The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 11:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mairbek Taisumov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and all coverage appears to be routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD is transcluded to the April 29 log. Did you mean to transclude it to the April 30th log? Ping me if you want a hand. czar · · 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Despite knowing how contentious MMA discussions are, here we go.....First, WP:MMANOT is WEAK in itself. While it does establish some guidelines, they are not defined as well as they should be as other guidelines such as WP:BAND or WP:AUTHOR. Saying that he doesn't have any top tier fights is NOT a reason to delete the article. In fact, he fights for a notable organization and has won numerous boughts (looks like he has a decent record) which would qualify him under MMA. However, I cleared the MMA cloud away from head for a moment to look at the basics which is (WP:GNG). Although he would qualify under different criteria of WP:MMANOT, he still has not received significant coverage from WP:RS which is the first hurdle he needs to get over. All the press I see is passing mentions, fight records, and recaps or announcements of fights. Based on WP:GNG alone, my opinion would be delete. If additional WP:RS can be found, that is a different story. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. Mdtemp used WP:NMMA with is the MMA notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). That has only 2 criteria and they're quite objective--1. at least 3 fights for a top tier MMA organization (defined at WP:MMATIER and 2. have fought for the highest title of a top tier organization. Which of these do you claim he meets? Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry, getting confused happens to everyone now and again. :) If you read above, you will see that I am saying "IF" they received more coverage. The issue with the guidelines is that they do not define clearly enough what constitutes notability (is it ALL of the criteria, some, at least one, etc.? Should have a little more meat to be clearer). I see many MMA articles recommended for deletion based on them not having a top tier fight. Having a top tier fight has NOTHING to do with notability until they FIRST pass WP:GNG. As stated above (maybe I could have been a little clearer for you), they would pass IF they received significant coverage from WP:RS. As it stands, he falls short of such coverage and fails notability. I'm saying the same thing you are, except sticking in my opinion about the guidelines. Glad to talk more on my talk page if you want so I stop cluttering this AfD up with opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject clearly fails WP:NMMA and I agree with the previous editors who say he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:11, 3 May 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. J04n(talk page) 11:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a non-notable school with very few sources that talk about this school. The article was originally created by someone who thought the school was a high school (see this screenshot I took for proof the creator thought the school was a high school: http://gyazo.com/2952915ee002d35405eec958ab7f56ac) Andise1 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing but incidental mentions in the press. I see not features detailing this subject. I see no points of notability. Most elementary schools are non-WP:N. N is not established for this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - TonyTheTiger put it best. There is no notability. Based on WP:OUTCOMES, this article could pass AfD with a keep if it showed notability. However, all of the coverage that I see is local to the Chicago or surrounding areas and say nothing that would make it notable. The WP:RS that are available (although again, they are still local) simply verify its existence. Unfortunately, I believe this needs to be deleted or redirected to a school district where it is located (even though it is private I would lean towards a redirect to preserve the article).--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The short age of the school makes it unsurprising that notability can't really be proven. The article should be deleted now, but I would not be opposed to recreation if something changes in that regard. Ducknish (talk) 21:17, 1 May 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. I would be happy to move it into userspace or the incubator if someone wants to work on it outside of mainspace. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Hsuin Urlic Chu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There's no notability. The url given in the reference bibliography point to an index of little worth to tell otherwise (use the search term "Chu, Chi Hsuin Ulric" to get hits). The topic is not mentioned in the links of the external links section. There is no sources found through google or googlebooks. Cold Season (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Search on GS gives zilch. Perhaps I am searching wrongly. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Delete Um. I can confirm he exists, and after contorting (searching under author:"CU Chu" on Gscholar) I can get a single uncited hit - his career was early enough that Gscholar may not have the citations properly indexed. I think this is a case of failing WP:BIO in the classic sense - there simply isn't enough coverage in RS independent of the subject to write a decent article about him. This is a shame, because people with the length and prominence of the career presented in the article today would have enough sourcing and citations and the like to pass WP:PROF, but due to the older era the subject hails from, we don't have enough. If the original author wishes, userfication would be a good idea - eventually, the indexers will work through the digitization of older source materials. Ray^Talk 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unfortunately, Ray is correct. There are no WP:RS which is what is needed to support the notability of the subject. This is too bad as the subejct is interesting, just needs to be cited. Maybe there is something in print that we do not have access to that can be cited?? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Incubate. As per others, probably a notable person but unfortunately we currently don't have the references to prove this. 1292simon (talk) 12:42, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourway Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable web design company, looks like a COI with company founder being a Spencer James and User:Spencerjames1979 as the main contributor. Le Deluge (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence found that this firm meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ADVERT by User:Spencerjames1979 for the business that he founded at the age of (probably) 20. I would not be surprised if he was not a one man band. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It doesn't matter who created it or if there is a COI, what matters is does it read neutral and does it meet WP:GNG. The answer to both is "no," but my !vote for delete comes from the failed notability. There is NOTHING that I can find outside of Facebook (which is not a WP:RS) that would show notability. Probably could have went speedy A7 on this one. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:31, 1 May 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. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Ivlev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notable fights and poor sourcing. Being a champion in a second-tier organization per WP:MMATIER does not indicate notability. Luchuslu (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Same as my opinion for Mairbek Taisumov deletion discussion, subject would pass WP:MMANOT, except for the fact that there are no WP:RS. As such, delete is the only thing to do here. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination. 1292simon (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No strong assertion to notability, does not meet the criteria for fights at WP:NMMA, and lastly no other WP:SIGCOV to suggest notability above and beyond MMA guidelines. Mkdw^talk 03:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep M-1 Global Lightweight Championship. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  He is not the M-1 Global Lightweight Champion; M-1 Global organizes between 100 and 200 events per year, and this fighter won the M-1 Challenge semi-final fight for his team. His teammate Yura Ivlev fought the final round and won the team the lightweight title. He is not the champion, his team won the title which arguably isn't even a championship since it was a season. Mkdw^talk 22:52, 5 May 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. J04n(talk page) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. Dudley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA with one top tier fight and the article's only sources are to his fight record and his personal social media accounts.Mdtemp (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poor sourcing and not enough notable fights to pass WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What is it with all of these MMA articles? Get passed WP:NMMA and look at WP:GNG FIRST! There has to be significant coverage in WP:RS which there are not. What tier they have fought or their overall record doesn't count for anything unless there are WP:RS. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nomination. 1292simon (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (refactored) i am j.a. dudley and am trying to create a mma page on my self i am reading and trying to understand the guidelines to keep my page relevant and up todate reading through the arguments because i have not fought in the ufc i am not eligible? is this correct? i have fought in bellator and have fought ufc veterans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullmetalartimis (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regarding Dudley's comment, there is a list of top tier MMA fight organizations at WP:MMATIER. You have one fight with Bellator but you are required to have 3 top tier fights for notability if only per your fight record. You would need too more. The fact that you have fought UFC fighters, but not in top tier fights, generally makes those fights not meet the policy. Notability is not inherent in that because you fought famous people you are henceforth famous. While a contributing factor, it cannot be the basis for notability because it's likely most people have at one time in their life done something with someone famous. Finally, the most common form of notability is established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. I did not find anything conclusive to suggest you met WP:GNG. Mkdw^talk 03:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:19, 3 May 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. Deletion nomination withdrawn by nominator and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bendy Casimir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA and all coverage of him is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination--Keep I missed his Shooto fights and would agree he's notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — The article meets WP:NMMA. He has fought twice for World Extreme Cagefighting and twice for Shooto in Japan, top-tier organizations per WP:MMATIER. Of course, more prose and sources are needed. Poison Whiskey 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Poison Whiskey's rationale. Does need more sourcing. but passes WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 15:47, 30 April 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. J04n(talk page) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Remedios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG since he has only one top tier fight and the article's only source is a link to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources, only one notable fight. Luchuslu (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NMMA for starters. 1292simon (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I took a look for references for the cn templates and did not find anything conclusive. Of course it's possible I missed some sources but as it stands now the article does not meet our MMA guideline and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw^talk 03:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:18, 3 May 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. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Batten (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article's source is a link to his fight record (fails WP:GNG) and his record shows no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources, no notable fights. Luchuslu (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NMMA. 1292simon (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One non-top tier fight and lacks WP:SIGCOV for notability. It seems like this athlete might have a promising career, but it's way too soon. Mkdw^talk 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:17, 3 May 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. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kavanagh (MMA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He's an MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA. None of the sources show significant independent coverage so he also fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Little to no sourcing to verify notability, no notable fights. Luchuslu (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nomination. 1292simon (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His strongest claim to notability is actually his coach of the year award, but because no other information, whether this was given to him at his gym by his members or some sporting governing body, is not mentioned then it has to be discredited until a reliable source is found. In terms of being a fighter he does not meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw^talk 03:17, 3 May 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. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debdas Acharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not indicate the notability of the subject and I cannot locate any sources that are WP:RS. All this while ignoring the obvious formatting issues and cleanup needed if there were reliable sources. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Poorly-written crap which seems like an attempt to promote the subject. I wouldn't even expect any disagreement on this one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have performed a small bit of clean-up, including stub sorting, as this article should stay or go based on the notability of the subject, not its formatting. - Dravecky (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for the cleanup. I shouldn't speak for others, but I believe MezzoMezzo means "poorly-written crap" to include formatting AND notability. Stating that it is written in an attempt to promote the subject leads me to believe they meant that it is written to make it look notable while it is in fact not notable. Articles definitely should not be deleted based on formatting (trust me, we would have twice as many in AfD if we did). Regardless, thanks for the cleanup. Based on your edits, what is your though on the notability of the article which is the reason why we are here now? Thanks. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Still support deletion. It's unsourced and based on searching, I don't think it's notable at all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Even trying to decipher the intended topic of the article was a struggle! 1292simon (talk) 12:52, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTFILM. No sources in article indicating significance. Searching for Reboot "Martin Copping" (first star listed in article) gets zero gnews hits, the ghits are a small handful of self-published reviews, material on the film's official site and sites of those involved, and databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same person who created this article also recently created several other articles about films with Martin Copping in them, including Rise of the Lonestar Ranger, Forbidden Ground, Victory Blvd, and Sheep Impact; as well as at least one TV series (The Violent Earth). Alphius (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably not relevant to this discussion, but it also seems highly questionable that he played "Baby in Hospital" when he was at least 20 years old. Alphius (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and probably delete at least most of the other articles I mentioned as well. After looking around some more, it seems that the majority of the contents of the articles created by this person have been copied directly from IMDB summaries. Alphius (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The problem here is that while indie films aren't expected to have as much coverage as the big Hollywood movies, they do have to have at least some coverage. I found a review and an interview, but most of what else is out there tends to be of the non-usable blog type. There's a picture of a brief bit in SFX magazine on the movie's Tumblr page and I do see where Geeks of Doom reviewed the film, but I don't really see either as entirely usable as a RS at this point in time. I'd like to find some mention of the SFX bit on a non-primary source (ideally the SFX website) but am unable to find anything and I'm not really sure that Geeks of Doom is usable as a RS. If someone can verify that both can be used somehow then this might be enough, but until that comes I'll have to vote delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just wanted to say that I've done some cleaning and correcting on the main article for Clopping and there is a serious issue of notability for the actor and many of the films created that he starred in. While I can't automatically state how notable or non-notable all of the film articles are, I did notice that at least one of them (Elegy for a Revolutionary) doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines for films, giving me the impression that this might be a walled garden for Clopping. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are interviews at TekGabber and ScreamingByte. While the content is good, I am not sure if they can be considered reliable sources to help establish notability. I think that the SFX source identified by Tokyogirl79 is reliable and a point in favor of the film's notability, but it would help to find similar such sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Find sources:

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

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

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

Question: How many reviews in genre sources reflect a cult following or cult notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the key drawback of these reviews is that they do not have a real publisher. As for the "Context matters" caveat, I do not think it operates on that kind of sliding scale. It seems most applicable for specialized topics like history and the sciences. I do not think we would consider these reviews reliable to use if it was a clearly notable film that already had some mainstream reviews. The absence of these mainstream reviews here does not mean to me that these other reviews are suddenly able to step up. It is a bit of a tough call because we can see people talking about these kinds of movies, but that's also the case with a lot of other media, may it be certain books or YouTube videos. It is media that gets reputable attention that crosses the threshold to have an article on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a quantity of reviews situation as much as a sourcing of reviews. Certainly, there are cult film sources that achieve sufficient import in their field that they can be credible indicators of notability (Video Watchdog, for example, or perhaps the late Psychotronic Video, although that had problems as an WP:SPS.) I don't have time at the moment to dig through those and figure out if those are just unread blogs or if some of the carrying enough respect to confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of notability; there is not sufficient coverage from reliable sources for this film. It is clear that this film has been covered in amateur circles, but besides the brief interview in SFX, I am not seeing coverage that puts it across the threshold of notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 7 May 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. J04n(talk page) 17:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:NOT. Deadbeef 19:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I don't see, really, what part of WP:NOT this falls afoul of. I can only see potential issues with WP:NOT#DICT and WP:DISCRIMINATE, and given that the article goes beyond the level of a simple definition and establishes notability for the subject (with two notable sources quoted directly in the body of the article), I don't think that it has particular problems with either. It needs some clean-up to fit the style of the wiki, but other than that, I think that this is a legitimately encyclopedic (if odd) topic and an attempt to tackle it. Article was also rescued after a previous AfD, with the Deletion Review Log here. Reasons given there are pretty good for maintaining the article on this wiki. Chri$topher 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, relatively notorious linguistic phenomenon with a documented history, proper fare for an encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Transfer to Wiktionary, then redirect to Nuclear as useful redirect. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Transfer to Wiktionary, then redirect to Nuclear as suggested by Beagel. Although the misspelling Nucular has been used in multiple non-primary reliable sources, does the subject of the misspelling of Nuclear, and its use, received significant coverage? That is more debatable. As a compromise a movement of the content to the Wiktionary appears to be a good solution, with a redirect to the correct spelling with a Template:R from misspelling tag would be appropriate, as the majority of the content actually talks about content which is within the scope of the Nuclear article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not about a misspelling, but a mispronunciation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be enough coverage to establish notability by the standard usually applied on Wikipedia, and the content presented here is an exploration of the possible origin of the term and of its prevalence in society rather than a definition, so a Wiktionary move wouldn't be appropriate. Chri$topher 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Surely this qualifies, doesn't it?Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No argument for non-notability has been made to date. The dictionary comments cited are sufficient evidence of notability. (They are "reliable" "sources", "independent of the subject", providing "significant coverage". [The same goes for the Slate article.]) Note that each such comment goes beyond the usual dictionary entry in that it discusses pronunciation, not spelling, and does so at some length. The article does so at even greater length and depth and thus does not belong in Wiktionary. Frappyjohn (talk) 18:44, 5 May 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. Withdrawn by nom (me) (non-admin closure) —me_and 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allan and the Ice-gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG —me_and 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I wasn't expecting to find anything, given the time period it was released in, but I did manage to find two brief reviews and two mentions of the book in scholarly texts. One of the two authors even mentioned the work twice in two different books/essays she'd written about evolution and eugenics. This isn't much and I'm not opposed to this information being merged into the larger article on Allan Quartermain if someone were to find a way to do so. This does, however, give us just enough to where it could warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, now sources have been added by Tokyogirl79 (thanks!). I still think it's borderline (hence not withdrawing the nom), but it looks like there's useful information to impart, and I can't see an obvious way to merge it into Allan Quartermain or H. Rider Haggard. —me_and 10:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Given Deor's comments as well, I'll withdraw my nom. —me_and 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certainly meets criterion 1 of WP:BKCRIT (I have several books on my shelves that include substantial discussion of this novel; there's a whole world apart from what's online) and arguably meets criterion 5 as well: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Deor (talk) 14:46, 30 April 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. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjib Pramanik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:AUTHOR Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 19:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Forget WP:AUTHOR, it could never make it that far as it fails WP:GNG in the first place. A blog and passing mentions that do not support the content do not a Wikipedia article make. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While we're also at it, we can throw in WP:Notability (people) as grounds for deletion as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:06, 1 May 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. —me_and 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Jaiswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; only sources I could find are akin to the only one in the article, ie summary statistics and nothing else. —me_and 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Meets WP:NFOOTY having made five appearances in the fully-professional I-League. Dricherby (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  So it does. Withdrawing now… —me_and 19:54, 29 April 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. J04n(talk page) 18:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Millennium Deck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable commercial item, online search reveals no relevant items (aside from Wikipedia entry itself), text reads partially like promotion copy --Craw-daddy | T | 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTMADEUP. It's not just that this is non-notable: only one other website on the entire planet mentions it. Even the wikipedia mirrors haven't picked up this article. Dricherby (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above---Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's essential an advertisement for somebodies idea. There's no notability at all to speak of. Ducknish (talk) 21:24, 1 May 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. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:Vanispamcruftisement with no indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions and quotes. Speedy deletion for spam declined by admin. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable WP:BIO. Deadbeef 20:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vanispamcruftisement indeed. 1292simon (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this one passes the general notability guideline. News sources from numerous countries and secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfflictedNow (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — AfflictedNow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you explain how you think it passes WP:GNG please? 1292simon (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete On the surface, it seems possible this person is notable, but I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person by reliable sources. Transcendence (talk) 20:08, 6 May 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 deleted by admin Peridon (G8) and the redirect target, Partido Laban Navotas, was deleted as the creation of a banned user by admin INeverCry. On that basis, I'm non-admin closing this AFD. Stalwart111 06:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party (Navotas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no Liberal Party of Navotas (as the article implies); there is a Liberal Party in Navotas though. This means the Liberal Party in Navotas doesn't have any juridical entity. Since the Philippines is a unitary state it makes no sense to create municipal (or even provincial) "chapters" of national parties. –HTD 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge if there is any useful content that could be taken to the general Liberal Party article. Otherwise, delete, since the Liberal Party in Navotas isn't a unique local chapter. Chri$topher 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only salvageable part of the article is its list of leaders in the infobox but the Liberal Party article doesn't list each and every leadership info on every city and province so there's nothing to merge it with. The supposed foundation of the Liberal Party of Navotas in 2013 is not found on the cited webpage nor it is accurate: there had to be a Liberal Party in Navotas as early as the late 1940s when the Philippines was in a supposed two-party system. –HTD 03:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Liberal Party (Philippines) per WP:BRANCH. Subject of this AfD has received several mention in non-primary reliable sources, however none of these mentions give the subject significant coverage, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, most of those mentions are local to the subject of this AfD and thus does not meet the requirements set forth in BRANCH for the subject to have an independent article from its parent organization. Therefore, a redirect to the parent organization should be the chosen outcome.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is now clean, It is a local affilliate of Liberal and Called Partido Laban Navotas. -Angelo1345 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, this is not how it works. You can't close discussions. In this case, this would now be like "Team Lani Cayetano", the Nacionalista Party slate, in Taguig is, which is quite different to the Tinga slate there which is actually a local party recognized by the Commission on Elections and actually has a juridical personality. No one has come up with anything saying that the Liberal Party in Navotas or "Partido Laban Navotas" has a juridical personality. –HTD 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus the references of the article don't mention a "rename". The mediangbayan.ph website uses the COMELEC mirror saying that the slate is under the Liberal Party. –HTD 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is called Partido Laban Navotas in our place. and in our sample ballot (PLP). -NavotenoAngelo (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't use level 2 headings. Use level 3 if you want to.

Second, that really has nothing to do with anything. In Taguig as stated above, sample ballots show "Team Lani Cayetano". In Cebu, the Liberal slate is called "Team Rama". Partido Laban Navotas, Team Lani Cayetano and Team Rama have no juridical personality are considered "chapters" of the LP (for the 1st and 3rd) and the NP (the 2nd), as stated in the official ballots. –HTD 09:01, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Teen Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a summer camp with no established notability under WP:N nor under criteria WP:ORG. The article exists primarily as an advert to promote the summer camp. The majority of the sources used are primary sources; the only secondary sources are an online obituary for a prior owner, a multi-camp directory listing, and the remaining references support that Zack Weinstein was a counselor at the camp, but only mentions the camp in passing as the articles are about Zack. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations from secondary sources, hopefully showing its status as noteworthy.Binky3000 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones would those be? Eeekster (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all primary sources, leaving only secondary sources.Binky3000 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the primary sources were removed; but the new sources are only a personal wedding blog, a dog-travel news story with a trivial mention, and a news story about the "Curtain Bluff Hotel Tennis Academy for youngsters" with a mention that six players will be attending Maine Teen Camp. None of these are providing the significant depth coverage needed to meet Wikipedias notability guidelines linked in the AfD nomination above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — doesn't appear to be notable and as written leans too far to the promotional side. Eeekster (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I have edited the article to remove promotional leanings. The article is just as notable as any of the other camps in the Summer camps in the U.S. state of Maine category and has been rejected for an AfD nomination on a previous occasion. Binky3000 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Other Stuff Exists is not a generally accepted argument for keeping (or deleting). What matters is if the article meets the notability criteria defined within Wikipedia for organizations at WP:ORG (or the general notability guideline at WP:N). Also, I cannot locate anywhere that a prior AfD existed for Maine Teen Camp - can you provide a link as you seem to believe the article survived a prior AfD? While a prior AfD would not result in this one being closed, it would be a good reference for those commenting here to have full visibility to any prior discussions and reasonings on both sides. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the article has the text "The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Maine Teen Camp" with "page=Maine Teen Camp (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination." Leading me to believe it was submitted on a previous occasion. Would you be able to tell me what exactly you are looking for in regards to WP:N)?

I feel like it's inclusion on the ACA website, the national accreditation site for American Summer Camps, makes it notable as a camp. According to the Other Stuff Exists there is a precedent set for the inclusion of all high school on Wikipedia under the good faith they are all notable. Could the same not be said of Summer Camps, as they are both educational facilities?Binky3000 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It's just confusion from the timing. I saved the creation of this page prior to saving the addition of the AfD tag on the article, so that's why it saw this page already existed - so no prior AfD.

For the notability guideline, details of how to establish an organization as notable can be found in the section WP:ORG#Primary criteria, while details for meeting the general guideline can be found at WP:N#General notability guideline. In both cases, at a basic level, they require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For clarification on what qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia, see WP:RS#Overview.

Regarding high schools, that's a very specific and targeted exemption (which occasionally gets disputed itself, but has thus far held), it is not applied to all schools - for example, schools below high school do not receive that same exemption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation nameing Maine Teen Camp one of "The Best Camps" by Boston Magazine.^[1] Although the article is about other camps also, there is a section specifically about Maine Teen Camp and the details of it's summer sessions which I believe coincides with the guidelines on notability.Binky3000 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a notable topic. If notability was established, it would still be in desperate need of rewrite for encyclopedic tone and trimming of the indiscriminate trivia. These aren't criticisms of the camp, just a comparison between the article and wikipedia's policies.1292simon (talk) 13:05, 2 May 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. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that she has signed but not played for a fully pro club, which is explicitly excluded as a source notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meleana Shim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Nia Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mariah Nogueira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lindsi Lisonbee Cutshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In regard to the the deletion of Adelaide Gay, several teams have players on rosters who have not yet played in the new league, or have professional experience being fresh out of college. If they are signed players i would imagine that they should be allowed that opportunity to be known regardless of playing time. When current Portland Thorns FC keeper Karina Leblanc is away on National team duties i imagine Gay to be the keeper that is played in a game. KTthePEREZident

I don't know why you're coming on Wikipedia to speculate whether or not Gay will make her debut soon. The fact is we don't know that yet. Right now is what matters. As for the near future, at least two things could happen. One would be that she does make her debut, which would make her notable. The other would be that she suffers a season ending injury in training before having any chance of making her debut. WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• She's listed as #23 on the Portland Thorns roster, so it is completely appropriate to have a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.54.150 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's absolute rubbish. – Michael (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN and SB Nation don't seem to think it's rubbish. See also: [1], [2], [3] Hmlarson (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. What I meant was just being listed as #23 on the roster doesn't count as notable. – Michael (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Possibly being notable in the future is no reason to keep. GiantSnowman 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom and GiantSnowman. – Michael (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Articles could use expansion and additional citations. Players are on rosters of highest level division of women's soccer in the United States. Clearly meets guidelines provided by WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated having signed but not played for a fully pro club is explicitly excluded as a sources of notability, and the sources listed on these articles are nothing more than routine sports journalism which do not constitute significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all until the nominator as demonstrated they complied with WP:BEFORE. That is a requirement of the deletion process, and there is no evidence the nominator did such a task. Instead, it appears the sole nomination criteria was that it "fails" NSPORT and thus must be deleted, which is simply incorrect. Per NSPORT: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." As in, failing NSPORT just means you don't get the basically free ride and instead have to meet the GNG. These athletes may or may not, but the deletion policy requires the nominator to check first. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly do not meet NSPORT nor GNG so BEFORE has been met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, nope, don't see anywhere in the deletion policy anything about if the topic doesn't meet those two "guidelines" that BEFORE has been met. In fact, it is really the opposite, as I see "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and I'm pretty sure notability is the main concern here. As in, unless you actually search for sources, you do not know if the topic meets the GNG. Remember, BEFORE is part of the Deletion Policy, and as such, needs to followed. That's why I personally do not take too many articles to AfD, as I don't have the time to do the required "basic due diligence before nominating". Aboutmovies (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs improvement not deletion.

"C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." --SirEdimon (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom; no significant media coverage and no debut in a fully pro league Recreate when at least one of those requirements are met. – Kosm1fent 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Players do not meet football/sports notability nor do they appear to meet general notability guidelines. Clear cases of WP:TOOSOON. If an editor believes that these players will become notable and doesn't want to have this work deleted, perhaps that editor could step forward and request that the articles be moved to their user space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adelaide Gay who just nudges GNG based on the sources supplied by Hmlarson (talk). I'd procedural keep the others per Aboutmovies (talk), with no prejudice to relisting each in turn if Sir Sputnik (talk) carries out WP:BEFORE. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As of May 4, 2013, the following players have also played in a fully professional league per WP:NFOOTY: Meleana Shim [4] and Mariah Nogueira [5] Hmlarson (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sailendra Nath Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable man known just for one suicidal event. damiens.rf 17:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user appreciates this article -- since hearing of this man's death I wanted to learn more about how he used his hair in feats of strength (and danger). If this wikipedia article ceases to exist then I will find it difficult to find other reference (primary sources) to this information. 24.168.45.239 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" The topic of the article has received international media coverage.--Racklever (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yes, Keep" Sailendra Nath Roy have registered his name in the Guinness Book of World Records. So please keep this article.--The Shaan (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep. This is a bizarre subject but I'm seeing coverage which does scrape by WP:Notability (people) by a hair. No pun intended because the man died, but I can't think of any other expression to use. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Prone to keep This one is difficult. It may seem he was covered just for one event, but before that he was in Guineas records. He may just meet notability criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, world record holder, even if in a bizarre disciple. Widespread, international coverage. Not a BLP1E: he is not what we define as a low profile individual. Cavarrone (talk) 05:53, 5 May 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. If someone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington City Schools Distinguished Alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article , copied (with ORTS permission from the web site), partly duplicates the list of notable alumni in the individual schools and the WP articles on them for those people who have WP articles (or are obviously qualified for one), and is inappropriate content for the ones who would not meet our standards of notability (which is about half of them).

In both cases some of the content included here is promotional or puffery or unsourced judgements of value, or otherwise what we would not include the ones that do have WP need checking whether it's included there., The few we don't have that we should , such as T. Harding and J McConnell, I will start if I can find 3rd party sources other than the high school site, DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, highly doubtful that this award is notable, as it was only given for three years and any coverage is going to be purely local (Worthington is one of many suburbs of Columbus, Ohio, so its school district is not even the largest or most prominent in its metro area). At best this is something to note in the recipients' articles (if they have one) and in the alumni lists of the two Worthington high schools. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge - The title of the article would imply that it's about an award but for the most part, it's about the people whom have received the award. The award itself does not seem to be notable on its own which is why I !vote delete. Some of the people listed do appear to be notable and warrant their own articles. The rest don't appear to be notable. The merge portion of my !vote comes from my belief that the information about notable people should be merged into their already-existing article or into a new article about that person. I considered assessing the notability of each person listed the article, in this AfD, but I don't feel that it would be productive to water down this discussion into arguments about the 22 subjects in this article. I would like to know if someone plans on creating articles for the notable people who don't already have articles. It would be a waste to lose everything but I'm not sure that Jenibynes, the article's author, is willing to create those individual articles and I won't ask anyone to do that work before this AfD ends. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at them in sequence as listed, McConnell is certainly notable,as CEO of a major company. Bonnell is not notable, unless there is more to his career than stated; Foster & Snouffer are not notable. Wick isn't unless the award is actually major. George Harding might be notable, depending on publications; H, Harding probably not. Fields not. Dambach probably not, unless his organization is more notable that it seemed to be. Kessler maybe--journalists are hard to tell; Ball probably not, Fagerstrom definitely not; Sawyer, Knight, both maybe; Stanley, maybe--despite what this article says, he did not actually play for the Dolphina,. This articles covers only a few years--there are undoubtedly notable graduates before and after, but a/c its website, the list is no longer being added to. If deleted, all the info is on the web site from which this article was copied, except the added references, most of which are live and usable--which I will email to anyone who wants to work on any of them and needs them. As I said, I will myself do a stub on Bonnel, & possiblu G Harding. s on the ones I'm sure of. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 30 April 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. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrong Guys for the Job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

spam from Voidz. non notable web series, awards are not major, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of pr and non reliable sources. nothing independent or substantial. prod removed by new SPA without real improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. article updated with more substantial references including reviews of series, interviews with creators, and articles written about the series from reliable sources. Series is notable in web series world and most of the references should now be independent and reliable 66.9.12.194 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage of this comedy series. — Cirt (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE WP:PROMO/WP:SPAM/WP:SOCK tainted article with possible WP:COI. PeterWesco (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete brand-new web video show with only 4 episodes, no notability yet. Article is also created by a known spammer. May be possible to re-create if it becomes notable later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At this time, I could not find RS covering this show. Transcendence (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against another article on the same topic being allowed in after a review. I would be "on the fence" but I think this particular version is "tainted" by the very real possibility that this was not contributed in good faith. I say this based on the primary editor's recent block for promotional editing and apparent sockpuppetry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:00, 7 May 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. J04n(talk page) 01:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seelan Gunaseelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

English actor who has played minor television/film roles. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The only sources provided are IMDB or self promotional. Funny ^Pika! 16:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete 3rd party comment, not self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a very minor bit-part player. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that the subject meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. (Not also that the article text has a WP:COPYVIO issue as it is a duplicate of the subject's IMDb biography. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 5 May 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standing up to gendered violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested deletion. WP:ESSAY. We already have Violence against women Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 16:35, 29 April 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 Toronto Catholic District School Board. J04n(talk page) 01:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Albert Catholic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unnotable primary school. Half the article is about "St Albert the Great", the rest is just blah. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the only option (process of getting photos), otherwise merge it with Bendale.FreshCorp619 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the consensus is that most primary schools are NN. It could be merged into an article on the governing board. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to the neighbourhood article would do as well. The main point is that the article should not be retained except as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect -- Instead Peterkingiron, the primary schools could be merged into the Toronto neighborhoods rather than the board. If it's not settled, this artice and St. Rose of Lima Catholic School (Toronto) - belongs into the Bendale Article. Both schools are in the neighborhood. FreshCorp619 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Unless the promotional content is removed, deletion is called for. Deb (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Deletion is not clean up. We don't delete whole pages just to get a couple of paragraphs of spammy text removed. If you want promotional material removed, then you just click the 'edit' button and start re-wording or removing spammy-looking sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toronto Catholic District School Board, per standard practice in Canada for non-notable schools. PKT(alk) 14:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Sahai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nomination made on behalf of subject. (VRTS ticket # 2013042810004046) LFaraone 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously notable. Multiple awards. In addition, there is the fact that the subject has plagiarized in her habilitation thesis. This is sourced to a reliable source (Labjournal is a well-respected German magazine covering the life sciences) and confirmed by a statement from the University of Heidelberg itself. Although not yet mentioned in the article, the subject has also frequently been interviewed on German radio and television, in newspapers in India and Germany, and Indian TV stations. There have been repeated attempts recently to remove the information about the plagiarism from the article, but as far as I can see, the information presented is not a BLP violation (in fact, the article in Laborjournal is much more negatively-worded than our article). As Laborjournal writes, the subject is unremarkable as a scientist and would never pass WP:ACADEMIC. However, this is a clear pass of WP:BIO and unfortunately for Dr. Sahai, we cannot only present positive information, nor should we delete biographies of obviously notable persons just because they don't like what we write about them. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Randy gets this one right on the nose, a clear pass of WP:BIO, and there are many sources available that are not being used (so one should not judge solely by what is currently on the article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People who pass the GNG because of plagiarism or other scientific misconduct are still notable, even if they otherwise would not have been. The article in this case is from a RS, and discusses the subject's misconduct in depth and at length, as well as the significance of the plagiarism in the context of her relatively prominent role otherwise. Subject may well have passed WP:BIO without this controversy, this simply guarantees it. Ray^Talk 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the above. I would also suggest that the subject read WP:PROUD to help understand some fundamental concepts that Wikipedia uses in writing about people; we're not here to whitewash, we're here to document. Deadbeef 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Apart from anything else the Padma Shri gets the subject through WP:ANYBIO. That is a highly selective award that has been given to only 2577 people in 60 years in a country with a current population of over a billion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even without going deeper into the specific notability guidelines for different kinds of articles, I think this one passes the general notability guideline. Respectfully to the subject, I just don't see how this can not be considered notable and the subject's objections aren't a basis for deletion as far as this editor knows. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability exists, so the question here seems to be over the negative content in the article. The content is presented in a fair and factual way, and I see no problem with maintaining it, and with it, the article itself. Ducknish (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like it is snowing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have been pondering over this for some time. From the above keep !votes, it is clear that there is no question about the notability of the subject. I understand that if the article is to be kept, it has to be written in a balanced way highlighting both positive and negative information. But, let me ask a question to the fellow editors: Who are we to propagate negative information about a living individual? True, the adverse information is already available somewhere in the net, in this case one of the issues of the 'Laborjournal' and Wikipedia is merely stating whatever the journal says. The problem here is that once the information is available in Wikipedia it becomes highly visible in the net, thanks to Google. I feel that the Wikipedia should not be a party to enhance the visibility of adverse information of a living individual, especially when the subject object to it. We may be able to justify it, to some extent, if the such information is taken from higly visible newspapers. Salih (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see your reasoning, but I think that it doesn't apply here. To start with, even without the plagiarism case, the subject is plenty notable. For this, the Padma Shri alone suffices, but there are also numerous TV appearances in Germany, etc. Given that, I think that deletion is just out of the question. And once the article is kept, it is not up to us to decide that we won't mention negative information sourced to a well-respected German magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware that the subject is notable even without the plagiarism issue. You say, once the article is kept, it is not up to us to decide that we won't mention negative information sourced to a well-respected German magazine.. True, I fully agree with it. But, I am against keeping this particular article which can do more harm to a living individual. Salih (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, read WP:PROUD. We're not here to list only the warm and fuzzies about article subjects. We're here to build an encyclopedia. That means reporting the positive and the negative, in proportion to their volume. The procedure for negative information on living people, especially relatively unknown people, is to keep only the information that is well-sourced and relevant, and even then to not belabor it (see WP:NPF). As far as I can tell, everything from NPF and WP:AVOIDVICTIM has been followed. We're not here to do harm to the subject, but we're not here to protect her, either. The best way for her to have avoided the plagiarism section would have been to not commit it. But she did, it's notable, relevant, and well sourced, so it will be kept. Deadbeef 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding WP:PROUD is not applicable here as it is an essay primarily aimed at the people who want to create their own biographical article in Wikipedia. Here this is not the case. Salih (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't refer to that article so much as to address this specific issue; it is primarily aimed at those who want their own article written and/or write it themselves. I referred to it for the fundamental principles of Wikipedia it lays out concerning neutrality and our mission not to whitewash. However, I am very confused by your continued insistence on trying to defend the subject of the article (speaking to your other new comment, below, now). I count three sentences in the "Controversy" section. All three of them are well sourced, completely neutral, and completely unspeculative. There is no "judgement" being handed down on the article's part. If she had her "reasons and defense", it would be included in the article. We're also here with the goal of being "fair", as you questioned, but not to skip over unsightly parts. Fair is, after all, fair. I fail to see why, by your logic, you think Wikipedia as a whole should never include anything that might be harmful to or be negative of a person, and perhaps abolish the "controversy" section altogether. That would completely upend the WP:NPOV point of Wikipedia. Deadbeef 05:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it clear, I came to know about this person only through this AfD and I have no intention to defend this particular individual. It seems you haven't got my points. There is no doubt that if the article is to be kept, both positive and negative information should be provided so that it doesn't violate WP:NPOV. I say delete this article for the following reasons: (a) The subject of the article has requested for the deletion of this article, probably because she may not want to get publicized the controversy. (b) It it not fair on the part of Wikipedia to publish negative material, which otherwise, in this case, would have been limited to a life science journal in German language. However, I am not suggesting to abolish the "controversy" section altogether. My point is that if negative materials are already available in highly visible and reliable sources, such as widely circulated newspapers, a section on controversy may be appropriate in a BLP article. I strongly feel that Wikipedia should not have any role in greatly enhancing the visibility of negative materials related to a living individual, especially when the subject of the article object to it. Salih (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Laborjournal is distributed to tens of thousands of life scientists in Germany. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to English Wikipedia its readership is only a small fraction. Salih (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but compared to enWP any journal/newspaper has a small readership. The information is available, we are not censors. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the right to propagate the negative information of living people either. Salih (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't get your point. Are you proposing that any negative information not published in The Washington Post should be removed from BLPs? Or only negative information published in English should be included? How is that compatibel with NPOV? --Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply to Deadbeef. You will get the answer to these questions. Salih (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, this person went around claiming to be/have been a professor at Heidelberg University, although she never was one. And as the article in Laborjournal documents (and this is not even mentioned in our article), she liked to flaunt her awards, suggesting they were much more than they actually are. This strikes me as someone who enjoyed attention, except suddenly when some skeleton came out of the closet. Search on Google for recent mentions of this person online. She still very much seeks the spotlight (but now, of course, avoiding any mention of her "professorship" and this plagiarism case). Somehow this all makes it difficult for me to feel much pity with her... --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to judge the person. She may or may not have her reasons and defense for the plagiarism case. We do not know. If I am correct, all the negative commentary about the subject appeared in German language. Now, here we have a situation in which Wikipedia has translated all those negative information into English language and increase the visibility thousand folds. Is it fair on our part? Will it be a violation of BLP. That's my fundamental worry. Salih (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to judge the person. That means providing a neutral article, i.e. providing the bad with the good. She is known for her academic work, and if that work includes plagiarism, then that needs to be reported. Plagiarism is one of the worst sins for academics. If we don't include negative aspects, then we might as well give up writing an encyclopedia.Martin451 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the repercussions (the adverse effects on the individual in this case) I have mentioned if such an article is kept. Salih (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an obligation to be neutral. That includes propagating the negative with the positive. If wikipedia does not keep negative information along with positive, then it becomes worthless. The negative effects on this individual could large as it will affect her reputation, but that reputation is built on her academic work, and if she has plagiarised and lied, then her academic work is worthless. The negative effects on this individual are entirely of her own doing, and it is not wikipedia's place to protect her.Martin451 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The plagiarism case is too recent to have the long-term attention needed to pass WP:PERP, so I don't think she's notable for that, but the Padma Shri is enough. And, while not the basis for notability, the plagiarism case should certainly be kept in the article; it is well sourced and not mentioning it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per randykitty. It would be a bad precedent if we started deleting BLPs because they contain negative information on the subject. This negative information is entirely of her own doing, and effects what her entire reputation is based upon.Martin451 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nomination made on behalf of Suman Sahai (VRTS ticket # 2013042810004046) LFaraone 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The organisation does not establish notability based on its one-line description and passing mention in a RS. LFaraone 15:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clicking on the "news" link above renders dozens of sources. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nom does not appear to have complied with WP:BEFORE, which would have obviated the need for this AfD on a clearly notable organization. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep simply because, as far as I know, requests on part of the subject of the article or in this case the inventor or theorist behind the subject aren't a basis for deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:00, 1 May 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. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1978 Nashville Sounds season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Also included:

• 1979 Nashville Sounds season
• 1980 Nashville Sounds season
• 1981 Nashville Sounds season
• 1982 Nashville Sounds season
• 1983 Nashville Sounds season
• 1984 Nashville Sounds season
• 1985 Nashville Sounds season
• 1986 Nashville Sounds season
• 1987 Nashville Sounds season
• 1988 Nashville Sounds season
• 1989 Nashville Sounds season
• 1990 Nashville Sounds season
• 1991 Nashville Sounds season
• 1992 Nashville Sounds season
• 1993 Nashville Sounds season
• 1994 Nashville Sounds season
• 1995 Nashville Sounds season
• 1996 Nashville Sounds season
• 1997 Nashville Sounds season
• 1998 Nashville Sounds season
• 1999 Nashville Sounds season
• 2000 Nashville Sounds season
• 2001 Nashville Sounds season
• 2002 Nashville Sounds season
• 2003 Nashville Sounds season
• 2004 Nashville Sounds season
• 2005 Nashville Sounds season
• 2006 Nashville Sounds season
• 2007 Nashville Sounds season
• 2008 Nashville Sounds season
• 2010 Nashville Sounds season
• 2011 Nashville Sounds season
• 2012 Nashville Sounds season

Minor League Baseball seasons fail notability guidelines. They have been deleted in the past. Here[6] and here[7]. Other AAA seasons were deleted per this AFD[8] and 2009 Nashville Sounds season was prodded.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC) ...William 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I didn't realize there were more of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:ROUTINE. Deadbeef 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Non-notable minor league baseball seasons per WP:ROUTINE and failure to satisfy general notability standards with sufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all.. I thought we got rid of all these last time, these still arent notable. Spanneraol (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them, per previous consensus. Ducknish (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all, due to previous consensus. No debate here. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 19:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nashville Sounds pbp 15:41, 5 May 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. Deadbeef 03:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 Evansville IceMen season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary duplication of content from Evansville IceMen. In fact, it is presently a copyvio as an unattributed copy-paste of one paragraph from the main article. Probably a tit-for-tat creation in response to this AFD. In general, we have avoided creation of unmaintained team season articles below the NHL level. Resolute 14:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a copy-vio. Either way should be deleted as its standard to not create season pages for teams below the NHL level. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Resolute 16:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete (Action taken) Nominated the page for CSD A10. Deadbeef 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan Thiruchelvam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He was a prodigy once, but not anymore. Shame. Do prodigies even get included just because they're good for their age? One reference to article from 11 years ago. Mendoza2909 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we need a moratorium on sarcastic AfDs on UK chess players while OGBraniff/Wikibrah is still active, and Mendoza2909, normally editors build up a history of contributing to articles instead of, as brand new users, throwing themselves straight into deleting them. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am concerned that matter is closed. Please can you provide a more cogent reason for keeping this article. No AfD is under discussion but this one. If you believe that this AfD is just a waste of time then I'm sure there will be consequences for me. Thanks. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- He did well briefly, presumably as an amateur, but no longer plays. Surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN, fails GNG. This man is no "Mr. Belvedere." Brocktoon Belvedere (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Brocktoon Belvedere has been blocked indefinitely. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid debate to be had while there are obvious socks of banned editor involved. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that the chess WikiProject has been trolled by socks or gangs (aka "meatpuppets") since we deleted the Chess.com article. Anyway, regarding the subject of this article, I found this article from the Birmingham Evening Mail that appears to be largely about Mr. Thiruchelvam, and combined with the ChessBase reference, GNG does seem to be met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree, using a comment from DGG in the Peter Lalic debate 'we have normally been very reluctant to accept notability on the basis of being a prodigy-- at having attained a respectable level but not one which would have qualified an adult for an article...It would be a significant change in our interpretation of notability in many areas, and I am pretty sure there would not be consensus at this time to broaden it to that extent'[9]. If we are to follow this thinking (but you may disagree!), then this player has reached a respectable level, but has not reached FM standard (2300), which should be an absolutely minimum standard for notability for modern chess players. There are a lot of socks, but to be fair that doesn't necessarily mean an article is not a good candidate for deletion. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not quote selectively from my comment. I also said about youth notability "I could probably make a good case for doing otherwise, and accepting such notability, and similarly with youth awards and youth competitions of all sorts, and in fact I tried doing so when I came here 6 years ago. I didn't get anywhere then, and I doubt I would get anywhere now" I therefore gave a comment only at that AfD, not a delete--but certainly not a keep either. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 26 April 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, J04n(talk page) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no policy-based argument for deletion made by the nom, whom is almost certainly a sock of an indeffed user anyway. One of the previous Delete voters was also indeffed as a sock. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No valid reason for an AfD was provided by the nominator and the article could be easily improved. Julius Caesar was an Consul-prodigy once, but no more nowadays. Shame. Do Consuls even get included in Wikipedia just because they were good for their age? Few reference to proses from 2000 years ago!, sorry for the gratuitous sarcasm, but now you can clearly see the fallacies of the nominator's logic. Toffanin (talk) 18:04, 29 April 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. J04n(talk page) 02:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon Chip! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This fanzine is for a club that no longer exists. Of the six references, only two mention this magazine and they are very insignificant mentions at that. All in all, this fanzine fails to reach noteworthy status other than being "the longest running Scarborough fanzine" which doesn't amount to much outside of local interest. v/r - TP 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - difficult one, but I tend to agree that notability has not been demonstrated.Deb (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Scarborough Athletic F.C.; not independently notable but a possible search term. GiantSnowman 20:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Very short-lived as a publication for the Scarborough F.C., which was a League side 1987-99 only; then continued irregularly for the barely notable Scarborough Athletic F.C., claiming to be its successor. This was all after the club ceased to be a League club. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Walczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not received enough significant coverage in any other aspect. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SurvivorFanHH (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)— SurvivorFanHH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, considering the 2010 news article which is quite comprehensive. There's also this 2012 article in the Boston Globe. There may be other coverage, considering this is not a local council election, rather it is an election for mayor of a major city and Walczak obviously has some importance in the area. Okay, we all know this article needs to avoid becoming a platform for his current election campaign, but I think the non-political coverage creeps him over the WP:GNG threshold. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that he's not notable as a politician, but he does meet notability in other areas. HillbillyGoat (talk) 01:38, 22 April 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, J04n(talk page) 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve fails WP:POLITICIAN but meets WP:BIO with extensive coverage in multiple secondary WP:RS online. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arco Progresista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Entirely to promote party - created by single use account, no other contributions, deletes tags. Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an article about an alliance between three social-democratic opposition groups in Cuba. Coverage of opposition political developments in one-party states is an exceptionally important part of Wikipedia's mission. My comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Arco Progresista (Social-Democratic) Party apply here as well. See also WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am less certain about this article than I am about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Arco Progresista (Social-Democratic) Party, but WP:NONPROFIT should offer guidance. If this is verifiable in multiple sources, and exists as an "organization" (as opposed to, say, the 3 groups getting together one-time), then it should be kept. --Lquilter (talk) 15:08, 24 April 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, JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: relisting to give time to see whether more sources can be found. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 29 April 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. Despite impassioned opinions to keep this page the policy-based arguments are firmly in favor of deletion. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda DeLibero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- mostly per WP:PROF#C7 -- subject is treated as an expert about films and film studies in many significant film fora. In addition she holds the top academic position in a significant program at a top institution -- that in itself is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF, but with the C7 support, I believe it does pass the Average Professor Test with room to spare. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see evidence of meeting WP:PROF#C7. reddogsix (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- for reasons above; she holds the top academic position in a significant program at a top institution. Much of her work is archived in ways that does not lend itself for internet searching but she has published film reviews and commentaries for 15 years. http://www.unz.org/Author/DeLiberoLinda DeLibero, Linda. "< i> English Filming, English Writing(review)." The Hopkins Review 4.1 (2011): 138-141.Critic11 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ADDENDUM: Subject's Education background verified here. And here is a partial list of Newsday film reviews and articles going back to the 1990s.

IDEAS / "Summer Movies Come Steeped in Contempt": [ALL EDITIONS]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is the film critic for the biweekly magazine In These Times.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 29 June 1997: G.06.

IDEAS / "Great Explosions AND Small Expectations:" [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero teaches writing at Johns Hopkins University and is a regular movie critic for In These Times magazine.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 21 July 1996: A.38.

CULTURE WATCH / "Summer Movies Are Locked in the Comfort Zone": [ALL EDITIONS]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a freelance writer based in Baltimore.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 19 July 1998: B06.

LETTER FROM BALTIMORE / "Of Sporting Morality Plays and Urban Decay:" [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a freelance writer based in Baltimore.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 13 Oct 1996: A.54.

IDEAS / "Epidemic of Irony: A Cold View of the World "/ `To place the action of ``Primary Colors on higher moral ground would cut readers out form the illusion that they're in on the joke: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a film critic for the biweekly political magazine In These Times and teaches cultural criticism at Johns Hopkins University.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 17 Mar 1996: A.44.

CULTURE WATCH / "Looking at Oscar Night With That Sinking Feeling" [ALL EDITIONS]DeLibero, Linda. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 22 Mar 1998: B06.

"Pop Goes the Weasel: The Larry Flynt Revival / Why have pundits and critics hailed the biopic of a thuggish pornographer as a blow for freedom?: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is the film critic for the biweekly political magazine In These Times.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 05 Jan 1997: A.36.

• Keep -- DeLibero is Director, promoted last month. Websites lag. She is notable Fatpedro (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Fatpedro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While this contribution may have been Fatpedro's first contribution as a registered editor, xe has gone on to contribute in other areas related to the coverage of women (specifically women authors) at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think that's particularly relevant to this AfD. First account edits on AfDs are usually socks, especially when posts show obvious insider knowledge on the subject, as is certainly the case here (i.e. DeLibero was promoted last month). Agricola44 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO! Isn't there something about Good Faith you are supposed to assume? Critic11 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently have not read WP:FAITH2, as I respectfully suggested and you appear to be unable to distinguish what you perceive as a personal agenda versus what is really actually just logical argument based on WP policies. Once a debate gets to this point (i.e. special pleading, AGF disruption, ad hom attacks, and such), it is usually a very good sign that all the information/sources that actually exist have already been found – which in this case is very little. You were able to get this article relisted after the original AfD ended in delete and I think all this will have accomplished in the end is for all of us to have spent another week to arrive at the same result. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep -- The comments of Agricola44 are not valid. Clearly Agricola44 has a bias against this subject. Indeed I know the subject's work; I am a Harvard grad and Stanford prof and I have read her work for years. She is a substantial contributor to the cultural discourse. Yes I am a new editor, provoked to edit based on the accusations that Wikipedia is anti-women and I am seeing first hand that it is true. I would like to report the actions of Agricola44 and others who do not understand academic websites or how information from the pre-internet age is archived. Highbeam research does not capture non-digital archived writings. This debate should continue until others (who are indeed working to bring things online per Wikipedia's rules) finish. But the bad faith here is astonishing. Wikipedia claims it wants the public to edit but now that I've done so, the accusations of bias or "socks"? is ugly and unseemly.Fatpedro (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Your oblique accusation that the panelists here are anti-woman is nonsense and you should cease with this line of argument. There are well-established guidelines for assessing notability that have been used for many hundreds of cases and it is clear that DeLibero does not meet any of them. You're essentially pleading that DeLibero is a special case and that these guidelines do not apply here. This is a gimmick that also has a long, but overwhelmingly unsuccessful history here at AfD. My advice to you would be to find reliable sources that document her expert status, her contributions, or anything such like. Absent that, there's no basis for keeping this article, especially because the person is living. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Duplicate !vote by Fatpedro has been stricken.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mscuthbert, would you care to elaborate on which fora? Because, as the nom says, citations are unremarkable, and then clicking through to her program's website I discover that she is not the director, but the associate director [10], and that the Program in Film and Media Studies is a strictly undergraduate (teaching) non-research program, without people holding titles like professor, so the prestige of being associated with a research university is undercut, somewhat. Ray^Talk 16:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ray, thanks for your insightful questions. I think that doing an introduction for an IFA film is a significant citation in the field (the others might be debated but there were at least four I found), but definitely the many hits for Linda Benn put her over the top. I also wouldn't correlate "strictly undergraduate" with "non-research," particularly in the arts and humanities. I am on the faculty of a strictly undergraduate program and research is by far the most important point we're evaluated on (with several Pulitzers, Macarthurs, Guggenheims, etc. in the department to show for it.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, this is a bit embarassing, but I'm not finding these publications. I get at most a publication or two when I go looking in Gscholar, under both names. Could somebody link these for me? I usually pride myself on my ability to find sources when properly pointed, so ... Thanks, Ray^Talk 21:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- subject has also published as Linda Benn Delibero, which has substantially more GHITS than Linda Delibero, particularly for a fashion article on Twiggy that is cited regularly. Wikipedia's policy on GHITS seems biased against women who marry and change names, IMHO. Balloftwine (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in question, "This Year's Girl: A Personal/Critical History of Twiggy", has all of five citations in Google scholar. This is far below the usual standard for academic deletions here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- yes, now that I search under "Linda Benn" I see that she has in fact been publishing for over 30 years -- her first essay, "White Noise" in the Voice Literary Supplement (December 1990) is frequently quoted and cited in subsequent books on Television. I agree that the GHIT standard is biased against people who change their names or use different names at different times in their life (not always women but certainly more frequently). Critic11 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Critic11 has posted two !votes.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, but my posts are a matter of conversation and responding to your concerns. Website now says Director.Critic11 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• struck second !vote, discussion OK. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]