has been here long before I ever joined Wikipedia 3 years ago. I have only been editing it a lot recently since a new season is currently airing this month and since the article is semi-protected so almost no one else is able to edit the article other than me. Giggett (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your !vote here per your statement below. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page can easily be edited by other users as well if it's semi-protected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the respective series. Wow, what a mess of an article. Take the character bios, trim them down, and place them in the series where they appeared in. If this does close as keep, I also advocate a TNT. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already started to trim down the character summaries in my most recent string of edits as you can see here. Giggett (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as much as I hate to defend anything in the sorry state this was in at its arrival. Character-list articles aren't anything unusual or controversial: Category:Lists of television characters is well-populated. I reject the nomination's claim that such lists violate Wikipedia policy or practice on writing about fictional material; should the nominator feel otherwise, this is not an appropriate venue to object to such a broad category of extant material in general. As for this article, it is absolutely true that it contains vastly too much plot summary, trivia, and the like. It also contains, appropriately, the list of characters, their appearances, and their voice actors, precisely as would be expected of an article at this title. Neither deletion nor TNT is the answer. AFD is not intended as an alternative to the basic editorial process of trimming undesirable material from articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, if you trim the crap, you're left with a blank page, which is why I'm suggesting WP:TNT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, if we shorten them all to only include a few sentences to describe their interactions throughout each season, then that's only about 300 words per character, not 0. Trimming would be the same effect as TNT. Giggett (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly the case, although clearly you'd have much less than you have now. I'd cull the entire Contestant summary section, incorporate the cameos, to the extent they are relevant, into the characters' main entries, strip off the wacky formatting, pare down the descriptions somewhat and call it a day. That's major surgery, so far as editing-down goes, but it's hardly TNT: the content that should be here is here; that there is also a lot that shouldn't be here is not a valid deletion rationale. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. This page has been edited more than 25,000 times, so if you close it as "delete", you'll be unable to implement the close; you'll have to make a request at Meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're a little late there ;) Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, oops :-) But mine's more easily visible (if a non-closing admin overlooks yours and posts a similar note, a closing admin might not see yours either) and has a link :-þ Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, so an admin can just delete the article without discussing about it? Giggett (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - They can, but they aren't supposed to and doing it would probably be met with backlash. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, no, they can't, because our software's set up so that only a very few people ("stewards") can delete pages that have been edited more than 5,000 times. Jackmcbarn and I were talking about something different: right now, everyone except the nominator has said that the page should be kept, but of course it's possible that other people could come along and all advocate for its deletion. An administrator has to close an Articles for Deletion discussion (we wouldn't want it to go on indefinitely) and declare what the consensus of the discussion ended up being, and if he close it with a "delete" decision, he'll delete the page. That's the problem Jackmcbarn and I have mentioned, since it's not possible for an administrator to delete this specific page. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, sorry, I thought he was asking if admins had the power to just wipe any page they wanted without discussion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You misunderstand; I'm sorry that I confused you. If this were a normal article, I wouldn't have contradicted you, because I understood him the same way; the only technical thing is that this article requires the bigdelete permission, which only stewards have: it's really rare that an article would need to be deleted when it's gotten so many revisions, and preventing normal admins from deleting such pages is therefore restricted for very good reasons. Of course you're right in saying that backlash would (and should) result from an out-of-process deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh okay, thanks for answering my question. I guess I had no idea what a steward was until now. Giggett (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Total Drama is averaging more ratings than Survivor. It is one of the highest rated Cartoon Network shows in the United States. Each character diverse in their own way, equally has notoriety in the series. Not to mention new characters are being developed as we speak. Boaxy (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim, a valid WP:SPINOUT of the main article; trimming/cleanup of the cruft should have been attempted by the nominator prior to tossing it to the AfD wolves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because of Bushranger's point. Cutting this down to nothing more than the characters' names would result in something that's basically acceptable, marginally better than what we have now, and simple enough that anyone could do it. I'm all in favor of WP:TNT deletions (I've argued for them in the past), but generally only when deleting the junk article would help to induce the addition of good new content. I don't see anything getting added to this list except for some basic nice tables (which might be encouraged by the simple raw list of names only) or tons and tons of trivia like what we have now. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with each character's section trimmed down to remove trivial info and keep just the important stuff. A brief description of each character ought to suffice. Creativity-II (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone gonna do the trimming, or are we just gonna keep passing the buck and letting the article continue to gather cruft? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to tidy it up somewhat, although I will likely leave the task of shortening the character bios to someone else. I'm doing this because I think that's the right decision for the project, not out of any interest whatsoever in this article topic. And I'm doing so expressly under a measure of protest; there are far, far too many articles, mostly on fictional material, that are showing up at AFD when they should simply be being trimmed or merged to appropriate targets as editorial measures. AFD is not intended as a way to force other editors to clean up articles in difficult conditions: I consider this nomination as much a passing of the buck as any other commenter here who did not take action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No way that I'm going to do anything while the AFD is still running, but I wouldn't mind doing it afterward. We can wait until the AFD closes; it's not a copyvio or anything else that's immediately harmful. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean about a "brief description of each character"? Is that just supposed to be just a sentence, or is it more like a short summary? Since some of these character descriptions are very short like below 300 words while other ones are very long like 1,000 words or more. So are the 300 word character summaries fine, or do they need to be even shorter? Giggett (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with a short summary, about 300 words or less like you mentioned. Creativity-II (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - List of Total Drama characters largely is original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors after received 25,000+ edits. This AfD was mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard The pages' 25,365 edits presently ranks it No. 7 behind George W. Bush 45,254, List of WWE personnel 38,061, United States 32,242, Wikipedia 32,031, Michael Jackson 27,023, and Jesus 26,546.[21] It seems clear that review is needed when the edit count of an animated television show ranks among articles whose large receipt of edits is understandable. When you additionally look at the articles with the most revisions listed below List of Total Drama characters, List of Total Drama characters clearly stands out as unexplainably receiving so many page edits. Yes, the page needs trimming/cleanup of the cruft, but that merely skirts past the problem. With 25,365 edits to the page, I think the culture that has developed in editing this page is so engrained that the page is hopelessly irreparable. In other words, while the article is fixable, reality is that it will not happen. The results after 25,000+ contributions to the page show that the page is being editing with little concern in posting Wikipedian original analysis or in using the Total Drama television itself to source the entire article and/or large passages. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. See WP:PSTS. For the page content that is not original analysis, it appears that Wikipedia is being used as a first reporter of Total Drama characters statistics. Even though this is the first AfD for the list, WP:TNT seems an appropriate solution given the above. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, helpful and useful information here, just needs some improvement with secondary sources, however, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the general notability guideline as no evidence has been provided which demonstrates that the characters are notable by our standards. Notability is not inherited from the work in which the characters appear in. Also violates What Wikipedia is Not due to the inuniverse only content. Simone 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, I now agree that this page should be deleted Giggett (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really that it's an archetypal WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but an awful lot of other stuff does exist. It has long been my reading of consensus that Lists of [Foo Show] characters, especially for long-running notable series, have been (within reason) considered acceptable WP:SPINOUT articles even in the absence of sources which demonstrate notability for the character list independently of the show they are part of (if such a thing were even possible). Certainly, there are over 500 articles in Category:Lists of television characters and subcats. Given that scope, a declaration that such articles are problematic from the WP:NOTINHERITED perspective probably should have an RFC. This article obviously has a litany of other problems, but those are editorial concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but major cleanup required Yes, I will agree that there's no immediate notability for this, but at the same time, we are talking about a character list of a multi-season, serial show. We have generally allowed these lists as long as the descriptions are kept in check, and whenever possible, out-of-universe sourcing is used to help back it up. The current list fails the first part, and while I understand the show builds around a fictional reality show with elimination voting, such details aren't appropriate here. Trimmed down to, as suggested, 300 words or such, is completely reasonable. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I think the is list is notable enough to provide coverage of it. JJ98 (Talk) 08:19, 7 October 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) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borislava Botusharova

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

This article was deleted as an expired "PROD" one year ago on the grounds that the player didn't pass the notability guidelines for tennis players. Nothing has changed about the biography since then, apart from re-creation of the article, which makes no further claims in regard to the broader general notability guideline. Jared Preston (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should really be a speedy delete since it was already deleted once. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an author of the article I think it should be kept. The last time the article was removed, because Borislava Botusharova hadn't won a title yet, but last week she did won her first title. She is a promising tennis player from Bulgaria and she is still 18 years old, so that's why she hasn't won that many titles yet. If you decide to delete it, that's fine, but I think that will be wrong as there's a lot of other articles on Wikipedia for players that don't even have a title yet. Also, I would like for someone to tell me what exactly should a tennis player do to deserve to have an article about him/her? Thank you and I really hope the article will stay.

PS: I'm sorry if I'm not doing this right, but I have never done something like this before. Kr1s71an(click) (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you out with your confusion. There are not lots of articles on players that have no titles. There are hundreds of those 10k events around the world and they are the lowest of the low of the ITF. Winning one is not notable nor is the tournament notable. We keep a list of notability for all new editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability so please read it over. It was not removed last time because she hadn't won a title, it was that we have a minimum threshold we use for notability at Wikipedia and she hasn't come close to it yet. A $25k is also a dime a dozen and isn't notable. $35k is the minimum need in these tiny ITF small tournaments. If she plays in any main draw of a WTA tournament she is notable, she doesn't even have to win a match. Those events get tv coverage etc... Tennis Project guidelines are pretty darned lenient about notability (many say too lenient by the way) but even we have to draw the line somewhere. Happy editing and remember you can always ask at the guidelines talk page or my talk page if you're unsure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. No significant coverage shown.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of understand now what are the rules for a tennis player to be considered notable. Botusharova is still young, so it will be hard for her to win a $50,000 tournament soon. She just qualified for another $10,000 final this week. So will she be considered notable if she wins a $25,000 tournament or plays a match for Fed Cup in February? I just want to know, so I don't make the article again if she lets say plays Fed cup and it gets deleted again. Thanks! Kr1s71an(click) (talk) 08:18, 5 October 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 G11 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ VERONIKA

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

Spammy article about an India-based DJ with no verifiable indications of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSD A7, G11, and WP:BAND. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 12:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Ravenloft characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam (Ravenloft)

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

Fails the general notability guideline as there are no published sources on this subject which are independent from companies which produced the game sets. Simone 11:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Ravenloft characters. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect unless proper sources can be found. TTN (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fan site that would love this kind of trivia. as for Wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG in that there is no significant coverage about the subject of the article by independent reliable sources (merely appearances of the character in primary sources). that leaves merge, redirect or delete. Since the proposed target for the merge is already bloated with only primary sourced in universe content, a merge of more primary source in universe content would seem to be merely shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. As a redirect Adam (Ravenloft) seems a pretty damn implausible search term and we have been there already [22] and so it would need to be locked. Delete seems the most appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- you do realize that since BOZ did not identify any policies or guidelines to support his posistion that your !vote is equally invalid? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, please read WP:PRESERVE. Secondly, I will not again respond to someone who engages in name calling on a regular basis. Calling people names is rarely helpful and you seem to wallow in it as you engage in it in literally every AfD I recall seeing your name in. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for adding a policy or guideline to support your position. Kindly now show where I have called anyone a name in this or any other AfD or else retract your accusation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into List of Ravenloft characters. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term (searching Google for Adam Ravenloft gives this article as the top hit and adam's wrath ravenloft yields it as the third hit). Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M states Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. Difficulty in maintaining a redirect is an editor problem and not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. --Mark viking (talk) 23:37, 6 October 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) 02:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Role of a media buyer

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

Contested PROD. reason was "Although referenced to a limited extent, this is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. It is a mixture of sourced material and pure WP:OR" Fiddle Faddle 11:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's largely redundant with media buying and I don't think there's much that can be merged. Lack of referencing and wikification both make preservation of any useful content harder. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To be honest it looks like a mess and one admin has good reasons to believe that the user that made it is a student trying to gain grades but hasn't been taught how to do things correctly on Wikipedia.

Sourcewise: number 1 i'm not sure that meets the notability requirements, 2 looks okay but I have no idea how access number 3, so to be frank we have an article that fails the rule on a minimum of 2 reliable sources, and that's probably just skimming what some others may be able to find. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 15:27, 3 October 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) 01:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brighton & Hove bus names

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

Whilst this might be WP:INTERESTING, it's a list that exists without encyclopaedic purpose. Its appeal is limited to only a very small section of readership. Without there being any sources to demonstrate just how and why this naming concept as applied to this company's buses, this fails WP:GNG. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's borderline, but there has been a book written on the subject, and it has received coverage in the national press. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of the list has been written about in books and is worthy of mention in Brighton & Hove (bus company), but the entire list of specific entries in it is a indiscriminate collection of information, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bus naming has an entire section to itself in the parent article. That's more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non notable & unencyclopedic list, Considering we have a Brighton & Hove (bus company)#Named buses, I fail to see the point of this article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- At first sight one would think that there were articles on each of several hundered buses. However, the links are clearly not to articles on the buses, but on the people they are named after. Should the article on Virginia Woolf have a comment at the end that B&H Bus Co named a bus after her? When I first used to edit WP, many articles had a "popular culture" section at the end, full of trivial literary and other references, as non-encyclopaedic trivia. Those were deleted en-masse a long time back. This whole article is of a piece with such trivia; perhaps even worse. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 4 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPS Airlines Flight 1354

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

Fails the WP:NOT inclusion policy and WP:EVENT guideline as having no lasting significance. While this air crash received news coverage because it was a newsworthy event, the crash it self has no lasting significance. There is no hint that there will be any changes to aircraft or airline procedures as a result of this, there will be a routine report produced by the air-crash investigators but unless anything unusual comes out of that it is already adequately covered in UPS Airlines#Major incidents and accidents a redirect as per WP:CHEAP is appropriate. LGA _talk^edits 08:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"having no lasting significance" - Where do you know that from? Are you an NTSB investigator who has access to an unpublished preliminary report? You never know whether a crash has lasting significance until a final report is published. Period. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then a redirect is sufficient until after the final report is published and shows that there is lasting significance. It is not WP practice to create articles on subject on the off chance at some later point they may become notable. LGA _talk^edits 09:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, basically a combination of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. We don't go crystal ball gazing and creating articles about events that might one day be notable. If a report is published and, as a result, the event passes WP:EVENT, then we create an article. Someone jumped the gun, that's all. Stalwart111 09:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have this completely backwards. Your supposition here that the eventual NTSB report may not show anything "significant" is highly dubious and unsupported speculation. Every total hull loss flight operation crash of a major air carrier (fatal or not) is a "significant" accident and therefore "notable". If they are not then why were the WP entries each of which were started within hours of when the accidents happened for such crashes as Swissair Flight 111 (229 fatalities) near St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada, Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268 (5 fatalities) at Vnukovo International Airport, Moscow, Russia, FedEx Express Flight 80 (2 fatalities) at Narita Airport in Tokyo, FedEx Express Flight 14 (no fatalities) at Liberty Airport in Newark, NJ, or US Airways Flight 1549 (no fatalities) in the Hudson (North) River in New York City, and many more never proposed for deletion by any editor (including yourself) on the basis that because no report had yet been released it is not yet known whether or not they "might one day be notable"? Centpacrr (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. That members of a particular WikiProject feel the need to report every air crash withinn hours of their occurance does not mean those events pass WP:EVENT or aren't subject to WP:NOTNEWS. That's like WikiProject Roads creating articles for every fatal multi-vehicle accident or WikiProject Law Enforcement creating articles for ever officer-involved shooting before the relevant internal reports. That entire effort is contrary to WP:NOT and the fact that some of the articles have survived is irrelevent. The keep !voters here are speculating that the subject might one day be notable ahead of a report that might allow this to pass WP:EVENT. If it does, that's when we cover it here, not the other way around. Perhaps we need to blue-link WP:NOTAIRLINEINDUSTRYMAGAZINE as a redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Stalwart111 22:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your personal view or interpretation of how you would like things to be, but as demonstrated by the WP entries I mentioned above and dozens of others relating to specific aviation accidents and those about many other developing "current event" topics, that is clearly not the practice on Wikipedia which is replete literally thousands of examples of such entries. A review of the traffic generated by these articles also reveals that they have among the highest page views on the project. (US Airways 1549, for instance, has had more then 110,000 page views in just the last 90 days.)

You are also comparing apples and oranges with your examples of multi-vehicle road accidents which happen many times daily all over the US and the world whereas hull loss operational major air carrier accidents (especially with fatalities) are comparatively extremely rare. There were only two (including this one) such accidents in the US this year, none in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and one in early 2009. With some 45,000,000+ commercial air carrier operations in the US over that period this represents a rate for this type of accident of 0.0000006% which alone makes each such accident "notable". Centpacrr (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my "personal view", WP:NOT is a policy. WP:AIRCRASH is "advice" (not even a guideline) created by WikiProject members which is contrary to policy. My example is not "apples and oranges" either - WP:AIRCRASH suggests that any airline or large civil aircraft crash fatal to humans is notable. Uniqueness is irrelevant with such non-policy arbitrary criteria. You claim these are "extremely rare" but suggest there are "thousands" of similar articles that justify the existence of this one. That's what makes "other stuff" arguments so weak while policy is pretty clear. Again, there is every chance this subject might be notable in the future, but it isn't now because anything substantiating a pass against WP:EVENT is pure crystal-ball gazing. Uniqueness and notability are not the same thing. Stalwart111 00:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment above again. I did not say thousands of articles about "aviation accidents", but included all of the "many other developing 'current event' topics" with similar articles on WP (and there are hundreds of such other topics) that would fit an overbroad interpretation of WP:NOT as you wish to apply it to this instant case. A very small number of that group of thousands or entries are about major air carrier operational hull loss accidents which the miniscule accident rate (0.0000006% for the US) I noted would indicate. Over time, however, many of these aviation accident entries also have high ongoing page view rates, even some such as US Air 1549 with no fatalities and very few injuries at all. The circumstances of the UPS accident has sufficient elements to make it worthy of an entry especially in that it is one of only three fatal major air carrier accidents to have occurred in the US out of over 45,000,000 operations flown during a period of more than four-and-a-half years. That alone makes it notable. That you think it is not is purely a subjective view on your part to which you are certainly personally entitled, but that alone does not constitute consensus to delete it. Centpacrr (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a pretty simple interpretation of WP:NOT given this article is probably in breach of 3-4 different sections of that policy. Again, uniqueness or rarity are not the same thing as notability. A WikiProject's support for its own advice is also not "consensus" and you're yet to put forward a policy-based reason for keeping this article. Stalwart111 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NOT as it applies to this article for the reasons I have already given herein. Additional reasons to retain it are the years of demonstrated WP practice and precedent set by community consensus of hosting many similar articles on hull loss major air carrier accidents and the history of how they were developed, the clear importance of the topic of maintaining safe and efficient domestic and international commercial aviation to the economy of the US and the world as a mode of transportation for both people and freight, the relation of this accident to the topic of improving aviation safety, the long standing significant level of traffic (page views) such similar WP entries attract to WP, and a variety of other facts and elements that make this accident sufficiently notable to have this short but continually growing article. With respect, however, you have given no substantive reasons to delete it other then a nonsepcific claim that it "is probably in breach of 3-4 different sections" of policy without any reference whatsoever to what they are, why they are in breach, or to the article's actual substance. Centpacrr (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL in my original comment above and provided context. But I also think there are elements of WP:NOTCASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY because it's not our job (or goal) to provide aviation disaster case histories or a directory of aviation disasters. We aim to provide coverage of notable events - that is, those events that meet the criteria at WP:EVENT. WP:BREAKING makes it very clear that this article probably shouldn't have been created when it was, as I suggested above. Stalwart111 03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of what you claim above, in practice and by demonstrable long standing precedent that's just not the way WP appears to have ever worked with regard to entries about major air carrier operational hull loss accidents such as this one. There are, by the way, currently 1,259 other similar aviation accident articles on WP pretty much all of which would likely also violate the "policies" you espouse if ever applied to them in the way you propose. Centpacrr (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Stalwart111 09:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since being created on August 14, 2013 this entry has garnered some 38,000 page views on the English WP and sister entries also exist of it on three other Wikiprojects: French, Japanese, and Arabic. Centpacrr (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Centpacrr, please have a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Other Wikis may have different notability guidelines, or articles in other languages may in fact be translations from the English one. Page views do not establish notability, either: A topic may be popular and nevertheless be considered unencyclopedic because of WP:NOT.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my further comments below. Centpacrr (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per commentary above. Stalwart111 09:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "routine report" (airliner/cargo crashes are sufficiently rare and circumstantial for reports to be anything but "routine") will almost certainly contain a number of safety recommendations. Safety recommendations do have a lasting significance; sometimes minor, sometimes major. — Lfdder (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To early to tell whether this will result in changes, but most likely will. As per redirecting it to UPS Airlines, it will lead to a already lengthy page. Should also be kept because, it was a loss of human lives, hull loss, and temporarily shut down an airport. I mean whats the difference here with Asiana Airlines Flight 214, 3 people lost their lives in that one and it was a hull loss, and it temporarily shut down SFO. So we need to wait until this investigation is over and we need to see if it resulted in changes. (Which it most likely will) as per WP:AIRCRASH. Also, why do you even want to delete it so bad? It is a great article.

— Martinillo (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This accident seems every bit as significant as many other similar total hull loss major freight air carrier fatal accidents. It will take a year or more before the NTSB report is completed, a probable cause is determined, and safety recommendations are promulgated. To claim that "the crash itself has no lasting significance" is purely empty speculation on the part of the deletion proposer. As every accident is different, each has "significance" and lessons to teach to improve aviation safety. There is no such thing as a "routine" NTSB report, and the speculative claim that there is "no hint that there will be any changes to aircraft or airline procedures as a result of this accident" made above is completely unsupported. Centpacrr (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:TOOSOON. Keep !votes above seem to boil down to WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to UPS Airlines, because WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS are not met. We can only take into account what information is currently available, and should refrain from speculate about possible future developments (read WP:CRYSTAL if you are interested in further information on that matter). This aviation accident has received media coverage only during its immediate aftermath, which shows that there has not been any lasting significance. The fact that there is an ongoing NTSB investigation must not be used as an argument for alleged notability, because (as it has been pointed out above) any aviation incident produces some kind of response by the regulatory authorities. The existence of such a report can therefore be considered routine, and should not be used as sole argument to establish notability.

As a side note, I would like to suggest that WP:AIRCRASH be deleted: It's a piece of advice for contributors of one Wikipedia Project, so to speak for "aviation accident fanboys". WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is all we need to determine notability of such events, and the vexed question whether there has been "a change in procedures, regulations or process" is frequently (ab)used to push the opinion that any such accodent was notable, regardless of its actual media coverage.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Air crashes are not inherently notable and I can't think of a single other notability guideline (though it is "advice", not a guideline) that includes human fatality as an arbitrary notability criteria. Stalwart111 09:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although aircraft accidents are happily rare today^[1] there have been a great many recorded transportation accidents in total. Wikipedia does not set out to cover them nor is it structured to do so. Clearly it needs to cover some, and I respectfully disagree with the view that the decision should simply be made on the extent of media (usually web and especially US) coverage which tends to distort WP in so many areas. At the moment, I see nothing about the accident to indicate that it is one that should be in, either in the known facts or WP policy. --AJHingston (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT, and I strongly disagree with the previous argument: that article does not simply reflect an exagerated media coverage. Possibly coverage of that accident has taken more resonance because of the short interval of time that separated the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 accident from it, and perhaps more attention I'm meaning care from some commentators but it has not been inflated. Any airliner crashing the way UPS Airlines 1354 did would have caused that same shock amongst "aviation accident fanboys" in any circumstances, not to mention the professionals, and receive the same kind of media coverage. --Askedonty (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When an aircraft of this type, which has variants that are passenger carriers which carry millions of people each year, has such a catastrophic failure with a complete hull loss and loss of live, it most certainly needs to be studied and analyzed for years to come as to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again. That is clear "lasting significance." --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify, this easily meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT with very significant coverage given to it along with meeting the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH as there was a loss of life and a complete (and catastrophic) hull loss which has lasting significance. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot to me like WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "having no lasting significance" argument as a subjective WP:ITSNOTABLE opinion simply based on personal belief.--Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lasting significance" is not really subjective and its fairly easy to establish - just provide the WP:RS that give the event significant lasting coverage (beyond the few days or weeks immediately after the event). A personal opinion that something "needs be studied [...] for years to come" isn't really proof of lasting significance. If you can show reliable sources that suggest as much, it might be a different story. Stalwart111 05:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I gather from your userpage and posts that you do not reside in the United States but instead in the UK or some other Commonwealth country, it appears that you are not familiar with the nature and importance of the type of highly complex year-or-more long accident investigation currently being conducted by the NTSB into this fatal UPS crash of a type and model of commercial twin-jet aircraft (Air Bus A300-600) which is also operated by dozens of air carriers worldwide, and the significance to international air safety and commercial aviation of all such investigations in finding these accidents probable causes and in making recommendations based thereon to help prevent future such crashes.

The results of these investigations and recommendations include leading to the issuance of ADs, changes in FARs regarding such areas as aircrew training and flight checks, rest, cockpit coordination, ATC, aircraft systems, maintenance, and many other factors. In the instant case, the NTSB must determine why this aircraft crashed 1000m short of the the runway threshold during what appeared to otherwise be a normal approach. No matter what is found in the NTSB investigation of UPS 1354, the report will contain significant and notable information which will advance aviation safety and be used by all operators of this and similar types of aircraft in conducting future operations more safely. (As a pilot myself for more than fifty years I can personally attest to the value of what the NTSB does in advancing air safety.) As this information is released to the public it will be added to this article as such material has been used in the past in the development of the other 1,259 similar aviation accident articles that current exist on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, yes, I'm from Australia (so you were close!) and in fact have had quite a bit to do (in a professional capacity) with our own ATSB. What you're saying is quite likely right and your NTSB may very well write a report along the very same lines as you have suggested it will. But it hasn't yet and until it does, all we have to go on is news coverage of the crash and our own private speculation about how significantly this may be viewed in the future. You seem to be making an argument that this will most likely be notable in the future and I'm telling you, you may well be right. That's why I have suggested (from the start) that this may well be a matter of WP:TOOSOON and that WP:BREAKING applies to cases like this. We have a bizarre culture here on WP that encourages WikiProjects to write about everything that happens in their topic area as soon as it happens. But Wikipedia is not the New York Times and we don't set out to be. It's the NYT's job to write about things as they happen. It's the NTSB's job to write about things after they have happened and its our job to consider both of those things and determine if the event has lasting significance enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The simple fact of the matter is that this article probably shouldn't have been created when it was and it likely wouldn't have been were it not for poorly crafted advice like WP:AIRCRASH. Stalwart111 10:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I really couldn't disagree more with your approach here to the notability and/or significance of this accident. I doubt very much if this discussion would have ever arisen if this had been a passenger as opposed to air freight operation and there had been 150 fatalities instead of "just" two aircrew members which would have driven general "news coverage" and "perceived" significance by the general public in a very different direction. I am quite sure that in that case its "notability" would have never even been questioned here. However the the number of souls on board or casualties is irrelevant to its true significance, either short term or long. What is relevant is the accident's relationship to and impact on aviation safety in general, and specifically on international air carrier operation of this and similar types of commercial aircraft. As the details of that become increasing clear over time with both the ongoing release of interim reports as well as next year sometime when the final report with a probable cause, conclusions, and recommendations are released. As that happens the article will continue to be developed to reflect what is learned and how it impacts commercial aviation operations and safety.

As I pointed out earlier, this is how a very large percentage of the 1,259 other aviation accident articles currently existing on WP have been developed over time. As a group they have continued to well serve the project's readership as a reliable "go to" reference source in the important area of aviation safety. The fact that this article has already had more than 38,000 page views in the six weeks since the accident on August 14 and the article's creation immediately thereafter is proof of UPS #1354's notability as both an "event" and to aviation safety. Centpacrr (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going around in circles a bit. Article views, fatalities, the existence of other similarly incorrectly-developed articles and speculative impact on industry are not notability criteria. We can't create articles based on what we believe a subject's eventual impact might be. To substantiate that impact we need sources for verification. Without the NTSB report, we have none. You clearly disagree with the policies and guidelines I've cited, or at least my interpretation of them, as do the members of the Aviation WikiProject who created WP:AIRCRASH and that's fine. We're now getting into arguments to avoid territory and there's no point getting bogged down in a debate that should probably be had at MFD with regard to that "advice". I think we've exposed a fundamental flaw in the way a particular project approaches event notability, based on some pretty flawed advice. It's not fair to ask you to defend that effort with this article as a test case. I'll take a step back and consider WP:AIRCRASH in its own right after this AFD ends. Stalwart111 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that there is any "fundamental flaw" in WP:AIRCRASH for the reasons I have stated above (which I incorporate herein by reference) and because of the nature of the impact that the investigations of all such hull loss operational air carrier accidents have in the improvement of aviation safety and future accident prevention in commercial aviation. By the very nature of major NTSB investigations of such commercial air carrier accidents, the "answers" and new safety recommendations do not come until a final NTSB report is issued which often a year or more after the accident. That does in any way cause the accident itself to not be "notable" until that time the report is issued. Any such accident that becomes subject to this level of NTSB investigation is a notable accident on its face. The fact that there is not continuous new "news" coverage in the interim in no way indicates that the crash itself was not a notable aviation safety event, it just means that there is nothing "new" to report until the NTSB holds its public hearings and then later issues its final report and safety recommendations. Centpacrr (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the aircraft was on a cargo flight does not, IMHO, reduce the notability of this accident. Whilst a large number of deaths adds weight to the case for notability, a low number or lack of deaths does not necessarily detract from the case. Percentage-wise, this was a 100% fatality rate. Per precedent, hull loss accidents generally are notable enough to sustain articles subject to WP:V via WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. From news accounts and trade press analysis, crew fatigue, and therefore, industry-wide policies have been named as contributing factors. This is of course grounds enough to keep the article. Dear Nom, how in the hell is Wikipedia going to be improved by deleting this article? --Mareklug ^talk 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that support that claim, or is it just more speculation ? WP is not served by having articles on news (see WikiNews for that) or based on speculation that's why this should not be a stand alone article. LGA _talk^edits 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/8/14/ex-ntsb-chief-faashouldrethinkpilotfatiguerulesafteralacrash.html You could have found it yourself with a simple google search. That you did not bother and still press this inane AfD only discloses your meritless agenda. --Mareklug ^talk 21:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which offers nothing but more speculation as to the cause. WP does not deal in speculation, if there is something concrete to analyse then we do it. If the union has an issue with the UPS staff roster then cover it in the UPS article. LGA _talk^edits 07:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, sir or madame, you don't have even the slightest understanding or appreciation of how this and the 1,259 other WP articles relating to hull loss operational commercial air carrier aviation accidents are and have always been created and developed on Wikipedia since the initiation of the project. Articles about newly occurring accidents are virtually always started immediately after the accident happens (often within hours) and then are continually expanded and developed as more information becomes publicly available, is published in news media, and/or is released by the NTSB and other official sources. The official accident investigation, however, is a careful and exhaustive process. The NTSB sometimes issues interim statements and also generally holds public hearings, but the final report including its findings, determination of the probably cause(s), and the promulgation of safety recommendations almost always takes a year or more to be completed, adopted by the Board, and released to the public. When this happens that information is then added to the article. (See also my reply to this user on this same subject in a thread located on my user talk page here.)

This is the way the commercial aviation accident articles have always been created and developed on WP. With respect then, taking a position that no such article should ever appear on WP until after the NTSB report is issued which can take a year (and sometimes two years) or more is just absurd. For that reason nominating this article for deletion flies in the face of long standing precedent and practice on WP, the established community consensus of how aviation accident articles are created and developed, and just wastes the time of your fellow WP volunteer contributors. Centpacrr (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the record in excess of eight years. Are we seriously to be expected to wait that long before writing articles? No, the system we have works fine, the article gets written, it goes to AFD and is debated. The majority survive, a few don't. Disappointing as this is for an editor who has created an article and put work into it, is is something that comes with the territory, and has to be accepted. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:EVENT as the nominator noted -- the event has, presently, no evidence of a LASTING effect, and the news coverage does not appear to be INDEPTH, or have PERSISTENCE. I don't see why the topic can't receive an encyclopedic treatment in the main UPS Airlines article. —Darkwind (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the "persistence" of mass media coverage of this accident has absolutely nothing to do with its "lasting significance". As there were only two fatalities (the aircrew) which were the only two souls on board, it would be of little "lasting" interest to the general press. If an "identical" accident had happened to a passenger flight with many more fatalities, however, the coverage in the "popular" press would have been much greater and lasted much longer. The lasting significance of this and similar accidents, however, has to do with the factors relating to their impact on accident prevention and aviation safety based on what is (or will be learned from their probably cause(s). Any major air carrier hull loss accident such as this one is significant "on its face" irrespective of its transient "news media coverage" as this is a category and type of aircraft (AirBus A300) still flown by many passenger and freight air carriers world wide. As such the accident is the subject of a major NTSB accident investigation which is likely to take a year or more to complete before it can provide those answers. Thus to claim that there is "no evidence of lasting effect" is both unsupported speculation and an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of how the process of improvement of flight safety and accident prevention works. Centpacrr (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Darkwind: the news coverage missing INDEPTH is the superficial view and it's only apparently so. If you compare with similar cases e.g. Asiana Airlines Flight 214 you may note that a notable volume of coverage in the last depend on the fact that many anecdotal ( or not anecdotal ) elements are therein expanded in part because a) a greater number of people where in situ concerned; b) many survivors implies the same number of witnesses. Dealing with a volume of various information that article is from then on ( from an editorial point of vue ) in position to expand views of the airfield as it does for example. From there it's straightforward to extending the views toward traffic considerations. Moreover the technical causes of the accident had been obvious from the second or third day after the event as the pilot survived the crash, which does not make the event less notable.
Back to UPS 1354, much less information is available from the event itself, and the point regarding traffic has to be waited upon until the NTSB release. This does not relate to INDEPTH, but to IN WIDTH. Depth will be established by the NTSB. Remains PERSISTENCE: a limited scope of available information suggests its interest will early near void as it decreases. That is still only judging the book by the cover. It is no the opinion in the industry. After that link provided by Mareklug above: aljazeera etc;, if you exclude considerations related to UPS or FedEx, which are speculations, this crash is still considered as one of the three major U.S. incidents in the period. Noone is requesting an article dedicated to the Southwest Airlines plane. --Askedonty (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They did, but it was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 345. LGA _talk^edits 09:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest 345 at LaGuardia was a very different event in character and scope to UPS 1354. The LGA accident was a "hard landing", non-hull loss (i.e. airframe not written off) event without serious injury (nine minor injuries) the main cause of which has already been determined to be pilot, not mechanical error with the captain having now already been dismissed by the carrier. For that reason retention of a separate article for SWA 345 garnered virtually no support from the community whereas that is not the case with UPS 1354 which has very considerable support for retention. Centpacrr (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to UPS Airlines#Major incidents and accidents, per WP:EFFECT. This would retain the content for later expansion as a standalone article if/when notability is clearer. -- Trevj (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of only two major air carrier hull loss fatal accidents in the US since early 2009 out of some 45,000,000+ commercial air carrier operations in the US over that period (a rate for this type of accident of 0.0000006%) alone makes this and any other such accident "notable" on its face. Also it does violate the letter of WP:EFFECT which states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." As this accident is now the subject of a major NTSB and international investigation (the airframe was built in Europe) which will take a year or more to complete, any claim that it has "no lasting significance" or that "there is no hint that there will be any changes to aircraft or airline procedures as a result" is both speculative and premature. Centpacrr (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know from first hand experience how frustrating it can be if community consensus is that a recent event isn't deemed notable. However, it's worth remembering that consensus can change, especially after the passing of weeks/months. This is why I think that a redirect is the most appropriate course of action in this case... in fact, per WP:BEFORE. -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the majority of those already commenting above supporting retention (Keep or Strong Keep), it hardly seems that any level of community consensus to delete this article has been achieved. Centpacrr (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should remind you that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and while there are a number of editors expressing a preference for keeping this article, not a single one has quoted a RS that demonstrates it meets the inclusion policy. LGA _talk^edits 20:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And beyond WP:NOTAVOTE, 6 keeps against 5 deletes and two merge/redirects isn't even a numerical majority, let alone consensus. Add to that the lack of policy-based arguments and "per WP:AIRCRASH" opinions and the keep arguments aren't looking very strong at all. Stalwart111 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a majority of keep votes do cite policy. WP:AIRCRASH isn't a policy let alone a guideline. Most delete votes don't cite policy but just the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH. There's certainly not a consensus to delete this per policy or otherwise. --Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth correcting you here WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, it is not even a guideline, it is a projects own advice. As for your claim "Most delete votes don't cite policy", think you need to check at the top of the WP:NOTNEWS page and you will see that it is a policy. LGA _talk^edits 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For all the reasons I stated above in my multiple postings in this thread and the precedents set by the vast majority of the other 1,259 existing aviation accident articles on WP, I cannot accept the narrow interpretations of "policy" of LGA and Stalwart as they may be applied to this case. It would seem that in order to delete an article that the consensus to do so must be clear and convincing which is certainly not the case here. Centpacrr (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a narrow interpretation of policy, policy is very clear "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and WP:EVENT list a number of tests to indicate that enduring notability for events; the first "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" - the article (let alone sources) makes no claim that this event acted as a precedent or catalyst for anything. Second test "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" again the article makes no such claim (nor do any of the sources). Thirdly "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." where is the in-depth coverage here, where is the coverage analysing the event ? none provided either here or at the article. Fourth "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." all but one source from within 24 hours of the event, and the one that was later is a report on a routine NTSB press release. So it is not a narrow interpretation of policy, unless you or some one else can show that this event is right now notable as per WP:NEVENT the relevant guideline it should be deleted or redirected until such time as it clearly does. LGA _talk^edits 04:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fatal crash of a widebody aircraft is definitely notable; a crash of this nature in the developed world is a significant occurrence, regardless of whether it was a passenger or freight airline. Wikipedia contains lots of articles about comparable (in terms on notability) crashes, so I believe that WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and as it states, '[Common sense] is above any policy.' OakleighPark (talk) 08:03, 12 October 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) 02:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

José Manuel Silveira

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

I have listed this for "proposed deletion" twice before, but the original author has removed the ProD tag each time. This is a BLP that does not make a claim to notability and, of the 10 refrences, only 1 actually mentions the subject - which is a link to his twitter account (with 10 followers). All the other references link to the website of companies he has worked with/for. Therefore, this in my mind, is an unreferenced and non-notable BLP. Witty lama 07:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For the third time now, the author of that article has removed the deletion notice template without comment (diff). I have restored it. Witty lama 10:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minutes after I left this note, the author removed the tag again (diff). Cyberbot restored it soon after and warned the user on their talkpage. This too was reverted (diff). I have restored the template AGAIN and left a message on the user's talkpage, but I suspect that the user will remove it... Witty lama 12:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - the deletion tag was removed again, replaced by the bot, and removed again... The bot has now placed a level3 warning on the user's talkpage and restored the deletion template. Witty lama 16:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Nominator makes a clear case. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: The original editor has now been blocked temporarily for edit warring and it looks suspiciously like they've created a sock account to simply produce the same article under a new name: José Manuel Silveira (Entrepreneur) created by User:DEEC294 - whose only edits are to this article. Witty lama 03:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the obvious sock. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons I gave in the PROD to the second copy: This is a CV written to appear impressive but thoroughly fails WP:BIO. I've redirected the duplicate article to the one covered by the AFD, when it closes it can be nuked as a G8. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see any good reason for keeping it around that long (regardless of the outcome of this AfD) so I deleted it early, as an A10. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. Google news archive has a few hits for this name but they're obviously multiple people — one is José Manuel Silveira Lopes (a historian), another José Manuel Silveira Lorenzo (a young murder victim). I don't think either of these is the same as the subject, and the articles I found don't give enough detail to pass WP:GNG for their subjects either. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 2 October 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 Hong Kong American. That solution was the right one and Lugnuts suggestion seems sensible so I boldly redirected it and am non-admin closing this AFD. Stalwart111 07:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong people in the United States

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

This is the same exact article as Hong Kong American. No point in having two of them. User:Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC) (I have created the proper AFD delsort for this article. I have no express opinion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is the same content, then be bold and redirect it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard (Rich) Bub

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

Executive of a relatively minor engineering company; nearly all media coverage is local. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kissinger OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple oscillation mechanism

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

This is just a neologism for one minor corner of the very long history of rotary cam mechanisms. There is no novelty, sourcing or notability here to support a specific stand-alone article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources for this topic in Google news, books, or scholar. The animation comes from this page, which indicated that the mechanism is the subject of a patent, but patents are not considered reliable sources. Thus the topic seems to fail general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The author of the article also looks like the inventor, raising conflict of interest problems, per WP:COI, and rendering this article promotional in nature. A non-notable topic and serious article problems suggest deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tried, but could not establish notability. ~KvnG 14:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched, but could not find any reliable sources. -- 101.119.15.5 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 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 Grand Theft Auto V. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing for Grand Theft Auto V

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

Every source in this article is an advertisement for GTA V. There are no sources that talk about marketing GTA V. See WP:SPIP: "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium... product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Question: Has anyone written about the topic of this article, the marketing of GTA V? Green Cardamom (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a Wikia for GTA V where this material could be transwiki'd in order to preserve it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This game has made a big splash in the media. A quick search shows some secondary sources discussing both the marketing of and the market for GTA V: businessweek.com, venturebeat.com, IGN, Gamasutra, the Motley Fool, the Motley Fool, too. But I don't think these sources can support the blow-by-blow description of Rockstar marketing actions noted in the article; it would need to be cut back quite a bit. --Mark viking (talk) 04:08, 30 September 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) 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge back into Grand Theft Auto V. Way too much detail in here, and a lot of the article that doesn't have to do with marketing directly (development and sales, for example) belongs in the main article, where much of it is duplicated already. Ansh6 6 6 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the important mentions that development had started and that the initial release date had been missed, the development section, doesn't actually mention development. I've re-named it Promotion as a better name. In an article about marketing I would have thought that having a sales section that indicates the success of the marketing would be a good idea and would be the correct last paragraph of the article. - X201 (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There's no reason this needs to be its own article. Sure, its a huge blockbuster, but we don't need to get into the habit of splitting off a "Marketing" sub article every time a company puts a ton of promotion into a game. It should just be a subsection in the parent article. (A lot of stuff can be trimmed or shortened. For instance, right now, it mentions every time the website is updated. We don't need to list that sort of thing...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it mentions every time the website is updated.", that's actually down to my cack-handed trimming of the article. That segment is actually covering the online guide to Los Santos. But I agree, it reads very badly. - X201 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic appears notable and the article is well-sourced. I read through a few of the sources and each discusses updates from the GTAV marketing plan. I did not read every source, but the ones I did were not press releases—they were articles written by staff writers about the GTAV marketing campaign. Claiming "every source is an advertisement" I think is a gross generalization; we could also say every source everywhere is an advertisement for what they are discussing.

WP:SPIP does not apply here. It states:

Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Clearly a majority of these sources are written by people independent of Rockstar and are not incentivised by Rockstar.

Then the question is asked, "Has anyone written about the topic of this article, the marketing of GTA V?" To which I would argue that yes, hundreds of articles have been written that discuss aspects of the GTAV marketing campaign, whether it be the GTAV media release, or the physical promotional material, or just the general press releases giving updates on the game. People independent of Rockstar wrote about all those things. I think it's a serious misstep to discount everyone that writes about the marketing campaign (for invalid reasons, SPIP), and then in the next breath complain that no one writes about the marketing campaign. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to list every instance and mention of GTA that appeared in the press, it's trivia. Read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing for that. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the grounds that the marketing budget for the film is larger than a dozen production budgets for similar games combined with the fact that its marketing campaign was and is among the most heavily covered and widespread campaigns with a diverse system including an international campaign. Not even major political campaigns get as innovative or as expensive as GTA 5. While it may seem like "advertising" this is an article ABOUT its advertising campaign and is most certainly going to be an important article for those in marketing fields - the game itself is rather secondary, but marketing machinary assembled to push this game defies most textbook examples and really pushed the envelope. This article will continue to develop as GTA 5 enters its second and third phase. And one more time so its clear, this page should not be about the game in any real capacity, but this notable and all encompassing advertising push that makes it the #1 most expensive game in history. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree on every point except for the end conclusion. That all just makes Grand Theft Auto 5 notable, but I'm not sure it really explains why we need a separate article for this. All the important points can be covered it the GTA 5 article in a "Marketing" or "Development" sub-section. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the important points could be covered in the main article, but per WP:SS I see no reason to limit the amount of information on the marketing aspect of the game, considering what a large marketing campaign it was and what a major game release it is. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we stop though? All sorts of aspects of this game get a ton of attention from the press. There was also endless coverage and discussion on the game's initial trailers, and its boxart even. Shall we make a "Box art of GTA 5" article? A "List of GTA 5 Trailers" article? Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't arguing for that... We are arguing for one article about one of the major sections on the GTA V page, and a major aspect of the game, an aspect which is of wide interest even to people that don't like video games to see how one of the most successful video games of all time was marketed. This game is a big deal for the gaming industry, which is a huge industry. I think we are trying too hard to fit everything in one article when there's no real reason to. For example, look at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. There's WP:SS articles for the Production, the soundtrack, and the theatrical run. Or Avatar (2009 film), which has 5 sub-articles to it. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything of wide interest is appropriate for Wikipedia, and a big game doesn't make the marketing of it notable. As mentioned by Egsan Bacon below, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the marketing of this game other than they spent a lot of money on it. That information can easily be discussed in the main article on the game, probably in relation to overall cost vs. revenue (ie. was the marketing effective: yes). The only reason this article seems to exist is to list every (or many) instance when the game was mentioned in the press, it's a sort of fandom article. If we eliminate all that as trivia there's nothing left but a couple sentences. 1. Rockstar was the company. 2. They marketed in twitter, trailers, etc.. 3. They spent a lot of money. 4. It was effective. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – I don't see any reason why this couldn't and shouldn't just be in the main article. This article doesn't present anything about the way the game was marketed (Twitter announcements, screenshots, trailers, pre-order bonuses, special editions of the game, a promotional article in a gaming magazine) that suggests the marketing of GTA V was notability innovative in any way beyond them spending a lot of money doing it, and that fact can be mentioned in a marketing section in the game's article. There's no reason to do things like go into detail about when every trailer was released and what was in it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't decide either way, but I should point out that the GTA V page is 80,000 bytes which is quite long, so the only feasible way to get this merged back would be with lots of trimming. CR4ZE (t) 05:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's what most of us who have expressed a desire to see this merged want - we think that this is too much detail, so a pruned version can go back into the article for the game where it probably belongs. Ansh6 6 6 10:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chop a lot of the article, and merge the rest: Even if this wasn't poorly sourced, it's probably not a candidate for its own article. This has a lot of cruft that probably should be removed even if the article is kept p b p 17:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it's probably not a candidate for its own article." could you please elaborate? Because that's the whole reason we're here. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that if something passes GNG, it can still be merged p b p 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum – NPASR. —Darkwind (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Shit

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

Insignificant subgenre of a subgenre. The article is entirely original research and the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different genres. Horrorcore has its roots in east coast artists like Gravediggaz, Flatlinerz and Kool Keith, not the Dirty south and Chopped and screwed style of music from groups like Three 6 Mafia and UGK. Ben0kto (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Star of Perseverance

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

Non-notable award handed out by a minor organization. There's a couple of hits in Google News--these are the typical feel-good stories from local US newspapers. There is nothing of any substance that discusses the award itself, which is therefore not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Centers of Excellence

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

Notability not established. I looked for discussion of the topic in reliable sources and came up short. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pretty clear merge to National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. Plenty o' room and seems to be a subtopic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breathing Space Scotland

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

a relatively local organization, with no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a reference to the organisation's sign-language helpline winning an award. If the conclusion of this AfD is that the organisation has insufficient notability for an article in its own right, a content merge into NHS 24 may be appropriate? AllyD (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks to me like a national organization, with coverage in a number of national secondary sources. However, its name would appear to be "Breathing Space" and a move of some sort should be considered. Ben Mac Dui 07:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG with the sources supplied, plus more sources here, here. (Oh, don't let Alex Salmond hear you call Scotland "relatively local" - have you seen how they settle debates up there?) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly there are adequate sources here for this org (as above), from a google search, while not mentioned in news very much, it is referred to by government websites.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article is not clear, but it looks to me as if it is the counselling aspect of the national NHS 24. As suhc it is should certainly be notable, though the article clearly needs improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 4 October 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) 02:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Flick

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

Non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Non-notable cast, and the claims that it won "Best Picture at the Pomona Film Festival" and was reviewed by the LA Times appear to fail WP:V. There's coverage in unreliable sources, but even this [23], which proves that it was released on DVD, fails to mention any awards. There's a passing mention here or there, such as [24], but no in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Orphaned since November 2006 as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable movie. DVD Talk is actually a reliable source, but it's the only review of the film out there to my knowledge. I'll try and have a look and report back here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found the LA Times review that is mentioned in the article, but it looks like local coverage of a film that never left Los Angeles. If nobody else can find national coverage, I think this is probably non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it had left Los Angeles. It had a release on Brazilian television as "Golpe Mortal", and a DVD premiere in Netherlands in 2005. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF. We have a 1998 film that received recognition and coverage upon its release and later international distribution. We do not expect every film to have the coverage as do big studio, big financed, highly touted blockbusters, just so long as inclusion criteria are met. Will the article build much beyond a short start class? Perhaps not... but it serves the project and its readers quite well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times is local coverage. The only thing approaching non-local coverage is the DVD Talk source. Kindly point me to some evidence of the film getting coverage. Rotten Tomatoes, although it has a page on the film, has NO reviews. That's pretty indicative of a clear failure of WP:GNG, which you're touting it as passing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times is not local coverage. It's one of the biggest newspapers in the USA, covering a metro region of 18m people (bigger than the Netherlands), and based in what's arguably the world's entertainment capital; this isn't somebody's hometown newspaper doing a "local boy made good" story. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the film is from LA, it's local coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to show that the film is LA in origin and that this wasn't just the place where it first screened. If it is, then it could be considered local coverage. If not, then it'd be considered a usable RS. The problem is that most films will have a minimal amount of business done in LA, either through screening or something similar. However if you can show that the entire film was made, produced, and created by someone who lives in LA most of the time, then it could be considered local coverage. That's incredibly hard to prove, especially with a lot of the older films like this. Now as far as RT reviews go, there is a list here that shows that LA Weekly reviewed this once upon a time- we just can't find the actual review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source reviews I've seen other than DVD Talk come from LA. It got a mention in a book, but nothing more than a namedrop. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, a hometown gazette or a small-town newspaper without a worldwide audience would fit the creiteria of "local". That Rotten Tomatoes does not share all reviews is their fault, not Wikipedia's. We do not control editorial practices or content of websites outside these pages, nor do we expect a film to remain forever in the headlines. WP:NTEMP. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about? The only sources I've seen have either come from LA or have been unreliable, apart from the DVD Talk one. You still haven't given anything to satisfy notability whatsoever, and your babble about "editorial practices" is irrelevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated complaint above has been that some site outside of Wikipedia does not show reviews. We do not control their practices. And rather than "babble" I looked at the Wayback Machine's archive of the (now-dead) official film site from 2001,[25] and found indicators that it was also received a Film Threat review, bringing me back to WP:NTEMP. I am still digging, but the film's simple and non-unique title {Killer + Flick) gives a whole lot of false positives in searches. Thank you for your courtesy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said that Rotten Tomatoes didn't list much, which is indicative of a non-notable film. That still rings true, as it wasn't the only place I'd looked for sources (and I didn't just search "Killer Flick" either.) I'd like to see some actual evidence of the Film Threat review; the fact that it was an AOL Member's site that claimed to be official (or was official) makes me dubious of any claims; it's the 2000s equivalent of Blogspot, to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No website lasts forever, specially those set up by independent filmmakers on a tight budget. Sure, it would be terrific if low-budget indies had the same promotion budgets as their big studio big-budget brethren, but we need to consider instead if they have just enough to meet inclusion criteria which do not demand that level. I am still looking for the 14-year-old Film Threat review, but they have nearly 900 such archived, so it might take a few minutes. It's not that big a deal that an "official website" of a low budget independent film was placed on a free site nor that it is inactive over a decade later, but looking for and finding archives of it lead me to clues about where else this was written up back then. Personally, I do not doubt it screened internationally and had a 2005 DVD release in the Netherlands. I applaud the filmmakers for seeking and getting distribution through Bridge Entertainment Group and Vanguard Cinema, and will look for non-English reviews as well as seeking the archives of 15-year-old reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And don't get me wrong Luke... I applaud your WP:BEFORE and am simply digging further under WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but AOL Member's was the equivalent of Blogspot. I'm not doubting that it screened internationally either; but I'm not aware of how that actually conveys notability (some spectacularly non-notable films turn up in weird places.) I'm glad you are looking for the sources (I know I'm being a little more aggressive than I should be, but people misrepresenting what I say does annoy me a lot; particularly when I've been up for 15-and-a-half hours, and went cycled 10 miles in that time) and I hope you have rather more success than I did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 23:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:MOVIE as this film is widely available on DVD and has been reviewed by several well-known critics as evidenced by the sources within the article. Dolovis (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:52, 1 October 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. —Darkwind (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The social network of the 9/11 terrorists

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

This is basically a summary of Valdis E. Krebs's paper "Uncloaking Terrorist Networks". A speedy was declined by the WP:SPA creator. It looks like someone's original research masquerading as an objective general treatment. Since the topic is so specific to Krebs research and methods it's hard to imagine there being a need for a general article on this. Note that this article is not about what the terrorist network was ie. the relationship's of the terrorists, which is already covered elsewhere. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I flagged this with OR/SYNTH when I found it during NPP. Can't put it better than the nominator did, it's essentially an ad for the work of a single person. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic OR - delete. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Out (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete. Either is acceptable. The character does not have any independent notability, and though it seems popular among bloggers and fans, I was unable to locate reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaRobotPirate (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete per above, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:17, 4 October 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, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Global Solutions

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

Non notable and promotional. The claims of placement on various lists prevents a speedy. But to me, "In 2006, Clover Global Solutions appeared in spot #28 on the Houston Business Journal’s list of top small businesses. In 2011, the company appeared in spot #78 on the 2011 Fast 100 list from Houston Business Journal. The Fast 100 is a list of Houston’s fastest growing businesses. " all amount to saying the company is not yet notable, even on a regional basis. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the findings of the nominator. Is there any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whirl (Transformers)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots or delete. Either is acceptable. The character is not independently notable, and I can not locate any reliable sources discussing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable hero on a major super team comic, article has notable citations. Mathewignash (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots per NinjaRobotPirate. No significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vhaeraun

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to some gamer site that would love this cruft. as there are no independent third party sources provided, let alone any that cover the subject in a significant manner, per WP:GNG this article will need to be deleted or merged if there is any appropriate content to properly enhance an appropriate target article. since there are only primary sources and game cruft, it is unlikely that there is much that would actually be able to properly enhance any target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Not independently notable. None of the sources are independent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as redirect/merge to Drow deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged by User:Drilnoth in November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge – Per NinjaRobotPirate and Vulcan's Forge. No independent coverage has been found yet, and the subject doesn't appear likely to generate future independent coverage. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after trimming) into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Delete, per TRPoD, NinjaRobotPirate, Vulcan's Forge and Egsan Bacon.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is never any reason to delete articles like this --the information should be merged, keeping the verifiable information , for which outside sources are not necessary. . I have previously expressed my opinion of these repeating nominations for deletions when there are clearly other and better ways of handling the material.. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:16, 7 October 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 both--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 FC Bayern Munich II season

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

Article about a season in a nonprofessional league. EddieV2003 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

2013–14 Alemannia Aachen competes in Regionalliga West while 2012–13 Bayern Munich II competed in Regionalliga Bayern. Neither league is fully professional. EddieV2003 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. EddieV2003 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS, club does not play in a "top professional league". No indication of wider notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - non-notable seasons. Giant Snowman 12:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 October 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) 03:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Park Ungma

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

No indication that this park has any notability. It seems no more notable than any other small community park. If deleted, perhaps the info can be folded into the article for Nagaland or Ungma Village. Dismas|^(talk) 10:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, only trivial mentions. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 17:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myx Fusions

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

Every reference for this highly promotional article for this dubiously notable product is, unsurprisingly, a press release DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched for Myx Fusions and all I found were a few passing references, a few bits connected to Nicki Minaj and stuff generated by Myx. If someone finds something notable, it needs to be noted. If this company in the future expands and the wine gets independent reviews, that would be the time to have an article about it in Wikipedia. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation with an appropriate plot summary and sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Chasers

AfDs for this article:

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

This television episode does not appear to meet its notability with only a few sources, but not enough to provide it, all nothing but no reception from reviewers with possibly original research or fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 05:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this article was previously nominated for deletion almost five years ago and the result was withdrawn and merge. JJ98 (Talk) 05:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect it unless significant reception information can be found. TTN (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 4) or delete. Either is acceptable. Google turns up no reliable sources or reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep and sandblast It seems this episode did receive a 2005 Annie Awards nomination.[26] Not all of the series episodes did so, so that's something to consider. In expanding searches, I was able to find it had some coverage... not all is trivial. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not on votecount (which is pretty evenly divided), but on strength of arguments. Yes, many elections results are described as "landslide victories", but there is nothing even resembling a single definition of it (being based on percentage is completely different to being based on change), and many differences inside the conflicting definitions as well. Fram (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of landslide victories

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

"Landslide" is an undefinable and, for encyclopaedic purposes, meaningless term. My own definition would involve swing size and size of victory, but as is clear from this page there are many different interpretations of the word. In my own editing area I see at least three where I outright disagree. But the larger point is this: this article is, and can only ever be, original research. A similar page with electoral records would be quite justified, but this one is not. Frickeg (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on the term finds several thousand references for political landslide within Wikipedia. As noted, we have this list of such events numbering well over a hundred from 32 different nations. It seems to be a customary usage, commonplace amongst the sources we use and the only question is how much of a swing makes it a landslide? Other fields have their own accepted jargon terms, such as hat trick in cricket, bugs in computing, bugs in espionage. "Landslide" is commonplace in political articles - I'd like to see a consensus develop before we delete this list and blanketly editing all these thousands of articles.--Pete (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification: this is not an attempt to have the term "landslide" banned from Wikipedia. I am merely contending that the article itself serves no purpose as its criteria are impossible to define. Frickeg (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term landslide is certainly definable. For example, this source defines it as 58% or more in the context of US Presidential elections. Other sources may have a different view but this is normal for most topics. Warden (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing though - whose definitions are we using? This source uses 60% as the cutoff; this one claims a ten point difference is the usual definition, but other sources don't seem to disagree. And this is all just for elections of one country. It's a term that different authors define to suit their purposes - which is completely fine, just not something we can really do here. A similar page on electoral records would be interesting and verifiable, but a list of elections arbitrarily described as being "landslides" isn't useful to anyone. Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is notable, but it isn't quantifiable and this is doomed to be a mess of original research. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revise. The elections we list should be described as landslide victories by the same sources we use in the articles describing them. For example, the Queensland state election, 2012, where the Liberal National Party went from holding 34 seats to 78 in the 87 seat unicameral legislature, reducing the previous government to a rump of just seven. The ABC - and every other news outlet - described the result as a landslide: 6:48pm: LNP landslide. Election analyst Antony Green says "we've definitively given away the election" [27] - one of the sources used in our article. Clearly, some elections are landslides, but others, with a more modest swing, are less so. We really need to quantify what qualifies as a landslide victory before we make a list of them. I raised this question on the article talk page yesterday, thereby sparking this discussion. --Pete (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no clear definition of what is a "landslide," which the article just calls "an overwhelming margin," so the list is an arbitrary collection of election outcomes chosen via original research. The list also omits elections which were not really freely contested and honestly counted, such as elections in various totalitarian states and dictatorships where Fearless Leader gets 100% of the votes, and elections in the Jim Crow South in the US from the 1890's into the 1950's where Democrat candidates for state office got about 100 % of the votes. We are thus left with an arbitrary and varying criterion for the "landslide" and exclusion of elections which seem too unfair. Such an arbitrary collection of electoral results is not an encyclopedic list. Edison (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of "landslide" (and I accept that this may differ to that of others, particularly in other nations) is that there is a significant "slide" of votes or seats from one side to another, hence the image of movement. Where there is a continuing imbalance, as you have noted, no such movement from one side to another exists. The election results in the USSR were essentially static because there was only one party contesting. So I'd also exclude lopsided results such as a popular government slightly increasing its majority; the government might hold 75% of the seats before and 76% afterwards, but there has been no "landslide". --Pete (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly the problem. Different publications use different definitions to suit their purposes. My definition of "landslide" aligns broadly with yours, unsurprisingly, but that's clearly not the way it's used in an international context or even exclusively in our own country. Frickeg (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The definition that a landslide is a big shift of seats from one party to another is quite different from US usage, where they commonly call a presidential, gubernatorial or mayoral victory a landslide, with no consideration of seats in an assembly. And recurring such lopsided victories are still landslides. Without any clear definition, it is all opinion and original research. Edison (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable original research. This is better suited a blog post than an encyclopedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Media will generally note when a landslide victory occurs, and it is of interest and verifiable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The term "landslide victory" is a mere literary cliché, and lacks the necessary precision and clarity to make an encyclopedic list. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SteveStrummer. "Just what margin is needed for a victory to be 'in [or by] a landslide' has not been precisely defined, and has varied from time to time." Yep. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - difficult to quantify and undefinable are not the same. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards repurposing as a list of lists. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of French people

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

Unmanageable list because the criteria for inclusion is far too vague and also extremely broad. eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based rationale has been given by the nominator. This is part of a larger scheme of Category:Lists of people by nationality. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might be no specific policy against unworkably long lists but there is a similar case from a few years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous women in history.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list has nothing to do with this list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's a similar case, so the motivations that led to the deletion of that list are also relevant here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list contains obvious entries such as Joan of Arc and Napoleon so we seem to be managing fine. You could nitpick about both cases - France was divided at the time of Joan and Napoleon came from an Italian family in Corsica. But arguing about corner cases is to be expected in any large list or category and we can't go deleting them all for this reason. Warden (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the nationality is not the issue, the problem is that any inclusion criteria for a list of "French people" will simply be too broad. Even limiting the list to the most famous of French people (which itself would be an arbitrary choice) would still leave thousands of names, and we already have List of French actors, list of French writers etc, so that this older and excessively generic list no longer serves any purpose.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a big list is not grounds for deletion. This could easily become a list of lists article - IE broken down into subsections with links to List of French actors, List of French sportspeople, List of French curmudgeons, etc (OK, so that last one was a joke, but you can see my point). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have lists of "Norwegian Americans" and "African Americans"...etc, and other smaller, more finite groups - but a list of French People is just too massive. Is there a precedent for having a list of people from a large country like France? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...

List of Zimbabweans

Warden (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you point me to the policy that states we can't have a list because it will be too big. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list. (and delete all the other similar lists where the only criteria is nationality), such lists are not notable in themselves and are not much use as navigation aids. Currently there are 55,000 entries in the ODNB assuming that 80% of those are English this implies that the list would contain around 44,000 entries for List of English people if only those biographies are includes and presumably there are a lot of other English people in Wikipedia who are not in the ODNB, one can assume that in time the numbers of French people listed on Wikipedia will be in the tens of thousands, which will make the list too large, and a selective list of notable French people is a POV list. -- PBS (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you point me to the policy that states we can't have a list because it will be too big. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy. Actual policy says that there is "no practical limit". All that happens if a page gets too large is that you split it. You can see this at List of minor planets which has about 400,000 entries and counting. Warden (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you agree with having smaller lists like list of French aviators (which this is home to) it should at least be kept until it's been split into a list of lists. Siuenti (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but delete sections like "actors" (which is already covered by List of French actors) and consider converting sections into break-out lists. This is maintainable using sublists: divide and conquer, don't just throw your hands up and say "this looks too hard" without thinking about how to solve the problem. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colapenninsula. No need to be redundant, but list becomes manageable when this action is taken, and is likely to be useful to someone, somewhere, sometime. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Break into sublists and keep as Lists of French people. This is the approach taken for Lists of British people and similar lists for nationalities which are too well-represented on Wikipedia to be contained in a single list. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restructure as Lists of French people.--71.167.157.25 (talk) 09:48, 5 October 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 to delete. bd2412 T 12:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student marketing

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

Dictionary definition: student marketing is marketing aimed at students. Contains some purported facts about US and UK students, but none of them are sourced, so I suspect a fair bit of OR as well. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator points out, the article defines "student marketing" as marketing products to students in higher education. It cites no sources, claims no particular notability for student marketing as a distinct form or practice, and doesn't add in a substantive way to the coverage at the existing articles. Cnilep (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominated article is not great but could serve as a starting point: it read a little like somebody's essay, and I'm not convinced this is the best title. However, college/university students as a target for advertising is a legitimate topic in the business press and academic research. I added a few refs to articles from business media: there's no shortage of material if you google, though you have to skip other topics like advertising of universities, students of marketing/advertising, advertising to school children etc. There's also a lot of academic research on the effects of and attitudes to advertising on students[28][29][30][31][32][33][34]: although this is partly because students are an easy population for academic researchers to study, there is still considerable interest by marketing researchers in students as a distinctive population. The nomination and above "delete" comment seem based purely on the article, rather than showing evidence of additional research into the notability of the topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nomination is based on the poor quality of the article, not the topic. I have no doubt about the notability of student marketing per se, but I do think that, when all the unsourced (and undated!) information is removed from the article, a dictionary definition remains and any attempt at a new article would have to start from scratch. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Carnage Tour

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

Non notable, I believe. Furthermore, I really do not see this article being improved to a point of it being worth keeping. While both Megadeth and Slayer are both notable bands, I fail to see how an article on a tour is notable (aside from a few select artists like Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, etc.) L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have received significance coverage from Billboard, Noisecreep, Consequence of Sound, the Post Star, and Reuters. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cerebellum's findings; subject appears to meet WP:NCONCERT TOUR. Gong show 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This tour is mentioned in various places, but all the links given are intended simply to notify fans who might want to attend. Now that the tour is over, there is nothing encyclopedic to say about it. Several heavy metal bands got together for a tour, they played in various cities in the summer of 2010, .... and that's about it. 103.250.234.97 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Carnage Tour

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

Non notable, I believe. Its only a 1-month tour, and I really do not see this article being improved to a point of it being worth keeping. While both Megadeth and Slayer are both notable bands, I fail to see how an article on a tour is notable (aside from a few select artists like Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, etc.) L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet the general notability guideline per this GNews search. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 12:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Bean

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

The subject of the article is borderline-notable, but there's a serious lack of sources for basic facts regarding his career history. There's not the basic level of coverage in multiple independent sources that would substantiate that the man is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed a BLP-violating section which was inexplicably restored. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... And I notified the person to let them know that it shouldn't have been restored. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I made some BBQ chicken. Thanks for taking care of that, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't share the chicken!? And now I'm hungry too... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one. Rewind your searches to last century, and you will find plenty of sources documenting the activities of this person as the "bung-buster". But for this century, the sources are mainly things said by this person, rather than things about this person. I have neither the time for, nor an interest in, an article rescue here. And I have my doubts that a proper account of this person's life and works can actually be given, simply because most of the things that this person has done since leaving the employ of the Football Association (including the things that are the subject of the BLP dispute that got this article first to AN/I and then to here) are only determinable by inference, from sources documenting other things, rather than from direct documentation. On the gripping hand, this subject is far better tackled as an article on (say) Football Association compliance officers than as a biography. Not everything in Wikipedia should be presented as biography. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable football executive, and not even worth redirecting. Giant Snowman 11:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication whatsoever of notability. Fenix down (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - not even a borderline case; patently non-notable, failing WP:BIO spectacularly. --ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand into a proper article. Googling this link] makes it clear that he has been a very notable figure in English football. It just is that the artiel that we have is a nasty attack stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How so? That's just a searc for the name, most of the links are about different Graham Beans. Yes, the bung buster link is in there but there is nothing in there to indicate substantial coverage of anything particularly notable. He's just your bog standard FA suit, nothing more, nothing less. Fenix down (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A general web search is very rarely the best way to find reliable sources or evaluate notability. We need to look at the sources found by the other searches here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was a notable figure in English football circa 10 years ago. A well known book by Tom Bower (Broken Dreams) largely centred on his investigations into alleged football corruption [35] [36] [37]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The third of those sources does indicate that there was some non-routine coverage of him, so perhaps my comment above of no indication of notability is not quite so valid, but I don't think the other two sourcers are that useful. The first only really spends a couple of paragraphs discussing his work whereas the second source is more about the FA than Bean himself. Would like to see much more like the third source to confirm GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name is not notable. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 05:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the news coverage in the article and the addition online sources found by Jmorrison. He's clearly been a significant one-man force against corruption in English soccer. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised at the number of vehement 'Delete' votes! Sionk (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improving, but with a bit of digging I'm sure there are more sources to be found such as this which would get the article to easily pass WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject himself wants to have this article deleted, but I believe the sources presented in this discussion is enough to pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reply to Mentoz86 - He wants it deleted to remove "libel" (according to his message at the help desk, which i dealt with). The libel was the cyber-squatting claim, which was vague at the time, but which i rewrote and sourced better. It was one of just a small number of citations in the article and still is. The guy seems notable just about, but the article needs more references. Also Graham needs to be banned from the article since he can't edit neutrally and has a conflict of interest. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough here as compliance officer for the FA and adviser to Sir Alex Ferguson to pass GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 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 to delete. bd2412 T 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Control Center

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

Just because its notable enough for an article doesn't mean it needs one; is sufficiently covered in iOS 7 article. ~~Also places undue weight on Apple because the Android equivalent doesn't have its own article.~~ ViperSnake151 Talk 00:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easily fits into the parent article. Reh man 01:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deserves it's own page, as there is enough info for it to exist in its own right (much not added to the article yet), especially as it's highly likely to be expanded upon in future with additional functionality. Not having the Android equivalent on WP is certainly no reason to exclude this platforms WP page with its version: entirely stupid reasoning that is! Go and create the Android page if that's your own personal feeling, but don't use it's exclusion as some cheap jibe against Apple's platform's version being here (straight out of the 'troll' reasoning book!). Jimthing (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Control center (lower-case 'center') Not an unusual feature at all really, covered in iOS7, and more likely most are looking for the DAB rather than the Apple item. All computer items have front end control panels and this isn't any different. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no redirect to restore; I created Control center "after" reading Control Center, thinking it was possible people might be looking for that. Ignatz mice•talk 05:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's decently notable, and the actual name of the program is "Control Center"; create the Android equivalent if you see fit. Ignatz mice•talk 05:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not a program. It is a feature of an operating system. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources to verify general notability. Just being a "feature of an operating system" does not mean non-notability. Compare this topic to Start menu for instance, which is purely focused on the Windows feature. Or Finder (software) which does roughly the same on OSX. Steven Walling • talk 07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, one of the more touted features of iOS 7, tons of sources available. Zach Vega (talk to me) 10:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. One source is self-published and the other three each contain 3-5 sentences describing the subject of the article, and while the websites publishing this content are reliable sources in some cases the sources cited do not meet WP:RS because they purport to be nothing more than short impressions to explain some big pictures being shared. Without other sources this should go. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. If the sources need changing then that can be done, but that's not a valid reason for completely deleting articles. Jimthing (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Notability established by nom. This is a merge discussion. Use the talk pages. Merge discussions don't belong at AfD. ~KvnG 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth was this relisted? A simple count of the votes above gives KEEP as the answer: 4 keeps, 2 deletes (1 of those being irrelevant, being about WP:RS which can be changed if needed), and 1 irrelevant comment about redirection (that's already been done). Jimthing (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because we're not voting. ~KvnG 22:13, 2 October 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 to delete. bd2412 T 12:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings by law enforcement officers in Canada

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

This list is only one line long, and as it replicates an existing category, it seems unnecessary. Videomaniac29 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There was an Afd nomination of a similar article for the United States some time ago. During that nomination it was, IIRC, suggested that the topic of killings by police officers satisfied NOTESAL on the basis of various sources. In any event the nomination was not succesful. (2) The fact that there is already a category is not a valid reason for deletion. ~~(3) If the number of homicides is sufficiently small, it might be possible to merge the list into the appropriate article on the Canadian police. (I have no idea what the number is).~~ (4) This list should probably be kept ~~or merged.~~ James500 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Comments stricken due to the change in the nominator's rationale. James500 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the length of an article is being used as a criteria for deletion. I started this list as a Canadian version of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. For me, the strength of Wikipedia is that one person can start with a small contribution and other editors can expand on that idea. I even went to the trouble of finding a new reference source despite the fact that this list links to two articles that contain their own references. I would appreciate if someone could define the criteria by which this consideration is being made. Alan.ca (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator's rationale originally contained the words "The list is only one line long" which he has now deleted. I mention this so that the closing admin can better understand some of the comments above. James500 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for deleting part of my original nomination. I meant to strike it out and must have somehow deleted it by mistake. I have now fixed it. Also, just to clarify; the main rationale beyond the nomination was that the list is unnecessary because it duplicates an existing category. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the length of the article, because that is irrelevant. Videomaniac29 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDUP says that duplication of an existing category is not a reason to delete a list. I think that disposes of the sole argument for deletion. James500 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 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. --George Ho (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Doing time, Doing Vipassana

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY. buff bills 7701 00:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I tagged it as copyright violation G12. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination was made incorrectly per a claimed failure of "WP:NOTESSAY" when the topic is not an essay and by content and context was easy to discern it was actually about a film... one which passes WP:NF. And Mark, I declined your speedy issues are being addressed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've already added cites. The article could use some Synopsis clean up though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos!! Happy to have the assist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bit of looking finds this film covered in multiple independent sources: San Francisco Chronicle The Villaqe Voice The New York Times Slant Magazine and others linked through Metacritic. Point here being that we rarely delete notable topics if concerns can be addressed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw. (Sorry, but I don't have the time to close it myself.) buff bills 7701 11:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Aviation Safety Network".

[1] "Aviation Safety Network".