Aja viide. Aja lugu.

< 25 January	27 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Pei Fen

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

Unsourced, generic material. What little content in the article does not discuss and/or show how she is notable within the Getai industry. Paul 1953 (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was not started correctly, I have added it to today's log. -- Patchy1 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would hope we can get a Wikipedian who is from Singapore and/or a Getai fan to comment before reaching a conclusion. Bacchiad (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And provide a reference. – Wdchk (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you just read the article, she is not notable and a delete. If you know S'pore, she is somewhat well known and a keep.Bamler2 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not assert notability at all. There's not much to go on, but the low number of fans in the linked Facebook group doesn't suggest there's much notability there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to establish notability from reliable, independent sources. WWGB (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Article lacks of reliable sources. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic bankruptcy

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

The idea that Kmart was an otherwise sound company except for its leases at the time of declaring bankruptcy is ridiculous. Even if Kmart was profitable, which it wasnt, for the purposes of financial analysis an underwater lease constitutes a true liability (technically called Capital Lease Obligations and recorded in liabilities on the balance sheet), so it CAN in fact make a company truly insolvent.

Ok, to be fair there is a book published about the topic, and it is cited here. But consider some of the reviews this book got on Amazon:

Clearly, it's not a "scientific", neutral book, but a political one...
The author should have stuck with sociology or at least taken an accounting class before writing this book. Overall, the book is what you would expect from a sociologist writing about business.
The book reads like a freshman term paper written in short order.

I am nominating this article for deletion. Kotika98 (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was not started correctly, I have added it to today's log. -- Patchy1 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obvious keep Besides the cited book (controversial or not) I found a good number of references to the concept in the literature. The current article is plain in its deficiencies but it's clear we should have an article on this subject. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue of whether the Kmart bankruptcy event is a suitable example of a strategic bankruptcy (SB) is best discussed on the article's talk page, as it is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Calling into question the Delaney book as a reliable source is more serious. Let us assume that it is unreliable. Then is the topic still notable? Sources I found are

These all seem to be peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources discussing SB going back at least two decades. The topic thus seems notable and the article should be kept. Keeping the article doesn't preclude improving it, however. Mark viking (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails to offer valid reasons for deletion (arguably suitable for WP:SPEEDYKEEP but I'll let that pass). Books on Amazon get all kinds of reviews for all kinds of reasons, so it's ridiculous to delete a topic just because one of the books on the topic gets a bad review. And your opinions on KMart's finances while interesting don't relate to the notability of the topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant idea in economics. If the article needs to be improved, fix it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Starlet

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

Previously deleted article. The Cyberspace Adult Video Reviews Award is not a notable nor significant award and being a Penthouse Pet of the Month is, at best, a reason to redirect her to the List of Penthouse Pets. She appears to fail WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and all relevant guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think it would be useful to underscore the fact that not every Penthouse Pet of the Month is, per se, notable. Also, if one looks through this edit history one will find a troubling pattern of what looks a lot more like trying to create notability than recognize pre-existing notability. I've got no proof, but, as I wrote on this particular article's talk page, my spider sense is tingling. David in DC (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Cavarrone (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; routine application of pertinent SNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails PORNBIO with minor award win and only one AVN nomination as an individual. Scene nominations don't count. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Notability is permanent in Wikipedia. Playboy playmates of the month are/were automatically notable. Wikipedia is not commercial and tries not to be biased. Penthouse is the only equivalent of Playboy; I don't think there is another equivalent. Therefore, Penthouse monthly pets are notable and she is notable. That's actually laughable but Wikipedia rules are rules. Spevw (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy playmates are not automatically notable. Several playmate AfDs have closed as redirect. References to both Playboy and Penthouse were removed from PORNBIO a long time ago. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Penthouse is the only equivalent of Playboy"?! You obviously haven't been paying attention to Ladies Home Journal lately. That Betty White is HAWT! David in DC (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author blanked the article. WP:G7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jeilani

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

Not notable, no sources. Scientific Alan 2 ^{(Click here to talk)}^{(What have I done?)}^(Me) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Taft_Union_High_School#2013_shooting. And possibly merge some content from the history, subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taft Union High School shooting

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

No evidence of this shooting meeting WP:EVENT. Most school shootings we have articles on involved someone going on a rampage and killing dozens of people before taking their own lives, which usually led to extensive coverage and reform, but in this case, the suspect targeted two people and two people only. No one was killed and the suspect is alive and facing criminal charges. I highly doubt there will be any coverage of the trial and/or conviction since the shooting was minor (like all shootings that occur every day), only affecting the local city, and nor will there be any lasting effect on society, unlike Sandy Hook, which has led to major gun control reform around the world. The in-depth coverage and its duration of this shooting were low because only local news stations talked about it around-the-clock that day (other news stations around the country only had brief "breaking" mentions) and media attention basically died down within a few days, unlike other school massacres like Columbine and Virginia Tech, which continue to be talked about to this day. Furthermore, this article was created with hours of first known report of the shooting, not recommended under WP:BREAKING. The paragraph in Taft Union High School#2013 shooting is sufficient enough to cover the incident. That article is not that long anyway, so any new information can easily be added there in the future if needed (similar to Lone Star College - North Harris#2013 shooting). The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you on some extent that this article may not be really necessary, and could be merged with the Taft Union High School page in its own little section. However, the Pine Middle School shooting has its own article and is considered a good article, and only two people were injured in this shooting. 24.130.40.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a GA-class article exists on a similar topic, that's a (small) reason to assume the topic is suitable for wikipedia. Even WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS acknowledges the value of precedence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Insufficient coverage to warrant a standalone article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and content within school article is adequate. --Bob Re-born (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, merge, and redirect to Taft Union High School, although it could be argued that it could be notable under WP:N/CA, as an event it does not appear to have received significant coverage that is persistent. Therefore, I recommend that the article content be summarized, merged into the article about the high school, and a redirect left in the article space. If persistent in-depth coverage can be verified at a later date, then its validity for a stand-alone article can be re-evaluated through normal procedures.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 04:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Gambirasio

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

No evidence of her meeting WP:VICTIM as her murder was not a historic, life changing event. There is nothing different between this case and every other unsolved murder in the world. They all will have a lot of media coverage, especially local newspapers and stations, because they are tragic, but that does not mean they are all notable for Wikipedia. Every source I found about her is in Italian, so even if she deserves to be noted on here, it should be on the Italian Wikipedia, not this one. Even if her case is somehow solved in the distant future, it won't change the notability of this since cold cases years or decades after they occurred are quite common. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's choice of words in the opening sentence is very unfortunate. Murder is always, by definition, a life-changing event. And the language of sources has no relevance to a topic's suitability for inclusion here. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" is the language in which articles are written, not a restriction on the topics covered or sources used. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,The fact has also now after two years from the event a covarage on Italian media so an article about Yara meet the condition The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs)
Keep, very notable topic, more than two years of persistent significant coverage. Eventually rename as Murder of... or similar. Cavarrone (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Green

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

Unsourced, not notable. Scientific Alan 2 ^{(Talk to the hand)}^{(What I did)}^(Me) 22:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging has been proposed, but what the merge target is is not quite as clear.

Since one of the priveleges of being the AFD closer is that I get the last word, I will end with a plea. I found some of the comments in this AFD personalized the issue by calling the nomination "bad faith" and bringing up history of abusing the AFD process. I shall not delve into whether those accusations are true, but I ask that people address the issue of the article instead of the issue of the nominator. Arguments concerning whether this event is truly notable or just a news story are valid, and brought up by numerous participants in good faith. It is much better to address the issue that relate to the article than to bring up the issues related to a participant in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal name changes in Turkey

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

3 animal names have been changed locally in the Latin code. Possibly not even recognised by the concerned international org. Not notable. Typically a POV imposition through a non-issue. Not notable at all. I propose its deletion. E4024 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not sure why this should be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Merge is a better suggestion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless WP:POVFORK. Brandmeister^talk 16:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article talks about the xenophobic instances by the Turkish government in scientific names of these animals. BBC, Reuters wrote about this topic. Definitely notable.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again, this is a bad faith deletion proposal. This is an obvious notable policy initiated by a notable entity (Turkish government) and has been reported by notable sources (BBC, Reuters, Radikal, and etc.) In addition to what I have discussed in a previous deletion proposal by the same user, he has continued to propose deletions and speedy deletions in 3 Armenian/Greek related articles in a matter of 12 hours (Miran Pastourma, Harutyun Bezciyan, and now this one). Once again, I insist the user respect Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and the Wikipedia:Five Pillars. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Purely an acdemamic suggestion. Encyclopedically not notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also like to add that the collaborative efforts of Azeri/Turkish sympathetic Wikipedians must be considered on each and every one of these deletion proposals towards Greek and Armenian articles. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an Azeri/Turkish/Armenian/sympathetic Wikipedian.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article about taxonomic names and not about Greece or Armenia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is discussed in recognized media sources such as BBC and Reuters. Typing just one of these animals on GoogleBooks yields dozens of results. Such initiatives by the Turkish government are notable enough in themselves that it being internationally recognized is not necessary. KJ1890 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Turkey has no authority over taxnominic names, despite their attempts to do so with conspiritorist overtones; this is something that should, at most, be a footnote in the individual species'/subspecies' articles. This is no more notable than if somebody tried to change the name of Notopthalmus viridescens louisianensis to take "Louisiana" out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and warn nominator. This is beginning to look like serious misuse of the AfD process which could end up at ANI. Put "animal" "name" "change" "turkey" into Google Books and a whole sheaf of WP:RS pop up. Nicole F. Watts Activists in Office: Kurdish Politics and Protest in Turkey 2010 Page xiv "As late as 2005 the Turkish government announced it would change the proper names of a number of animals whose names referenced Kurds and Armenians." In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except no proper names have been "changed". It's scientific names they're trying to change - which they have precisely zero authority to do. The media coverage was one spurt as everybody shook their heads at it, and that's all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Bushranger, that is exactly why it appears notable (to me at least, and enough to stir WP:RS-ish media). I have never heard of any faction in any country even proposing their own set of latin taxonomic names before. And if it has ever been proposed I'd expect there to be a standalone article such as localisation of taxonomic names or something. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may bud in, what makes this significant isn't necessarily the taxonomic or scientific name changes in and of itself. It is the main intent and underlying nature of forced assimilation practices of the Turkish government. Words likes "divisive" and "Turkish unity" were used to help justify the case. According to the sources, some Turkish officials stated that "the names are being used to argue that Armenians or Kurds had lived in the areas where the animals were found" which implies that the mere existence of Kurds and Armenians is being eradicated on behalf of the Turkish government. This in itself is significant as minorities or the mere mentioning of them are in the process of being forcefully destroyed. I'm sure BBC and Reuteurs wouldn't have talked about it if it were say as innocent as removing Louisiana from Notopthalmus viridescens louisianensis. As you could see from the BBC news article, there is already an elaborate description of the Kurdish and Armenian case in Turkey towards the end of the article thus signifying a broader and significant conflict involved. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not butting in, that's my point. A case in point is this jpg-less "Ovis Armeniana" the middle box of the three animals. This got precisely 3 hits in Google books in the last 100 years (and 2 of those were in German and Czech), and then suddenly this image-less sheep is in 2005 getting mentioned in Le Figaro magazine? The taxonomic significance is as has been said above irrelevant and non-notable outside Turkey, though I have wikilinked at the bottom of the ICZN Code article. (Surprises me however that the Ministries of China, Korea, Japan haven't had a go at some of ICZN's names). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Turkification (or better target, anyone?). This subject is not important with respect to animal taxonomy, and I don't think that there is enough worthwhile material to justify a freestanding article, but it is an interesting little skirmish in the ongoing political/cultural war in this area, as is evidenced by coverage from multiple reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above or mention in the article about the animals. This is a one-off news item presumably reported for the oddity of the proposal; we are not an aggregator of news articles per WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 11:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hobbes Goodyear and Sandstein. Not worthy of a separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The BBC is of course a reliable source; however its news are written by human beings and those human beings may ignore (or even distort) facts as any other ignorant or biassed human being. To give an example from the BBC source used in our discussed article "Turkey has tense ties with its eastern neighbour Armenia, which it does not officially recognise." Really? The truth is: "Turkey is one of the first countries that recognised the Republic of Armenia. Kurdish issue? It says so: "Turkey has uneasy relations with neighbouring Armenia and opposes Kurdish separatists in Turkey." Leave aside if Turkey has "easy" or "uneasy" relations with Armenia but what should a country do against "separatism"? Not "oppose" it? (I added this comment to show how "naive" the BBC journalist is.) Let us see something from another BBC source: The "Turkey timeline" (guessably prepared by several journalists, or at least recompiled from previous BBC reporting) says: " 2004 June - State TV broadcasts first Kurdish-language programme.Four Kurdish activists, including former MP Leyla Zana, freed from jail. Nato heads of state gather for summit in Istanbul." (I did not omit anything in both citations.) This latter news item of BBC shows clearly that the Turkish Government is aware of the Kurdish problem and is taking steps to solve it. (I especially chose a BBC news item close to the date of the "non-issue" we are discussing.) The other sources, I understand have followed the said BBC news. --E4024 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first quote comes from the BBC's 2005 piece on Turkey's renaming exercise. Your second quote "Turkey is one of the first countries that recognised the Republic of Armenia" is (I think) a paraphrasing that comes from their 2012 chronology, describing a 2009 signing event that does not seem to have been ratified. You actually demonstrate the internal consistency of BBC sourcing, and I see no evidence of bias, at least on the part of the BBC. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes: You misunderstood me. I saw no need to show any source on the fact that Turkey is one of the first countries to recognise the Republic of Armenia. I gather you are confused about "recognition" and "diplomatic relations". The first one is a "unilateral" act. You recognise a country or you do not. "Establishing diplomatic relations" is a "bilateral" thing. (It takes two to dance.) No matter all the efforts by Turkey and the international community that development will take more time: We must wait for the "mentality" in Yerevan to change. My point was to show the "ignorance" of the BBC reporter who wrote this (animal name change non-issue) news. OK? --E4024 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Yes, this subject is not important with respect to animal taxonomy and not worthy of a separate article. --Kmoksy (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Topic is notable but probably cannot sustain a separate article. TheLongTone (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just another disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT AfD by a Turkish nationalist with a history of abusing the AfD process. The subject is of course notable, having received widespread coverage in reliable sources. The article is also too large to me merged. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Ontario Secondary Students

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

Questionably notable, sourced only to a few local newspaper articles or else sources which are not actually about the group and written with a confessed conflict of interest in a promotional tone Jac16888 ^Talk 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jac16888, I would like to know what you find about the article to be written in a promotional tone. Rather than deleting the article, please let me know what should be changed or edited in the article. The article is purely based on facts from several reputable newspaper sources. Nevertheless, to lessen your concern, I will add more sources immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Dawg (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Totally unimportant minor student club or organisation. Sources are routine local coverage that every school gets in its local newspaper or news channel. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kudpung, this is untrue. The Organization has had meetings with several important authority figures, including Laurel Broten, Ontario Minister of Education, as well as Halton District Superintendent of Education Stuart Miller and Board Trustee Kathryn Bateman-Olmstead. There is also a planned meeting this Monday with the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Ken Coran. The sources listed do not do routine coverage of the mentioned schools, they were specifically contacted for the mentioned events (Sport Your Extra-Curricular Day, Letter Petition, etc.) This means that the OOSS has been recognized by the leaders of both major stakeholders involved (the OSSTF and the Ministry of Education), as well as media from across the metropolitan city of Toronto. The organization is not minor and irrelevant, in fact, it is growing to be a large student-run initiative across the province of Ontario. Please reconsider your recommendation for the deletion of this article. D-Dawg (Representative of the Organization of Ontario Secondary Students) 03:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Dawg (talk • contribs) -- Edited my comment: D-Dawg (Representative of the Organization of Ontario Secondary Students) 03:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately your comments probably won't carry much weight as you have a clear Conflict of Interest and it does look very much as if you are here to promote the organisation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kudpung, may I inform you that while I am a representative of the Organization, a conflict of interest is only present if there is "incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor". My aim is not to promote my organization, but simply to inform others in a neutral perspective about a notable organization that exists in the province of Ontario. Therefore I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest, because I am very much in accordance with Wikipedia's aim to provide only non-biased, informational encyclopedia material.
      Again, I am not here to promote my organization but rather to inform others about it. I see no reason why the sources provided are not reputable enough to show the notability of this organization. Please inform me of why my comments do not carry substantial weight. Thanks, D-Dawg (Representative of the Organization of Ontario Secondary Students) 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Dawg (talk • contribs)

'... to inform others about it' is precisely a form of promotion when it comes from someone as closely connected to the subject. If your organisation is as important as you claim, then journalists would have reported worldwide about it and an unconnected author would have written the Wiki article about it citing the multiple, in-depth WP:Reliable sources. Please remember to sign your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, with all due respect I would disagree, as the purpose would be to inform and not promote. Additionally, journalists worldwide would not have reported about our organization because the organization and the situation it pertains to handling only exist within the province of Ontario, which is where the organization is receiving media attention. D-Dawg (Representative of the Organization of Ontario Secondary Students) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Dawg (talk • contribs)

Also, I was just looking at my comment, which I thought I signed with four tildes. However, Sinebot seems to have claimed my comment was unsigned and auto-signed it for me. As you are an experienced member of Wikipedia, could you quickly inform me if there was an issue with the way I was signing my comments? I simply typed my comment and added four tildes at the end. Thank you! D-Dawg (Representative of the Organization of Ontario Secondary Students) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Dawg (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7 per Kudpung. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mlpearc, I would like to advise you to read the comments I posted above in response to Kudpung explaining why the Organization of Ontario Secondary Students is a credible organization present across the province of Ontario, Canada. D-Dawg (Representative of the Organization of Ontario Secondary Students) 02:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The policy WP:ORG dose not apply here and WP:GNG is met in an elementary WP:BEFORE search. While the delete comment was not able to find any sources, clicking on the news and books link in the find sources menu revealed numerous reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 06:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HyperCam

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

It's a close call, but the subject of the article is not notable. No reliable secondary sources are present in the article. My research finds that there are a few books that describe HyperCam in passing, but I don't think that's enough to make even a stub, or to meet WP:ORG. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This video screen capture software has been on the market for over a decade. I found reviews in both PC Magazine and PC World, plus fairly detailed descriptions in at least ten books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Cullen328. This is decently important piece of software. Bacchiad (talk)
Keep - Completely disagree with the article being not notable. Important piece of software, as said above. Hair^Talk 21:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my gabber is flasted, from the comments above i thought this would be like microsoft office or something - I can't find any coverage that i feel would bring this within WP:GNG,WP:ORG ---- _nonsense ferret 03:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some editors here seem to think that WP:ORG applies here. It doesn't. This is an article about a software package, not an article about a company. One editor here, jokingly I assume, seems to think that software must covered in a level of detail comparable to Microsoft Office in order to be notable for a Wikipedia article. With all due respect, that is incorrect. This is an encyclopedia which is not limited by shortages of either paper or ink. We can cover software packages that are not world-renowned and used every day by hundreds of millions. Yes, we can cover notable but admittedly minor software like . . . HyperCam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen. The number of book mentions alone would be enough. Mcewan (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shark Fights. Redirect all ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Fights 1

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

This was a fight card put on by a second tier MMA organization. There's no indication of notability and the only sources are a list of the fight results.Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also give no indication of meeting WP:SPORTSEVENT.

Shark Fights 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shark Fights 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shark Fights 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shark Fights 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, all appear to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and probably also WP:GNG. The organization is probably notable, but their individual events definitely aren't. CaSJer (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge Shark Fights 1, keep the rest~~: I don't know how reliable some of these sources are, but Shark Fights 17, 15, 14, and 13 seem to have lots of media coverage. Shark Fights 1 should be redirected in to the main Shark Fights article. Also, could someone more familiar with the subject weigh in on if Sherdog.com and Mmmajunkie.com are reliable sources? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's plenty of media coverage, just like every NFL game, but just like those games the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and thus fails to support claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, in that case redirect all to Shark Fights. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these show any significant coverage or give any reason they're historically notable. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:ROUTINE coverage, events fail WP:SPORTEVENT. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Law

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

Almost certainly fake. O.Koslowski (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though there is a non-notable novelist named Kevin Law, I find no evidence of a poet by that name. Likely hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree that hoax is likely (especially considering his alleged record in the Spanish youth soccer teams...), I'm not certain enough to delete it as a speedy. I do feel he's non-notable as I can't find him linked to the poem, and he doesn't seem to have played professionally. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir Latifi

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA since he has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. In fact, he appears to have only one fight (a loss) for a second tier organization. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough top-tier fights fo WP:NMMA, not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of an article that should be deleted for not meeting WP:NMMA. I'm certain we'll see plenty more of these nominations now that the policy has been established. Mkdw ^talk 06:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Vaculik

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA since he has no fights for a top tier organization. The article also has no sources and doesn't really make any claims of notability. In early December I redirected this article to the corresponding TUF article, but that was recently undone. My preference is to Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes, but I see nothing that supports an individual article on this fighter. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes — Fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. More information about his surfing career can help towards notability, but it's just a blank space in the article now. Poison Whiskey 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. Given that the article has already been redirected, we can probably tap this out. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes Apparently the IP that removed the redirect has now put it back. It's true that the deletion of this article would not be a loss, but since it's already set up as a redirect I think it should remain as a redirect. Mdtemp (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes Under WP:NMMA this person does not meet the criteria for a standalone article. They have participated in a prime-time reality competition a redirect seems highly appropriate than the wholesale deletion. Furthermore, it seems very likely this person will fight in a top tier MMA fight in which the redirect can be changed as opposed to another stub being recreated before that time. Mkdw ^talk 06:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Slonimsky

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

Nominated via OTRS by the subject's daughter:- "The entry fails to explain to the reader why Nicolas Slonimsky is important and worth finding out about. It skips from 1927 to 1958 and then circles back to mention a few books written in between without providing titles or publication dates. It devotes an entire paragraph to describing local radio shows on which he was a guest, identifying their hosts by name, and mentions among his "notable" students someone who evidently attended a class he taught at UCLA. The material, such as it is, is taken from a glance at his autobiography and from his obituary in the NYTimes, as well as what can only be personal experiences or acquaintances of the writer." Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The OTRS nomination is indeed a valid reason for a major copyedit/rewrite, but the subject is far too notable for deletion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Slonimsky is obviously worthy of an article here and, really, there's nothing wrong with the existing article that some editing can't fix.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete and WP:POINT are not strong reasons for deletion when the subject has a legitimate assertion to notability with reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article as it stands is poorly referenced, the subject is clearly notable which is the determining factor here. AfD is not for article improvement, necessary as it is. (Would it be better to refer the note on the article's inadequacy to a Project, such as WP:CM, and seek a clean-up?) AllyD (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep- a very notable, significant figure in 20th cdntury music. Of course the article needs improving but deletion should be out of the question.--Smerus (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it looks from the article like the complainant recently carried out some heavy editing in non-WP style which was reverted (not unreasonably) by another editor - but I don't think deletion should be allowed as an apporpriate revenge!--Smerus (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable figure, no reason to delete as pointed about by other users. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Khanam

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

Completing a malformed AfD on behalf of new user Applepie2013 who is apparently the subject of the article and has made a request for the page about herself to be deleted. See [1] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not especially notable, and in case of a tie, the subject wins IMO. Collect (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- can't really give much weight to subject's wishes in the absence of an OTRS request -- but in reality notability here is clearly lacking and it ought to be deleted regardless of the subject's ostensible wishes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2013012610000175 verifies the subject's wishes. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per subject's wishes and as she is a person who is relatively unknown, per WP:BLPDELETE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) NB I made the nomination on behalf of the subject but did not make an argument myself.[reply]
Delete — Per Nomo. I don't think this subject passes a plain reading of notability requirements. I appreciate her wishes, but I think that's additive in this case. JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Articles on theories have been on AFD before, but then it has often been about fringe theories that gain attention in popular media but not in academia. This one is different, because the cited sources are in journals like Physical Review D, and the theory cannot be described in any way as "fringe" when it gets published in a highly respected peer reviewed journal of that nature. However, only one of the articles cited in the page is from an another author than Mr. Jones, and having looked at that article, it does not actually contain the phrase "Classical Schrödinger equation". Apart from Jones' comments, there have been no calls for outright keeping of the article. A proposed alternative was merging with the article on Jones, but following the clear consensus to delete that article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)), that possibility is moot. The article that is entitled "The classical Schrödinger equation" is according to the arxiv page [2] recently submitted to Arxiv and the PDF says that it is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed.

While many of the delete votes here were superficial in that they only assert a lack of notability, the issues of lack of independent sourcing (in this context meaning evidence of widespread usage or commentary by other academics) and wider interest in the discoveries do remain. The concerns in the nomination statement and by Mark viking are sufficiently well-argued, and since the consensus here is for deletion, I am closing with that result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Schrödinger equation

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

Non-notable theory - it's got about 15 citations in Google Scholar, which effectively means that Jones's work sank without trace in the physics world. Possibly also CoI issues, as the editor who created the article is also one of the few contributors to Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)‎ (which I've also nominated for deletion). Djr32 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have a chance to deserve an article. ~~Redirect to Kingsley Jones in the unlikely event that it will be kept; otherwise delete.~~ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kingsley Jones. The topic of "Classical Schrödinger equation" gets 229 hits on Google Scholar. Not all of those hits are real, as some are actually for the semi-classical Schrödinger equation and others have said "classical Schrödinger equation" when they meant "classic Schrödinger equation", but many of the hits are on topic. The main problem is that there are many approaches to creating classical analogues or approximations of the Schrödinger equation, for example, Mielnik's approach and Gimenez's approach and a whole class of classical stochastic analogs of the quantum equation. The approach by Dr. Jones is but one of them, and thus the article as written has a strongly non-neutral point of view on the topic. There is a likely conflict of interest, as all of Labbit's edits have been on this article, the Kingsley Jones article and adding a K. Jones reference to the Schrödinger–Newton equations article. This POV pushing, COI tainted article content is still verifiable, however, so the best approach would be to merge a subset (say, the references and a brief description) to the Kingsley Jones article. I would recommend against a redirect because the article content is not equivalent to, or even necessarily representative of, the topic. Mark viking (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficiently notable.-Dilaton (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- If the theory is valid, regardless of your opinion of how popular (non-notable) it is, why should it be deleted? I see no reason to remove a valid posting, as this sort of goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia? Why should you censor something true? Jake Carter -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.95.49 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Classical_Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation&action=edit(UTC) — 14.200.95.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---

There are indeed several research strands out there that use the term Classical or Generalized Schroedinger equation. Another notable effort in this area is de la Pena's work approaching this using Markov chains.(http://rmf.smf.mx/pdf/rmf/16/4/16_4_221.pdf). A comprehensive article on all these different efforts would be a very useful resource. Quaxquax (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)— Quaxquax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability as yet per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. a13ean (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be permitted to comment on my own equation (this is Kingsley Jones), please note the following facts: 1) prior to my discovery, there was no known wave-equation producing the limit form of the Ehrenfest Theorem

  the Ehrenfest Theorem is notable, therefore the existence of a corresponding wave-equation is notable

2) the geometrical argument based on group theory established the uniqueness of this equation

  given that the Ehrenfest Theorem is notable and this equation is unique - the two clearly go together

3) the geometrical construction employed establishes that there is only ONE such equation, and by extension only TWO possible representations of classical point mechanics: A) the original due to Hamilton; B) the second (ray representation) due to Jones 4) the entire system rests within the generalized dynamics of Weinberg. This is notable since Weinberg has a Nobel Prize and proposed his system in the paper "Testing quantum mechanics" as a way of examining theories beyond linear quantum mechanics. 5) the fact that a theory proposed as being more general than quantum mechanics (by a Nobel Laureate) actually contains a unique and exact copy of an existing theory called classical mechanics is (I would submit) notable 6) the cited exclusion of that as a "fundamental theory" due to Jones established that this unique, second representation of classical point mechanics, was inadmissible as fundamental physics is notable.

Let us make a tally. Hamilton is notable, and this is a second representation of his original point mechanics. Weinberg is notable and this shows that his generalized dynamics contains both QM and CM. Ehrenfest is notable and this is the first and ONLY POSSIBLE wave equation which reproduces the classical limit. The exclusion of the said equation due to Jones is also notable, since it establishes that this equation cannot have fundamental content and that, therefore, point mechanics is essentially approximate.

It is on the basis of sound and factual demonstration that Science is built.

By all means continue to debate this matter. The only reason I added this Wiki is that I found many queries on the web asking "What is the connection between Ehrenfest (in limit) form and the Schroedinger equation." This surprised me since I did this 20 years ago.

Encyclopedias are not merely for well-known facts or popular fixations. This is a factual result which links two well-respected noteworthy theories in a novel way. That is why I added it now. By all means delete it and everybody can wait a hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.6.240 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, you can always merge the above into [Ehrenfest] (logical) or footnote [Hamilton]. The point of an Encyclopedia is to educate. All the stuff about citations is just so much window dressing. People who talk about citations are clueless about how real Science is done. TIP: If you want to be cited a lot just write a wrong paper. When you do something like this, it is not cited much. What! ...you say? When I told Weinberg back in 1992 that his theory contained an exact copy of classical point mechanics he just said one word only: "Oh!". Think about it. You go to great pains with the most sensitive exclusion of non-linearity in QM ever (1 part in 10^-13) and some arrogant young pup from Australian walks in to your office and says: "Hey, Mr Nobel Laureate, the theory you just excluded empirically contains an exact copy of classical mechanics." What would you do? It is a damn shame we did not have Niels Bohr in the room at the time or we could have had a right old laugh at his expense. Wiki needs good content. You are the Wikipedians, work out how to write something that tells an accurate story. So far, all I see is the delete frog: delete delete. Get real about real results and stop hiding behind protocol. Wiki should educate. Facts are the basis of that (Kingsley Jones) [User talk:Labbit|talk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.234.84 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — 121.209.234.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Not sure how much Kingsley's spirited defense of the notability of his work will sway hearts and minds here, but I just wanted to stress that this is about the limit form of the Ehrenfest Theorem. The theorem is obviously almost trivial to derive as presented in its Wikipedia article, but the problem is that it does not hold for all cases (hence why it's called a theorem). The wikipedia article on the Ehrenfest Theorem on the other hand presents it as if the expectation values always obeys the classical dynamical laws. But the crux is, that's not always the case, as is pointed out in pretty much any QM textbook that covers the Ehrenfest Theorem e.g. http://ocw.usu.edu/physics/classical-mechanics/pdf_lectures/16.pdf. For instance it does not hold for Newton’s second law. If I understand Kingsley's work correctly than the curious thing about the equation system that he refers to as Generalized Schroedinger Equations is that it contains the special case of a classical wave equation for which Ehrenfest Theorem indeed alway holds, and he can continuously deform regular QM into the classical one based on the parameter lambda. I.e. he describes an approach to deform QM and make it ever less "quantum", and in the limit case pops out a wave equation that actually reproduces Hamiltonian mechanics. For somebody familiar with Feynman's path integral approach to QM this shouldn't be too surprising, but I certainly haven't seen this presented in that way anywhere else. Quaxquax (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus has long held that the standard of notability for academics is higher than getting articles published in journals, including highly respected journals such as those in thePhysical Review. Since much of the work of a professor involves writing articles that get published, setting the standard lower would entail the inclusion of most if not all university professors. Quaxquax has expressed reservations about the current notability guideline setting the standard too high, but for the time being that is the standard we have, and the consensus here is consistent with that guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)

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

Apparent autobiography, subject doesn't appear to be pass the notability criterion (e.g. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)).) Djr32 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has made original discoveries which are the subject of Wiki articles: Classical_Schrödinger_equation Perhaps this article lacks a correct emphasis on the reasons for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labbit (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So an obscure Rugby player deserves an entry (Kingsley Jones (Welsh rugby union flanker)) but a published scientist does not? Is this an encyclopedia or high school?

Quaxquax (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)— Quaxquax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Director of a national team doesn't sound particularly obscure to me, for that matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites are 20, 15, 1, 11... Sorry, not enough for WP:Prof#C1 yet. Too early. Maybe later. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A better source of GS cites is here[3]. h-index of 11 is still not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF and as per Xxanthippe. insufficient level of citations. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof#C1 is a rather astoundingly high threshold, especially in light of the fact that I do absolutely not care about obscure sports biographies when I research a published scientist. Somebody who gets to publish in top tier journals should be considered just as important as an athlete competing in a major league. That Wikipedia policies do not reflect this is astounding and very disappointing to me. Then again it's par for the course - after all most American universities pay sports coaches more than faculty. Just didn't expect this absurdity to be extended into the virtual realm on Wikipedia. Quaxquax (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The spa creator of the article would have been wise to have researched Wikipedia's standards before starting. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The citation record is not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and I haven't seen anything to suggest he passes WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that he is also a talking head on CNBC Asia is not enough to pass WP:GNG? Seems to me that somebody who starts out as a pretty high flying academic and then re-invented himself as an entrepreneur and investor, so that he gets his own CNBC slot down-under, should be somewhat noteworthy? C'mon, for better or worse, this dude could have stepped right out of a Ayn Rand novel. Quaxquax (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone who did a PhD and a postdoc or two, and published a few papers in (pretty reasonable) journals isn't a "high flying academic" or an Ayn Rand superman, there are tens of thousands of such people. I have no idea if he's a talking head on CNBC Asia, though nobody seems to have seen fit to mention it in the article up to now. Djr32 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:PROF and no sufficient evidence of other notability. a13ean (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Djr32 you get your literature confused, Superman is way to realistic a character to ever have been written by Ayn Rand. I originally included the CNBC links when I started the article, it was later edited by somebody else, and these references apparently removed. I already learned the hard way that my own threshold for notability does not meet up with Wikipedia policy. Which is too bad really as Wikipedia is a great resource if you want to orient yourself about various out of the mainstream research. So please riddle me this: Why are the entries on Burkhard Heim [4] and Mendel Sachs [5]? I obviously appreciate them, just fail to see how they are much more notable? Anyhow, just to document that Kingsley is a talking head on CNBC here's a link [http=http://search.cnbc.com/main.do?target=all&categories=exclude&keywords=kingsley%20Jones].

Quaxquax (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just realized that I committed another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in my previous comment, but would still be interested to learn the nature of the difference in merits, would be instructive to know. Quaxquax (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You picked two kind of marginal cases, so it's not clear what insight about the threshold for notability is to be gained by assuming that they're different from this one. In the case of Sachs, I don't understand why his AfD was closed as keep (rather than no consensus) since there were a significant contingent of people on the AfD who thought it should be deleted. In the case of Heim, I don't think we've explicitly discussed his own notability, but there have been three contentious AfDs on Heim theory (see the talk page for links), so again I don't think there is a clear consensus that he's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- David, thank you for elaborating on this. Makes me think I may want to mirror the entries on Sachs and Heim just in case. As aptly demonstrated in this talk, I don't really understand the wikipedia AfD issues: So I am wondering, for curiosity's sake: Does the number of hits that an article receives factor into the discussion? Seems to me that traffic would be a fairly good criteria of how notable a subject is? Quaxquax (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends on what you mean by number of hits. The hit count from a regular Google search? Usually not. But we definitely look at the citation counts from Google scholar searches. In a high-citation field like theoretical physics, multiple papers with multiple-hundred citations each would be good; the numbers in Jones' scholar profile aren't to that point yet, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gscholar h-index of 11 is unremarkable for quantum physics. Ray^Talk 17:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. Rees Clark

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

WP:NN business owner, former academic. All content contributed by a single (likely WP:COI) SPA. Failed prod in 2007 for unknown reason. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks references about the subject or any demonstration of his notability. Nor have I located any. AllyD (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per AllyD. Nothing here suggests sufficient notability. Bucketsofg 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG exists in the article, nor could I find any searching Google scholar, Google news archive, and Highbeam. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Wait, what was I thinking? I sumitted this and immediately realized that it should be speedied. I hope it's not too far out of process to change my mind. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MC Flamme

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

This biography of a living person does not cite any reliable sources. I was not able to find any sources to add. Prod removed without the addition of reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Sharma (businessman)

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

Most of the references show information on one event, his appointment to his current position. Not otherwise notable, fails GNG as there is no in-depth coverage. Contested PROD, with three other editors supporting the proposed deletion with PROD2 endorsements. Created by a single purpose account with no edits that are not connected to this subject. GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete makes no claim to importance, he has a standard business role and no coverage that there is anything unusual about it or him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor businessman, not a CEO or anything notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject is simly not notable. Roger (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. just not notable. Chipper2Lews (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail under Competent Professional but otherwise not notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page Manish Sharma (businessman) on Manish Sharma who is the current Managing Director, Panasonic India. There are certain issues with the page, the biggest one being that Manish Sharma is being termed as a Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat. In my opinion this is not correct. I understand that we need to provide proper facts/references to support it and here they are: I would start with a statement from The Economic Times (Category-A Business newspaper in India) here, "Japan's largest consumer electronics company, Panasonic has for the first time ever appointed an Indian to head its flagship consumer durables business in the country. Manish Sharma (41), erstwhile head for sales and marketing of Panasonic India, has been promoted as its managing director from April."

Here is the link of the same: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news/31127441_1_panasonic-india-daizo-ito-durables-market

His name has appeared in other major newspapers and magazines in India. Here are the links:

Apart from these, he has received various awards, one of the most recent one being, the National Conservation Energy Awards 2012 held in December on behalf of Panasonic.

Also, the page isn't an Orphan page now as it was earlier as it is linked to three different articles.

Therefore, Manish Sharma by no means necessary can be categorized as a Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat. Also, as you can see there are some newspapers and publications that are included here which are only going to increase with time. I request you to please help me correct this issue and don't get this article deleted. Please respond. Urgent. Gadgetsgigs (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven editors have responded......saying they believe he is not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

was just going through the article. it seems perfectly fit for Wikipedia to me. i dont think so it has any such issue because of which it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.190.97 (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — 125.21.190.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Sub-division head within a company. Most of the references focus on Panasonic's business strategy, with Sharma briefly mentioned. Funny ^Pika! 02:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting sources are;
- Hindustan Times, April 29, 2011. Quotes Sharma extensively, but is mostly about Panasonic in India, not him personally. "Panasonic India currently imports its home appliances from various locations around the globe. It is in the process of setting up a manufacturing plant at Jhajjar in Haryana, for which its parent company has set aside Rs 1,000 crore. The company aims to double its headcount to 22,000 employees for its Indian operations by the end of the current financial year." Certainly interesting when some western firms are "notable" with maybe a few dozen or a few hundred employees. Should we discriminate for being Indian when deciding notability? Twenty-two thousand employees?
- Hindustan Times, December 14, 2010. Quotes Sharma again, briefly, and also has a longer quote, "Panasonic Corp currently imports its home appliances from different locations around the globe in India. It is now looking at investing Rs 1,000 crore in a new consumer appliance manufacturing plant at Jhajjar in Haryana by 2012. The facility, which will manufacture air conditioners and washing machines will later be looked at as an export hub."
- Also a separate article quoting Sharma in the same day's paper, "Global consumer electronics majors Panasonic and Toshiba, which were present in India even before the arrival of the Korean giants, are once again waking up to Indian market. The firms are now looking at flooding the market with their India-focused products, besides setting up local manufacturing facilities in the country."
- Sharma talking at length about a "techno park" with investment of Rs 1,000 crore, covering 72 acres, something to do with air conditioning. Tehelka, December 15, 2010. Author was "Nishi Rath", article title was " Reliance arm to develop the project with Panasonic investing Rs 1,000 crore".

I think there's some substance underneath all this, and if we're deleting this article just because the person happens to hold a post in India, we will look pretty stupid a few years down the line. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the only substance I can see is Sharma being a spokesperson for Panasonic. The fact that he holds a post in India is irrelevant. If he were CEO of some other Fortune 500 company in India there would be reason for him to have an article, but here he's just the Managing Director of the Indian division of a Fortune 500 company. Funny ^Pika! 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That also seems to be in pretty bad faith to say we are asking for deletion due to him being Indian. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What searches for sources did you carry out before your one-line !vote, "Hell in a Bucket"? What did you find? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairly interesting response to a questino on why you are assuming bad faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're to assume bad faith as you suggest, then the assumption from your responses thus far is that you did no searches at all. If that's the case, shouldn't your !vote just be stricken as wilfully ill-informed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to continue showing bad faith? I put in my rationale why I thought it should be deleted. My comment doesn't say just per nom, it was my reason for deletion. i'm sorry that it doesn't pass your muster of what a vote should include or how long it should include but I am following wiki policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? You're the one that began throwing around the accusations of bad faith, and continue to do so - together with laughable bullshit spammed onto my talk page. You can indeed come out with any old nonsense you like as "my reason for deletion", but unless it addresses the notability of the subject one way or the other, it might as well just be stricken - it's worthless. Have you looked to see what coverage of this person exists in independent reliable sources? If so, how did you do so? What did you find? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hell in a Bucket has now requested that one participant in this AfD be blocked, at WP:ANI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm satisfied that sources showing in the piece are sufficient for the subject to clear GNG. The second line of the lead is pure puffery and needs to be stricken, but since it has footnote attached I haven't touched it myself during this AfD. Carrite (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's not clear about the consensus above? Seems like a pretty clear delete to me.--ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him to explain the relist on his talkpage, here. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned that given Demiurge's late comment on sourcing and notability and Carrite's keep, there was new information that could affect the outcome and wanted to relist for full consideration. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gainfully employed, but that's about it. Not a CEO or industry leader, unlikely to become an enduring part of history even within the industry. Sourcing focuses on the company (which of course is notable), not him personally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will's Dilemma

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

RNo encylopedic content and unlikely to ever have any Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 17:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly what page is this referring to? I've made several spelling changes and still can't find it... Lukeno94 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it. Will's Dilemma - please change the links and tag it appropriately. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several more sources for an article: there are at least 2 unofficial Inbetweeners books[6][7] and reviews of this episode online[8][9], as well as official books[10][11]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. Article is plot-only (aside from one line of 'trivia'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trip to Warwick

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

unlikely to ever expand, non-encyclopedic at the moment Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 17:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be quite easy to expand thanks to online sources[12][13] and books.[14][15] Whether anyone wants to expand it is another matter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. Article is plot-only (aside from five words of 'trivia'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fashion Show (The Inbetweeners)

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

No encylopedic content whatsoever and unlikely to ever have any. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 17:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes. Article is plot-only (aside from one line of 'trivia'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No chance of this surviving AfD. Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up one day. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Toroidal Scale

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

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes).
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26. Snotbot t • c » 17:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be easier to understand if the authors explained their notation and terms better, but I'm quite certain there's no meaningful mathematics here, just some half-baked numerology. The last sentence itself essentially proves that no one has seriously studied this or it wouldn't have been a conjecture for very long. Googling turns up a few but none that constitute reliable analysis in secondary sources. Kilopi (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Searching books makes the few web hits disappear, and the web hits are questionable at best, serving mostly to confirm that this is some sort of fringey nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article was created less than 24 hours after the supposed "discovery" mentioned in the article is a fairly good indicator by itself that this is someone making stuff up off the top of xyr head, and coming to Wikipedia to write about it in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Some quick use of Google Web finds this where the "discoverer" indicates that that is pretty much what xe did. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rob Sawicki

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been courtesy blanked. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Notodden FK. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kvalheim

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

Article deleted per PROD in November, with the rationale "Subject hasn't played in Tippeligaen, and fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG" This is still valid, and the only claim of notability in the article is that he was top goalscorer at the second tier of Norway in 2007, which confers no notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Notodden FK Does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY or received enough in depth coverage to meet GNG. Mkdw ^talk 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notodden is one of five clubs Kvalheim played for at the second tier, and he only played for Notodden for three seasons. I don't see any reason to make it into a redirect. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I based my redirect recommendation off the assertion of notability in which redirects generally differ if multiple options are available. If you think a more suitable redirect is available then please recommend so. If the players are being listed on the club article pages, then a redirect is definitely suitable. Mkdw ^talk 21:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeadThings, A Novel

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

The book makes a lot of claims about itself, but the claims fall short. Not even the publisher's page supports the 100,000 copy sales figure. The book probably exists, but there are no reliable sources to back up the allegations of mass-market publication. The unsupported claims about the comic book adaptation aren't quite egregious enough to warrant a speedy deletion as a hoax, in my opinion; however, it's pretty clear that there's nothing to verify that this book is notable—doubly since neither the publisher nor author are notable. Accordingly, this book's article should be deleted, because it fails to demonstrate the notability of the book through any means that can be verified. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have had a change of heart, you initially said, "here may be some stretching of the truth in the article, but I don't see anything that makes me think the article is an outright hoax. If it were a hoax, the book would not exist. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)" Now you are no longer confident the book even exits? Interesting. Suit&tie (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also side note, it appear the author, who also an actor is very notable as he was also in the Resident Evil movie, along with various other television shows. 2 So if the book isn't notable enough for its own article perhaps a Reese Riley article can be created and the DeadThings,a Novel article can be merged into that. Just saying. Suit&tie (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the book doesn't exist; I said the book is not notable. Lots of things exist without being notable enough to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is notable due to its success, especially because it was released from a smaller publisher and has receieve lots of acclaim and success. Joss Whedon's involvement has been confirmed, 1 along with the book sales. Suit&tie (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a press release that you sent out a couple of days ago (claiming to be from Spin Magazine), after your original claim was questioned. I've written to the magazine to let them know about it. Please stop wasting our time. ... discospinster _talk 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, press releases aren't usable as reliable sources to show notability and I'd like to note that this PR came out only after I pointed out in the article's talk page that nobody had mentioned anything about Whedon or Dark Horse showing interest in the book. I also still have my doubts as to the validity of the claims, as this is a little overly convenient that a press release suddenly pops up out of nowhere. I'll believe it when I actually hear it from Dark Horse and see an article in Spin Magazine rather than a PR that may or may not be from Spin. Even if we ignore whether or not Whedon and Dark Horse are actually involved in a project with this book, the article claims that the book sold 100,000 e-book copies upon release, a total that would easily put it in the bestselling lists of various newspapers and online sites. To date no publishing sites have commented on this book or posted anything that would corroborate with the article's claims. For that matter, there are incredibly few non-merchant or primary sources about this book in general. For a book that supposedly sold more copies than many other mainstream books do in its first 7 months of release, there is a lack of well, EVERYTHING to prove anything beyond the book's existence. Existing is not notability. I'd also like to note that there is a lack of sources for the author as well and the IMDb link goes to someone named Parys Sylver, whose information doesn't seem to match up with anything that has been revealed about Riley on sites such as Goodreads. Even if it's just a screen name for Reese Riley, none of the roles are really big enough to show that he passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Now assuming all of the claims in the article are true, which I doubt, we'd still need independent and reliable sources to show notability. Those just don't exist for either the author or the book. As far as hoaxes go, I wasn't saying the book itself was a hoax as much as everything else in the article was, the amount of books sold, the Whedon/Dark Horse deal, everything except for the book existing and the plot synopsis. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison's sake, here's an article stating that Martin sold 100,000+ ebook copies of his latest SoIaF book. Selling that level of numbers gets attention and considering that sites such as Publishers Weekly love reporting on indie books that sell well, as does the blogging world in general, it makes it even more suspicious that a book would supposedly do that well and get zero coverage from anyone other than the publisher themselves. For another comparison, indie e-book series Wool did what this article claims this book did and got a ton of coverage for accomplishing so many sales. None of this adds up. If it does eventually come out that all of this is true, then great. But until actual reliable coverage can be found for this book or its author, it's a delete for me. I've sent a message to Dark Horse asking them to back up the claims this article is making. If they do confirm it then I'll post that here, but even if it is confirmed, that in and of itself won't give notability. Coverage in reliable sources is what gives notability and a lot of people state an intent to do things with various books or people, yet since plans can always fall through, we don't keep articles on the chance that the deal could be real and could actually happen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo, no offense, but just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it isn't popular. 3 It seems this independent website forum is talking about the project and seem to know a lot about it. My suspicion is that you really are upset that this article wasn't deleted as a hoax and now you are on a campaign. Press Releases aren't released to placate your ego. Has it dawned on you that this information is somewhat new? Also furthermore it appears you have done a complete about-face about the book being a "hoax". You were the first to say that, remember?Suit&tie (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the thing is that there isn't any coverage of this in reliable sources and still incredibly little about it on the internet at large. A search brings up less than 4,000 results, which is suspiciously low for such a supposedly well-selling book. Most of those are primary or merchant sources. Now before you go saying that this is a lot, it's not. By comparison the Bibliophile Mystery series, which sells fewer copies than this book purportedly did, comes up with just under 17,000 Ghits. A looser search brings up more, but also includes several false positives that have nothing to do with the book. This recently created forum post doesn't really show any form of notability in any case. Again, I was never saying the book itself was a hoax. Just everything else in the article. A hoax can be created about an existing item, person, or scenario. The thing about hoaxes is that they're not limited to complete and total fabrications. If you want to prove that this book is even remotely close to being as popular and notable as you claim, prove it by giving reliable sources per WP:RS. I'm not saying that the press release was put out specifically to soothe my ego, just that it's awfully suspicious that this PR just so happens to pop up after several editors have openly suggested that the claims of bestseller status and comic book adaptations are either a hoax or an outright lie. We've asked for proof and all we've received is a rapidly posted press release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have a different view on the definition of the word "several" because the only users claiming that this article is a hoax is yourself and user c-fred. That is two, not "several". Secondly you are comparing a book that was released by a young author (23) that was released seven months ago to an author who is much older who released her book four years ago. Of course it would have more internet coverage just because of time. And #DeadThing is clocking over 300,000 hits, I'm not sure what search engine you are using. The double talk here is really sad, and you have an agenda and it's now apparent. As far as the forum, I used the link to prove that you didn't know what you were talking about. Your claim is no one knows about the project, when in fact it is YOU who don't know anything about it. Suit&tie (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim what you want, but the bottom line is that there is nothing out there to back up your claims. You can say whatever you want and PR can claim whatever they want. As far as months versus years, if the book has sold nearly as well as you claim then it would have received far more hits than what I'm pulling up and would have received tons of coverage in reliable sources. Not only does the lack of reliable sourcing fail to validate your claims, but the sales figures on sites such as Amazon does not back up your story either. Now you can either continue to accuse me of having an agenda because I happen to be using Wikipedia guidelines to point out its lack of notability and the unlikeliness that the book would have no coverage given its claims, or you can actually show that the claims are true by providing reliable sources. As for Ghits, you've got to figure that many of the hits you're probably pulling up are false positives. If I go simply by the hash tag and don't include the author's name then sure, I'll probably get more hits but then most of those will have little to nothing to do with the actual book.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small observation because I couldn't help chuckling at this. Suit, you don't know it yet, but you came to the wrong place to say the worst possible thing to the wrong person. Few Wikipedians are better than TokyoGirl at putting in the effort to source and save articles who come here for deletion. You're not doing yourself any favors by telling her she doesn't know what she's talking about, because if someone around here could have saved your article, it was her. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making claims, your responses tell the tale for me. You claimed that it was a hoax, then changed your mind claiming the book and Author was not notable. But the author who is also an Actor was on 4 hit television shows including, The OC, How I Met Your Mother and was recently in a movie that made over 200,000,000 dollars. All of this information is from IMDB and is verified before they even update to their site. Amazon is not the only retailer, and you have already verified that the book is being sold at NUMEROUS retailers. So which is it? Is it all a hoax, not notable (author and book), or are the sources just valid. (Press Release, IMDB, Amazon.com, Good Reads, ECT). No worries. I have already informed and Admin and I'm sure they can figure out the best course of action. Suit&tie (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete as a shameless example of self promotion by a WP:COI. Author fails to support article claims of Wikipedia defined notability. Note to Suit&Tie, without verifiable, independent, reliable resources this article will most likely be deleted. Perhaps focusing on providing references that are not PR based might be a way to silence all our doubts as to the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. I highly suggest you review WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:IRS, and WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that IMDB is considered a reliable source in other articles, however not this one? Suit&tie (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb can sometimes be used as a trivial source, but it's never used as a reliable source to show notability. (WP:IMDB) If you do see an article that is only sourced by an IMDb link, odds are that the article just hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Feel free to nominate them if you want.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious attempt at self-promotion. Claims made cannot be verified and are likely false. "Reese Riley" does not appear in IMDB -- the link given above is for a different name and anyway the roles were very minor. ... discospinster _talk 17:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the IMDB page, he clearly list his pen name and his books on the page. But apparently IMDB isn't a reliable source. "Self-promotion" are you implying I'm Reese Riley. You got some facts to support that? Suit&tie (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone read the IDBM page, it has no bearing on the decision to retain the article. Again, I highly suggest you focus on providing valid references if you wish the article to survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are User:reddogsix and User:discospinster the same person? Isn't that sock-puppetry? Suit&tie (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not; however, I can see how you could infer that from my "I" vs. "anyone" comment. Once again, I highly suggest you focus on providing valid references if you wish the article to survive the AfD. Unfortunately, I suspect there are none to be found. reddogsix (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inferring anything. I based my data on what you posted, which i noticed you changed. Suit&tie (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me infer something, since you have not provided any viable references to the article there are probably none to be found. reddogsix (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to accept the fact that this article is going to be deleted. If you recreate it, that will be deleted as well. If you create it under another name, or make an article on Reese Riley, or Parys Sylver, or Maurice Smith, Jr., or Corona Sky Productions, those will be deleted. If you create another account to create these articles, we'll know. You're being asked a fairly simple and reasonable request: to provide reliable sources that show the book, author, actor, company, whatever, is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Fake press releases and discussions on bulletin boards don't make the cut. If you (or Reese Riley, etc.) want to be famous, you (or he, etc.) are going to have to go about it another way. ... discospinster _talk 18:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "Talk Page" is getting ridicolous. I have created one page, what are you talking about "re-creating" article. I think someone is upset because I expose their sock-puppetry. Where is the admin, I am sure they can trace Ip address. Suit&tie (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin. If you'd like to request a Checkuser to trace the IP addresses, you have to do it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. ... discospinster _talk 18:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discospinster, my apologies for subjecting you to this ridiculous accusation that resulted from my slip of the use of "I" and "anyone." reddogsix (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel that WP:NBOOKS is out of date in regard to eBooks, just as WP:ENT is out of date for people like YouTube personalities (this is kind of ironic for an encyclopedia that claims to be better than paper ones because it is at the forefront of collaboration and technology), and I'm always willing to look at more "esoteric" notability markers than what we currently have in the guidelines. However, I feel this fails even short of that. It's impossible to source the claim about the hashtag being very popular on twitter because running a search on it makes it obvious that it's used for things other than this book. The number of copies sold is also unverifiable at this point, which would be the second thing I'd be willing to consider. So as it stands, this is non-notable, an obvious COI and self-promotion issue and it merits deletion. As always, no prejudice to revisiting my !vote if additional evidence of notability comes to light. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I asked at the Dark Horse forums] whether or not the Whedon claims are true and I was told "Joss' editor at Dark Horse says there's nothing to it. Not that this necessarily helps Wikipedia editing, since this comes via email so there's nothing to cite to that effect." Now they were told this via e-mail, but this person has nothing to do with this AfD other than they just happened to be the person who answered my forum post. It could always be that the editor doesn't know, but considering that this would be Whedon's editor and the one who has their hands in all of his projects, it's unlikely that they wouldn't know whether or not he's developing a project. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. There are no reliable sources documenting the claims made in the article, and there would be if the claims were true. FurrySings (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G11. Based on the article author claiming ownership of the cover artwork and the timing of press releases, there appears to be no plausible way this can be anything but an attempt at promotion. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw this nomination, thanks for the clarification. (non-admin closure) TBr andley ^{(what's up)} 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities in British Columbia

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

Duplicate of List of municipalities in British Columbia, a featured list. The only difference with the list itself is that this, unlike the other, contains unincorporated communities and localities, but this could easily be merged into the featured list. Text and structure may also be different. TBr andley ^{(what's up)} 11:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – List of communities in British Columbia is part of the {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} series of articles. Except for PE, there is an article for every province and territory in Canada (PE redirects to List of municipalities in Prince Edward Island at present). The intent of the {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} series is to have a location that lists all communities within a province/territory – both those that are incorporated and unincorporated. List of municipalities in British Columbia lists only incorporated communities. Deleting this article would effectively mean blowing away all the unincorporated community list content, and merging the "communities" article to the "municipalities" article would also mean effectively blowing the same content away as they have no rightful place at the "municipalities" article.
Meanwhile, there are only five articles in the {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} series (BC, NB, ON, PE, QC) and two redirects to their {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} counterparts (AB, SK).
I don't support deletion of List of municipalities in British Columbia either, nor merging it to this "communities" article, but merging it specifically to the Municipalities section of the "communities" article is a much better solution than deleting this or the suggested "Plan B" of merging it with the "municipalities" article. Hwy43 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came across this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia. I question whether the information about unincorporated communities can be merged considering the target title is 'municipalities'. Also, there are quite a few communities and I worry that the length would be unsuitable. It could jeopardize the featured list (not that this is ground for delete/keep but something I'd like to point out nonetheless) when it could be considered a sub-article. Mkdw ^talk 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be better organized (by Regional District to make it useful) with details of the municipalities moved (to the "municipalities" article which should be a sub-article of this). Each community should be referenced to BCGNIS. maclean (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The featured list refers to incorporated municipalities, while this list is intended for incorporated and unincorporated communities, so it is not a duplicate. Merging would not be an option for me because these two groups (incorporated and unincorporated) are distinct and have no overlap. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles have separate scope - one covers munis only, one covers all inhabited places. Some duplication of data between two list articles is not a problem, per WP:NOTPAPER. The Interior (Talk) 04:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion parameters between "List of communities" and "List of municipalities" strike me as sufficiently different not to constitute a content fork. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instapp

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

not notable Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there are no WP:RS. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 14:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any credible reviews for this mobile application. The sources given in the article don't seem to be from reliable sources. The section under "About the developer" is a close paraphrase translation of the company description given at the end of the second reference [16], which only serves to promote the company that created the product. It looks a lot like product placement to me. Funny ^Pika! 15:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 15:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 15:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no English-language reliable sources; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The list distinguishes itself as fundamentally different than List of Korean films of 1919–1948. The discussion over what entries should be included is not a decision to be made in an AfD (or grounds for deletion).Also lists when too large can be broken down into sub-articles by year such as Lists of French films. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean-language films

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

Redundant with List of Korean films (Pre 1948), Lists of South Korean films and List of North Korean films. Professorjohnas (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's nice to have a list in ABC order. ₪RicknAsia₪ 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see how those articles make this redundant in any way. Films can be South Korean or North Korean without being in Korean - or they could be from other countries and made in Korean. The latter is of course far less likely, but the point still stands. Rickinasia's argument doesn't make sense either, however. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol, the other lists are ordered by year and this list in ordered by name hence I like having a list that is available in ABC order not just by year although that is nice as well. ₪RicknAsia₪ 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having overly broad scope and being ill defined. What is a Korean-language film? Is Rush Hour (1998 film) dubbed in Korean a Korean-language film? If not, then what is the difference between a Korean-language film and a Korean film? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COMMONSENSE. A Korean-language film is a film that was released originally in Korean. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems to be redundant to List of Korean films of 1919–1948 and Lists of South Korean films then. My guess is that the number of Korean-language films that have been produced outside Korea can be counted on one hand (if they exist). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not redundant. Even if the difference between the lists is only 5 films, they're still completely different - besides, the fact that North Korea and South Korea both speak the same language is enough on its own to justify this article! Lukeno94 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful research tool. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srbouhi Hairapetian

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

Nominate for deletion basically an unreferenced BLP. Creator seems to have only worked on two articles - creating this and an article on the woman's husband, which was speedily deleted. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for over 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Translators are always hard but WorldCat shows only 37 holdings for the quoted book and the author's synopsis is rather bare. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She, not he. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her book Hai Hin ev Mijnadarian Grakanutian Patmutiun (History of ancient and medieval Armenian literature) has been reviewed by the Armenian Review (Number 3, Fall 1987) [17]. Another book, A History of Armenian Literature: From Ancient Times to the Nineteenth Century, has been recommended to the readers by Dilevko, Juris (2011). Contemporary World Fiction: A Guide to Literature in Translation. ABC-CLIO. p. 35. ISBN 9781591583530. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and reviewed for example by the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies (Cowe, S. Peter (2003), Vol. 12, pp. 90-93). In my opinon, Dr. Hairapetian is an important researcher in her country. I believe that editors familiar with the Armenian language and literature could find out more. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the question is whether the subject of this AfD is notable enough to be considered significant per WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, or WP:GNG. From what I can tell the subject's work is not largely cited in academic works and the subject does not appear to pass any of the notability guidelines that I previously listed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr andley ^{(what's up)} 10:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per above. There simply aren't enough citations to suggest a pass of WP:PROF, and WP:AUTHOR is not, I feel, meant to cover cursory short reviews of academic books by other academics. Ray^Talk 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bombing of Sofia in World War II. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Wengel

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

This person does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, AND he does not meet the criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had no problem finding 9 books that mention him as a commander in the Luftwaffe, all independent, reliable sources. Additionally, there are plenty of websites that list him, most in connection with being a commander. Clearly meets WP:GNG. WP:MILPEOPLE is not policy, it is an essay, and as such is not binding. GregJackP Boomer! 05:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are nine hits alright, but only three relate to this bloke, and all three appear (from the Google preview and two snippets) to be single trivial mentions in passing of him commanding a fighter squadron (for about a year) and being shot down by a P-38. They may be reliable independent sources, but the mentions are all trivial, appear to be almost verbatim copies of one another (if my German skills are up to it) and he clearly does not meet the WP:BASIC criteria. There is also the issue of WP:BIO1E. He doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, and he certainly does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bombing of Sofia in World War II. Not really worthy of a separate article but interesting fact that could be mentioned with 1-2 sentences elsewhere.--Staberinde (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficiently notable (only a captain). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bombing of Sofia in World War II as sources for a stand-alone article are insufficient.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bombing of Sofia in World War II, per WP:ONEEVENT. Constantine ✍ 14:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The list distinguishes itself as fundamentally different than List of German films while what entries should be included is not a decision to be made in an AfD (or grounds for deletion). I see nothing that suggests the list is being overwhelmed by having a large scope and is arguably as large as List of German films or any other national film lists. Lists when too large can be broken down into sub-articles by year such as Lists of French films. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of German-language films

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

Redundant with Lists of German films. Professorjohnas (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is mistaken. Not all German-language films are German films, and vice-versa. Austrian films are in the German language, but are clearly not German films. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 15:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and my comment here. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts' excellent point, plus that WP:CLN says categories and lists can overlap, if that is going to be a follow-up argument. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having overly broad scope and being ill defined. What is a German-language film? Is Rush Hour (1998 film) dubbed in German a German-language film? If not, then what is the difference between a German-language film and a German film? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of films have a primary language. You bring up an interesting point about dubbing, but I would argue that it should be the original language. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there could be a problem with identifying a "primary" language. Wings of Desire has dialogue in six different languages. Although German is not one, Babel lists seven. To Rome with Love has a lot more English than Italian, but one of the stories is entirely in Italian. So what counts as "primary" (and whether a film can have more than one "primary" language) is not clear. Also, whether a language being significant in use while not a "primary" one is enough to qualify for a list like this is not clear. And if it is acceptable to list films with German as a "secondary" language, how much is enough for that to count? One line? Two? One scene?

If the decision is to keep the list page, I would recommend using whether or not a language is listed in the infobox on the individual film page as the criteria for inclusion. So Inglourious Basterds and Munich would make the list and despite some use of German, Gladiator would not. 99.192.51.184 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep German is the language of multiple countries, as pointed out by Lugnuts. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The list distinguishes itself as fundamentally different than Lists of French films. The discussion over what entries should be included is not a decision to be made in an AfD (or grounds for deletion). Lists when too large can be broken down into sub-articles by year such as Lists of French films. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of French-language films

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

Redundant with Lists of French films. Professorjohnas (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is mistaken. Not all French-language films are French films, and vice-versa. Some Canadian films, for example are in the French language, but are clearly not French films. The same for many African films (like this one, for example). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and my comment here. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts's argument. One of this year's Best Picture nominees at the Oscars is Amour, a French-language film that was Austria's submission for foreign-language film. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having overly broad scope and being ill defined. What is a French-language film? Is Rush Hour (1998 film) dubbed in French a French-language film? If not, then what is the difference between a French-language film and a French film? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of films have a primary language. You bring up an interesting point about dubbing, but I would argue that it should be the original language. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep French is the language of multiple countries, as pointed out by Lugnuts. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. The list distinguishes itself as fundamentally different than Lists of Dutch films. The discussion over what entries should be included is not a decision to be made in an AfD (or grounds for deletion). I see nothing that suggests the list is being overwhelmed by having a large scope and is arguably as large as List of German films or any other national film lists. Also lists when too large can be broken down into sub-articles by year such as Lists of French films. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch-language films

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

Redundant with List of Dutch films. Professorjohnas (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is mistaken. Not all Dutch-language films are Dutch films, and vice-versa. Some Belgian films are in the Dutch language, but are clearly not Dutch films. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and my comment here. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having overly broad scope and being ill defined. What is a Dutch-language film? Is Rush Hour (1998 film) dubbed in Dutch a Dutch-language film? If not, then what is the difference between a Dutch-language film and a Dutch film? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of films have a primary language. You bring up an interesting point about dubbing, but I would argue that it should be the original language. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dutch is the language of multiple countries, as pointed out by Lugnuts Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The list distinguishes itself as fundamentally different than List of Japanese films. The discussion over what entries should be included is not a decision to be made in an AfD (or grounds for deletion). I see nothing that suggests the list is being overwhelmed by having a large scope and is arguably as large as List of German films or any other national film lists. Also lists when too large can be broken down into sub-articles by year such as Lists of French films. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese-language films

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

Redundant with List of Japanese films. Professorjohnas (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is mistaken. Not all Japanese-language films are Japanese films, and vice-versa. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and my comment here. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having overly broad scope and being ill defined. What is a Japanese-language film? Is Rush Hour (1998 film) dubbed in Japanese a Japanese-language film? If not, then what is the difference between a Japanese-language film and a Japanese film? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of films have a primary language. You bring up an interesting point about dubbing, but I would argue that it should be the original language. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is the list not redundant when the category Category:Japanese-language films is more complete? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to OFC Women's Championship. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (OFC)

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

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, does not have an enough information about the subject,yet. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere. (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm wondering if this could even fall under WP:CSD#G12 given that this is two sentence copypaste of FIFA's press release. [18] Funny ^Pika! 15:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 15:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 15:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this page got speedy keeped until I found out I was at 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. If this gets deleted let's wait until 2015 or a date when enough coverage to remake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalion254 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OFC Women's Championship, as 2014 OFC Women's Championship will be the correct title for that tournament. I'll add the article text to that article like The next edition is scheduled to be played... -Koppapa (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Koppapa; this is a classic case of CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 15:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OFC Women's Championship, per WP:CRYSTAL. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination does not address a rationale in policy as to why WP:CLN would be superseded while a large consensus to keep citing WP:CLN as met. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinema of the world

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

Despite WP:CLN, this list is not worth existing because its redundancy with Category:Cinema by country. Professorjohnas (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN - lists and categories go hand-in-hand and having one isn't justification for deleting the other. This is a top-level "list of lists" page for navigation to the individual articles contained within it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists and categories can co-exist. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and Lugnuts' argument. To quote the guideline directly, "These methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." I do not see a sufficient deletion rationale here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful research tool for wikipedia, plus it truly represents a world view. NickCochrane (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not exactly a keep consensus as the discussion has remained mostly superficial. Sandstein 11:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mailplane (software)

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirct TO THE Gmail page Seasider91 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search does show some tech site reviews. I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt and say keep. Vacation9 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As DUCK notes above, NOTE is met and that is the only criterion of AfD being tested. The tags appear questionable - needs attention from an expert?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Maury Markowitz you must have misread I didn't say anything about the article meeting WP:NOTE. I simply delsorted, regards. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, this is the first time I have heard the term "del sorted". As to my comment above, my bad, I meant Vacation. Everyone's use of fancy SIGs makes it difficult to properly attribute when reading the edit text. There's somewhere a little hackery might help things, but I'm afraid my Wiki-fu is exactly zero. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 12:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- What reliable sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best-on-best

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

This page contains no material that is not already covered in articles on articles about the Winter Olympics, or the Canada Cup/World Cup. On top of that, the title of the article, as explained in the lead, is not widely used reference to the tournaments included. None of the references listed on the page explain where that title came from, or even contain it. They are simply all references to tournaments that are covered extensively elsewhere on wikipedia (Canada Cup, 1972 Summit Series, World Cup of Hockey, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. 18abruce (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its a waste of space. delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.48.81 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not been able to locate sources indicating that this term is a notable one frequently used, rather than an occasional phrase used by sportswriters for colour. Can anyone offer evidence that this term is sufficiently notable to form the topic of an article? isaacl (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (Although I'm still downloading it out of curiosity!) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Kaos

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

The page has been unsourced and labelled as original research for years. It doesn't describe how Realms of Kaos is notable. A Google search failed to find secondary sources. "Realms of Kaos" only yields 3 results in Google books, all of which use this Wikipedia article as source.EternalFlare (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is decided to delete it, then Realms of Kaos: Revolution should also be deleted. The latter was an article that was merged into Realms of Kaos, leaving Realms of Kaos: Revolution as a redirect.

"Realms of Kaos" got 400 hits on Google this morning.[19] Many of these were to Wikipedia pages because, "Realms of Kaos" is listed on Template:MUDs, which is used on quite a large number of pages.
"Realms of Kaos: Revolution" got 58 hits on Google this morning.[20]

I have not seen any evidence that "Realms of Kaos" is notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've never been able to find any sourcing for this article and a quick review today doesn't show anything being any different. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did a book search and found a few things that matched but couldn't find any actual coverage (due to book not actually having coverage or no internal search). There may be some coverage in some of them, but looking unlikely. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice. A nomination to delete, another user seconding the nomination, and two weeks without disagreement are perfectly reasonable marks of consensus. Nothing in the current article would be useful in the city article without giving undue weight to this particular park, but if a section on parks were to be created then something could be added there. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarac Park

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regular city park with no claim of notability. Maybe a one liner in the town page, but that's it. Secret ^account 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacking a claim of notability with the potential to be covered at the city would be a reason to merge or redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr andley ^{(what's up)} 08:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kabam. Unanimous consensus shows it shouldn't be kept as a standalone article; however it's a possible search term and a valid redirect. Any content that someone wants to merge into Kabam can be salvaged in the article's history. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 07:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Atlantis

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

Non-notable game. PROD denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears to just be a little browser game like million others. It has no serious sources or results in Google Books. EternalFlare (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kabam. I tried to save this while it was being PRODed, but was unable to find enough coverage to merit it being kept. This could potentially be redirected to Kabam, as they own the game, but it doesn't pass notability guidelines from what I could find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

weak keep sources clearly meet GNG. A merge to Kabam might be a better organizational move though. Hobit (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as a hoax. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Violet Live

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

No evidence this album exists or existed. I don't know if Stefani Germanotta was notable before she became Lady Gaga. The only "reference" is a fansite. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to be contradictory nonsense. She did perform two songs at the Ultra Violet Live show, but this has never been released, at least as far as sources, including fan sites, are concerned. These are live tracks, but the article states that they were recorded in a 'home studio', it states that this was a single, and also an album. The whole thing seems to be a mixture of OR and BS. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything about a home-studio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyGaGaFunnyMan (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did until you changed the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, almost a speedy delete as a hoax. I did a Google search: UltraViolet Live is an NYU talent show. Yes, Germanotta performed at it in 2005: that's easy to validate at any number of places. There's not a single mention of the CD, though. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons provided by Michig. - Mr X 02:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fan-made album.--Nikinikolananov (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platform No.6

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

Unreleased movie with no significant media coverage. Doesn't seem to pass WP:N. Psychonaut (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice under WP:NFF as being WP:TOO SOON. Searching for news about the director Kabeer Kaushik's "upcoming" project finds no reliable sources... yet. IF and/or when filming can be confirmed as having begun AND when we get coverage, we can consider an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr andley ^{(what's up)} 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Incubate as per TOOSOON. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. If sources can be found that pass WP:V, then restoration can be done. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baicang

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

No Chinese language information, and futile search in Google Maps/Earth along a 55-km northeast-southwest corridor along China National Highway 109 which is south of the lake of Nam Co as advertised or in a 1.5-mi radius of Nyingzhong Township (宁中乡); no matches in the PRC National Bureau of Statistics' most recent database of villages in Damxung County, which all auto-generated (i.e. influenced by this article) results in a Google search (minus Wiki) claim this locale is in. Per WP:NGEO, the lack of proof for this locale's (former) existence, is grounds for deletion. GotR ^Talk 19:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It exists [21], but the likelihood is that it has changed name. I'm happy to db-author it. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a settlement at the location visible in this satellite image [22]. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Baling village? "Cang" could easily be a mistranslation of cun which means village.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to db-author it but other people have edited it so I don't think I can do it. I agree it should be deleted as as Baicang it simply isn't supportable with sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Igbo Abasiama

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF, and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG either. The article cites no sources, and a google search returns no relevant links except for youtube videos. Both google scholar and google books return no related links at all. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is supposed to be about a scientist, but it fails to list one notable achievement or published work. It describes his life story with not one notable event. EternalFlare (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have included Abasiama's research paper, The Evidence for the Existence of Bigfoot, as a notable published work. --Srflecha (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Srflecha. I appreciate the help sorting this out! Unfortunately, we need sources which discuss Igbo Abasiama, not sources that he published which talk about other things. The sources need to show that he, as a subject, has received coverage. For instance, if the New York Times had written an article about him, and how he was influential in the Zoology community, that would be a great source! Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any sources like that. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess, I understand your perspective and quite honestly there are not very many sources on him because he is from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Very little attention is given to researchers and professors in that country. In fact, I can find little information about the school itself (much less the professors). --Srflecha (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I understand, and that's totally fine! Most people on Earth fall into that category. But, it just means that he wouldn't meet our current requirements for inclusion here. He probably meets the requirements on other sites, but ours on wikipedia are pretty strict about requiring secondary sources which cover a person before we create an article for them. Not every professor qualifies (which is why we have WP:PROF). If he ends up getting that kind of coverage in the future, then we can definitely create an article for him then! — Jess· Δ♥ 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So would a university article about him count or not? What about a local newspaper? --Srflecha (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can take a look at WP:N (WP:GNG is also helpful). Usually, we need significant coverage in sources which are independent of the subject. A university article may or may not be helpful; it would depend entirely on the article. The same goes for a local newspaper. As a general principle, I would say probably not, unless they were accompanied by more coverage elsewhere too. I hope that helps! — Jess· Δ♥ 15:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srflecha uses the term "published" very loosely. This manuscript has never appeared in a mainstream scientific journal, nor even in the popular literature. It is available through the subject's personal website and this is evidently what is meant by "published". Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's intriguing to me that cryptozoology is something one can be a professor of, but we need evidence of passing WP:PROF and currently there is none. Indeed, I am having trouble even finding verifiable evidence that he is on the faculty at Kinshasa; their web server is a bit of a mess but I can't find his name on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a hard time buying any of this. This is the first time I've ever heard of a "Professor of Cryptozology". The few real academics who care about this stuff have degrees in regular zoology or anthropology/sociology. When I grabbed a random sentence from the research paper, I found that it was copied from our article Patterson-Gimlin film. ("Next, Gimlin rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off before the filming began, and 'the men then tracked it for three miles (5 km), but lost it in the heavy undergrowth.'") Zagalejo^^^ 03:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To all the above observations, add that he does not have a single published paper listed in WoS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as probable hoax (unverifiable information), and utterly non-notable besides. Ray^Talk 10:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esty Amukwaya

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

Not notable per WP:ATHLETE: sources include a few passing mentions and an interview. Google searches turn up no promising results. FallingGravity (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Has played for her country [23] & [24].--Egghead06 (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should have figured that "Esty" was a nickname for Esther. FallingGravity (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as shown by Egghead, also, FallingGravity, it does state in the article that her real first name is Esther. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had just added that. FallingGravity (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 09:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could have been a candidate for withdrawn considering the lack of results in conducting the WP:BEFORE search due to use of an alternate name. The article, while in bad shape, clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL in an uncontested discussion so far. Mkdw ^talk 07:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Requested deletion withdrawal as nominator. FallingGravity (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Communist Party of the Soviet Union. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Коммунистическая Партия Советского Союза

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

In general, titles should not be in Cyrillic. This disambiguation page could be moved to its translation, but since there are only two entries on the page, I propose that it be deleted and a hatnote be placed on Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Gorobay (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That corresponds to the English-language article about the same party described under this Russian-language title in the Russian Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Metropolitan. The Cyrillic has to point to somewhere and there's already a hatnote there pointing to CPSU (disambiguation). Funny ^Pika! 04:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the others; the pre-1992 incarnation of the Party is definitely more familiar than the post-1992 incarnation in English sources. I don't remember ever encountering the concept that it's not the same Party as it used to be. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else. JIP | Talk 07:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the English Wikipedia; we don't need a disambiguation page or a redirect, for that matter, in Russian. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not English or use of a non Latin script are not a valid reasons for removal in this case.

"All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article."

This allows users to search for an article in English using its original name, hence why we have redirects from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and 中国共产党. If you'd like more information, you can refer to WP:R#Purposes of redirects, Wikipedia:AT#Treatment of alternative names and WP:FORRED. Funny ^Pika! 11:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 11:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 11:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 11:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that the subject doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, and looking at all the opinions expressed it seems that the sources aren't quite enough to satisfy WP:BASIC at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jobie Hughes

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

Fails WP:GNG1 Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Weak keep. I'm kind of undecided on this. On one hand, Hughes did help ghostwrite the first two books of the Lorien Legacy series, which is a big series. On the other hand, that's really all he's known for. He's been mentioned, but more in passing when it comes to articles concerning James Frey. After he stopped ghostwriting the LL series, he pretty much dropped off the radar. His other book has received trade reviews, which aren't a lot in the grand scheme of things but so far trade reviews haven't officially been discounted as "trivial" when it comes to reliable sourcing. He is, however, mentioned in a small paper and heavily mentioned in the New York Magazine piece. I can see keeping the article, but then I can also see redirecting it to the Lorien Legacy series page as Qworty had done earlier. His notability pretty much all stems from that series, but there haven't really been much out there that has specifically focused on him. I will give one warning if the page is kept: it'll have to be pretty vigilantly watched. There had been some edit warring in the past where a couple of socks were reverting the page to a version that was overly positive about Hughes. There was a sockpuppet check, which eventually got linked to a username of User:Jobieh‎. It might not be Mr. Hughes himself, but then it might be. I'm just warning admins that there was edit warring and one of the socks made some fairly nasty comments on my user page that were completely deleted from the edit history, so some protecting of the page might be necessary if it's kept.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guy is a ghostwriter who got fired by James Frey, and whose name never even appeared on any of the books packaged by Frey. Is this what passes now for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK? Surely not. Yes, he did manage to publish one book under his own name, but it immediately tanked. Is that what passes now for WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK? Again, the answer is no. Everyone should read the guidelines carefully. Otherwise, every non-notable ghostwriter who's gone on to publish non-notable work under his own name will be demanding an article. Also, editors who might try to argue that he is indeed notable for the one book he wrote under his own name should note that the article for that book has already been deleted from Wikipedia. You can read the deletion discussion here [25]. This appears to be the case of a person who thought that we would forget about all of this, wrongly imagining that he could sneak back here the following year and recreate some of the same non-notable material. But there are editors who've kept this stuff on their watchlists for a long, long time, and for good reason. Qworty (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find one source written about Hughes[26]; all other mentions are trivial, that he co-authored I Am Number Four with James Frey. Fails WP:BASIC, which requires a person to have "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources". I don't see sufficient sources about the author at this time. dissolve ^talk 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think he does abrely satisfy WP:GNG. Article should could be improved, but I don't have time to do it. 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 12:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There wasn't really enough discussion about the sources in the article to form a consensus for deletion. Any promotional language can be cleaned up through normal editing. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lorsch

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

This is a recreation of the previously speed-deleted promo-bio Bob Lorsch. damiens.rf 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional biography —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article appears to contain only one secondary source, and that is a {{dead link}}. HairyWombat 21:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. While the article still needs work, it is much improved. It currently contains nine references, of which seven are secondary sources. In addition, the body of the article cites the books Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, The Millionaire Zone, and The Engine of America. The guy looks notable to me. HairyWombat 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Without page citations from the books, there is no way of judging significance. Certainly the list of awards is singularly unimpressive.No bar to writing a proper article that we can judge on its merits for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DAILY AAFAN QUETTA

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

Contested PROD. Article about a newspaper which I am unable to source successfully. Every claim to notability is unverifiable as far as I can see, not to mention the one about "oldest newspaper of Pakistan in continuous publication since its foundation in 2001". Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all so fails both of the WP pages listed above. All i can find when i search is some Twitter and Facebook pages. TheMesquito (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article. The claim to notability looks bogus, because Pakistan most likely has numerous newspapers which have remained in publication for longer than the 12 years this newspaper has existed; see List of newspapers in Pakistan for some examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potentially notable (presumably there are Pakistani print sources about it, whether English or Urdu or other languages), but this isn't at all a good article and would need complete reworking. Combine that with the dubious "oldest newspaper in publication" claim, and I don't see why we should trust anything on this page. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suryudu Chandrudu

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

An article on this unreleased film was previously deleted by WP:PROD in December 2012. It has been recreated, so I am treating that as a disputed Prod and bringing it to AfD. The original concern remains: that this is an unmade film, anticipated to start shooting during 2013, so fails to meet WP:NFF. AllyD (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Multiple searches provided links stating the same information (largely from that same time period, late December) with one here (through Google News, this link is Telugu) and this search provided mostly blogs and other websites from that same time, as I mentioned. It is obviously too soon if the production is starting this year and there isn't an estimated time of release yet. I'm open to any other non-English sources but it really seems there isn't much information for an article yet. I'm voting delete with absolutely no prejudice for a future and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with the prior article. Majoreditor (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being TOO SOON. Yes, its now getting "buzz", but even as recently as January 1, 2013 a news report stated that Dil Raju has "set the ground" for this film's launch, and "it is heard that Trisha and Kajal Agarwal will play partrners", and "writer Sandilya will provide story and debutant Viraaj will handle the direction". With respects to User:Ed! this planned project IS verifiable as moving forward, but in respects also to User:LenaLeonard, we do not have quite enough firm data for this to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence presented that this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Holdings Group

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found for this company or its founder; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If a company, probably largely owned by its founder Keith Cozens, can afford to lose £190M, it must have substantila assets. However I am far from sure of the article's merits, particualrly as the founder's article is merely a redirect to the company. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I agree with the comment above. Any company that HAS, let alone can survive after losing £190,000.000.00 must be notable in my view. Also to have articles in 'Time Magazine' and the 'Financial Times' gives it Extra Clout. A little research found the 'Merlin' brand to be run along the same lines as 'Virgin' with many satellite companies. However unlike 'Virgin' does not seek publicity and keeps a low profile. My interpretation is it passes WP:CORP. After all this site is for Reference and Research. However this article does need expanding. Deangunn (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did your research turn up actual references to the company anywhere? The Guardian for example, one of the offered vague references, returns zero recognition for either the name of the company or its founder. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless information can be verified. The references are generic website URLs, searches of those sites don't return anything relevant, and I haven't been able to find any information about this company. If I've identified the founder correctly he appears to be director of a small property business in the UK, and that information is probably derived from Companies House records; maybe there is a link to a larger company or group but I couldn't find it. Also for a company to be a suitable topic for Wikipedia, significant coverage is required, not just mentions of large amounts of money. Peter James (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Blood Axis. Content can also be merged into Michael Moynihan (journalist) as needed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Lee (musician)

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

Nominate for deletion First AfD closed after no responses. Tagged for notability for over 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a non-notable musician. Bjelleklang - talk 01:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info into Michael Moynihan and/or Blood Axis. Some of the material here is properly sourced and would be relevant in one of the above two articles, but I think the nominator is correct that Ms. Lee is not notable enough (at least not yet) to have her own article. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Firedance. WP:USUAL applies as well, of course. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.U.K.

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG reliable sources not found in multiple searches. Also fails to meet WP:NGO, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,third-party, independent, reliable sources." CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any independent sourcing at all about this company, and none is offered at the article, so it fails WP:CORP. BTW I don't understand why it is listed in the "California" related discussions; can anyone explain, or should I remove that listing? --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is expanded during AFD period to show notability. At present it is litlte more than a deictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – response to MelanieN, it was sorted under California as according to their website it's a Californian company previously based in San Diego now Poway although the article itself says British. This has been a source of conflict according to edit history. If you have any questions on deletion sortings in future best to ask me on my talk page as I can't possibly have all the deletion discussions on my watchlist & only just noticed your message. Best wishes ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good on you for discovering that! (it's not in the article) and sorry for not asking you directly. You are right, the company website describes it as formerly in San Diego and currently located in Poway, and web searches do find an address for them as a shoe wholesaler in Poway. No indication of where they are manufactured (one web search suggested China) and nothing whatever to support their claim to be a "British" company. All the more reason to delete, since the unverified claim that they are "based in the United Kingdom" is their sole assertion of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's one of those situations where it's synonymous (not very much in this case) with one country but actually base in another. Given the lack of independent sources I would also be in favour of it being deleted. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still Delete~~ -- AS we have had no expansion, to show that this is a significant brand, or whether it is British or Californian. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken the liberty of striking the boldness there as you can only !vote once in an AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there are ideas here for how this and related content should be organized and cleaned up (which can continue on the article talk pages), there isn't a consensus to delete here. Michig (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers villains

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

This was discussed at DRV. The consensus is that the previous deletion is valid but that this should be relisted. As such, non-consensus here should revert to the status quo - which is no article. As the DRV closer this is a procedural nomination and I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is simply a list of characters, and a minimal list at that. Meets WP:LISTPURP (directing users to sublists) and serves as a spun-off list from the parent article of Power Rangers. Arguments at the original AFD citing WP:Fancruft (an essay which tells users not to dismiss content but to suggest changes), that it was a subjective categorization (a list of fictional antagonists cannot be subjective), that the subject was not notable (characters from a 20-year-long television and media franchise), or the dismissive attitude of the page's original author from 8 years ago may have formed a consensus, but they were all poor and irrelevant to the page's subject matter.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists are a useful method of organising content, when done intelligently. Here we have numerous articles on notable Power Ranger Villains who are notable for being Power Ranger Villians - this is the most sensible organisational scheme. Wily D 10:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —Ed!^(talk) 15:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a large "list of lists of PR characters". There's no need to list out the villains specifically when they are listed in separate articles. I can understand with a zillion different series and cast of characters varying in each, that there are going to be lists specific for each iteration, but links to such lists should be organized on a single page "List of list of Power Ranger characters" as a simple navigation list. This, as presently written, is not, and nor is there a need to call out the villains separately from the overall list of characters. One navigation list to rule them all, effectively. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the central list, so would you suggest that the lists of names be deleted and simply modified into a list of links to the individual articles or something else?—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a central list for the villains, but it acts like something between a nav list and an information list. My suggestion is you need "List of lists of Power Rangers characters", from which will be a purely nav list - listing each series, and linking to each list of Ranges, list of Villains, and other character lists. This current list, and I think "List of Power Ranger heroes" (or whatever it is called) would be duplicate of this new navlist. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the creation of a central list of character lists (and also turning the separate lists of protagonists and antagonists into singular articles) would be best (also you're thinking of List of Power Rangers).—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. In this list of lists, you can section by show iteration to include the list to the Rangers, villains, and any other lists. If (based on comments below) you think its useful to list the major Rangers and villains (as done in this list and the Rangers list), where there are only 5-7 names each, you can keep that short summary for those lists as well, maybe making this list-of-lists a table. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Power Rangers characters per Masem. Powergate92Talk 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete normally I'm a big fan of character lists, since they're often a good way to organise information and discourage extremely non-notable articles, but this one isn't good. The few that might even somewhat be considered notable have their own articles (like Rita Repulsa) and the seasons have surprisngly well-written, if a little overstuffed, text articles (see Villains in Power Rangers Operation Overdrive for an example)...making this kind of pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would the removal of the lists of names and simply reformatting this article into a list of lists be better then? This page has some form of utility in its minimal nature in my opinion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that would be an improvement on the status quo, but there's already Template:Power Rangers villains, a really handy template that links to them all already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To begin with, contested article with no sources = fails WP:V = mandatory deletion. Also WP:LISTPURP is not met, because there are very few linked (i.e., navigable) elements. The few that there are could just as well be linked to from the parent article. Moreover, lists must additionally meet WP:LISTN, and given the article's lack of sources, the notability of the topic of "Power Rangers villains" is not established. Finally, per WP:NOT#PLOT, articles must not consist only of plot summary (and a list of fictional characters from a work is plot summary, or functionally the same thing, i.e., in-universe content.) In short, there's no way that this can be kept in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. Sandstein 00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is a list of just the names plot summary? And why are sources necessary for such a list? And there certainly are sources that explain why the antagonists are important: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] (at least from the angle that fantasy violence is problematic in the late 90s). Arguments like these are what plagued the first AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be passing mentions of some villains, or superficial descriptions of individual ones. That does not establish that the ensemble of these villains, as a group or concept, is notable. It may however establish notability for certain individual ones. Sandstein 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that it fails WP:V appears to be straightforwardly false. What piece of information in the list is unverifiable? Wily D 09:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say false. I said unverifiable. That is, because there are no sources, the reader is not able to verify that the list's assertions are true. For instance, the assertion that these are all villains. Or that the list's categorization scheme is correct. Sandstein 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could perhaps be verified by the source material itself which last I checked didn't need sourcing really.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you said false. I said your claim that the list fails WP:V was obviously false, something your follow-up statement has confirmed. It at least mostly meets WP:V; I see no reason to think there's any bit that fails WP:V; but I may have overlooked something. Wily D 06:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Unverifiable" means "cites no sources". That's said clearly in the nutshell summary of WP:V: "Readers must be able to verify content. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This artice cites no sources, hence it is entirely unverifiable. - The source material is a primary source and per WP:PSTS is not suitable for sourcing assertions that normally require interpretation, such as the assertion that these characters are villains. Even if deemed permissible, that does not solve the WP:LISTN problem. Sandstein 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it an assertion to state that these characters are the antagonists? What sort of interpretation is necessary that would possibly be incorrect? Would the fact that the toy lines consistently refer to them as the "Evil Space Aliens" be sufficient? Because really you're stretching what is and is not WP:OR with that statement of yours. And regarding notability, there are the 9 academic papers and other publications I keep posting around these debates.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. "Unverifiable" means "Unable to be verified". What piece of information have you been unable to verify, after attempting to do so? For instance, suppose I want to verify that "Marah & Kapri" are villains in "Power Rangers Ninja Storm villains" (as listed in the list). I simply pick up the July 2003 issue of Black Belt, leaf ahead to page 63, and successfully verify that information. No fuss, no muss. Trying reading the policy before asserting what it says. Wily D 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wily is correct. I've had this confirmed at WP:V multiple times. Warden (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are eight villains on the list which are blue linked to their own articles. These various shows are all quite notable. Note there is also an AFD for a similar article called Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Dream Focus 10:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edge on keep) from the previous nom of this, I believe that there is reasonable cause to have a high level "list of lists" article for the Power Rangers series that points to all the individual iterations' list of characters (Rangers and Villains). I don't think one needs a completely separate list for Rangers and a separate one for Villains - a single one ordered by series would do this nicely, so I think there's major cleanup here (hence why I edge on keep here) and don't think deletion is appropriate, but strongly urge those working on these lists to consider this cleanup. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what's being worked on is taking the individual lists of Rangers and lists of villains and merging them into singular character lists, as per List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters. It is highly likely that this page will not be necessary in the near future, but it'll be used to coordinate the production of a central list, in also eliminating List of Power Rangers and the other character lists that are floating around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine - from that you can also (completely fairly) have a list of those lists. In that regard, this page could redirect to that list of lists. (eg retaining the contribution history) --MASEM (t) 15:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete There may be a need for cleanup (almost certainly) or merging (less sure), but there is no need for deletion. And frankly I'm not seeing any reasonable arguments for deletion. WP:PLOT and WP:V both have been mentioned, but refuted nicely in my opinion. We certainly can use primary sources to verify non-controversial facts and WP:PLOT doesn't just wipe out all "list of character" articles on its own. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy's Fake Girlfriend

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

Contested prod, no references, no indication to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unnotable. The only thing mentioned outside the lead and plot is an unsourced one sentence review. — ^Wylie_Coyote 16:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG - I've added three references from professional reviewers, and expanded the content. As a special Valentine episode it has attracted more attention than other episodes. Trimming the Plot section should be enough to have a WP:SNOWFLAKE article. Diego (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Faseeh

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged for lack of notability for over 5 years. Past AfD resulted in 'no consensus'. Boleyn (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing on Allmusic for the subject and his albums, his own website has gone "under construction" and the 2004-5 coverage identified during the previous AfD (the best of which I've now added to the article) is all that seems to be available. AllyD (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I subsequently found this 2010 article showing the subject organising a festival. AllyD (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references found during the previous and this AfD establish that the subject plays locally and has recorded, and that he organises a festival with several hundred attendees. That isn't really sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO. However I've flagged some claims in the article which could if verified make a better case. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be no longer active, and although notability is not temporary, I don't believe he meets WP:GNG, let along WP:MUSICBIO. Everything I can find on Google seems to be trivial, local coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJO (music)

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

Nominate for deletion tagged for notability for over 5 years. Could find nothing to prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the problems have been around for that long, yet have not been addressed since then, then the go-ahead to delete can be reasonably applied, unfortunately. Mungo Kitsch 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't get this past WP:EVENT at all. Seems to be primarily local in nature, without broader coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete. Undeletion can be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footmovin' Records

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

Nominated for deletion Has been tagged for notability concerns for over 5 years. Couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notable coverage found in google.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

While some view hair colour as common, red hair has been the subject of reliable publications such as TIME Magazine. The delete camp largely cites WP:INDISCRIMINATE as the reason for deletion, while the keep camp cites there being enough reliable sources making it not applicable. The deciding factor here that keeps this AfD out of 'no consensus' is the clause "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" which is not addressed in the merge/delete arguments. Also, the argument "what's next", list x and list y (even if it's a red link) is a fundamental argument to avoid because articles are looked at separately. If such lists were properly sourced (no matter how unlikely) they would technically meet WikiPolicy. This AfD should not be a means to prevent other articles from being created; creation of a guideline would be though. (A bold non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 08:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of redheads

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

I don't see why a list of people with red hair is relevant to an encyclopedia. This probably doesn't even list anywhere near the actual amount of notable redheads. And how exactly is the "Encyclopedia of Hair", a source that almost every listing relies on, a reliable source? H. W. Calhoun (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 00:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep Though this is of zero interest to me, we debated this less than ten weeks ago, and the consensus was to keep the article. Why go through the debate again? Let's allow consensus to stand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually see the second listing, I only saw the one from 2006. I still think it should be deleted. There were better reasons to delete it than keep it last nomination anyway. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Various sources are cited which have listed notable persons born with the rarest natural haircolor . "It is silly" is just another way of saying "IDONTLIKEIT" and is not an effective reason for deletion. Edison (talk)
Merge to red hair per WP:NOTDIR. About 2% of the population has red hair. A comparable percentage of people have type II diabetes or green eyes. Given that we have over 1 million biography articles, if this list were complete, it would contain around 20,000 names. Any list that long becomes an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Also troubling are the inclusion of historical figures that are "traditionally portrayed with red hair". Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 05:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Anyone can change their hair colour, bust size or what-have-you any time they want (and public figures often do) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly indiscriminate and not really defining - and the tip of a potentially very silly iceberg. List of blondes? List of people with a mole over the right edge of their lip? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic satisfies WP:LISTN as there are multiple good sources which have listed notable redheads as a group. This is a significant attribute as many of the individuals listed here were so famous as redheads that they were named accordingly, e.g. William Rufus, Eric the Red or Frederick Barbarossa. The claims that the list is too large to be manageable are false as it is currently just a modest 11K and there has been no great rush of additions. We have many larger lists of people such as List of swimmers, List of writers, List of scientists, List of bow tie wearers, &c. All that is needed when such a list becomes large is a split by some suitable sub-category such as decade or country so we can cross that bridge as and when we come to it. To delete the article for such a hypothetical and unproven reason would be contrary to our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They get coverage for being redheads. Type in any of the names on the list and "redhead" OR "red hair" and you get results. When reliable sources talk about them, they mention this aspect of them. Dream Focus 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC), since we're just doing the same exact AFD as we did two months ago, I'll just copy and paste my post from then. Dream Focus 14:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE. what next List of brown haired people, List of lefthanded redheads. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Might as well. No real reason why not...--143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to discriminate nature of list, clearly list is specifically about redheads. --143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the recent AfD. As the sources in the article show, red heads are often listed in sources and given in depth coverage as a group. This interesting and encyclopedic topic easily passes even the strictest reading of WP:LISTN. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also the article about the band BUCK Enterprises has been deleted so this qualifies for deletion under CSD A9, as a music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance, as well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BUCK Live

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

Non-notable album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm voting delete at this debate and at a similar one, Speechless EP. Google News searches provided nothing relevant and as I have mentioned at the Speechless EP debate, I plan to nominate the band's article soon after compiling my results and searches. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does not being on Google News have to do with a band not existing? I can't find any tour dates for The Turtles on Google News either. You aren't deleting their article are you. --Primetech 19:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the band exists. It did. The issue is whether the album is notable. It isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the information here is useful, especially to people looking for cover art or searching for a de facto guide to BUCK (or music in general. --Primetech 19:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetech (talk • contribs)

For the record, I never said the band "never existed", I simply said they and this album weren't notable. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BUCK Enterprises, I showed how although several results were events, there wasn't much in-depth coverage about them. The information being useful is one thing but notability is another, the article needs reliable third-party attention such as reviews but there doesn't seem to be any. As for your other comment above, searching for detailed tour dates for The Turtles probably wouldn't be easy as it was nearly fifty years ago and would require significant digging. However, a search "The Turtles 1967 tour" provided some reunion tours here. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album by non-notable band. No known coverage in reliable sources that might establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shipra Mazumdar

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

Notability. Per the lead section of WP:BIO "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident." She is not notable beyond the climb and is only listed in news articles about it. James086 ^Talk 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC) James086 ^Talk 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the first all-women’s expedition to summit Mt. Everest successfully is notable and should be on Wikipedia. Suggest edit Mt. Everest article to include this accomplishment before deleting Shipra Mazumdar article. æros 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Keep: Hang on. She is in the school books of West Bengal. An important article from the point of WikiProject India and WikiProject West Bengal. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only was she part of the first all-women's team to reach the summit of Everest, but they did it from the Tibetan side, which is much more challenging than the standard route from Nepal. Such an athletic accomplishment is not a one-time event, but the culmination of long training. Readily available English language sources with biographical details are slender, but it is likely that better sources exist in Bengali or other Indian languages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded and referenced the article. It is still brief, but I think we should keep it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Manitou for Boys

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

This article was created as an advertisement by a person with a conflict of interest. There are some sources cited, but I'm not sure to what degree we would define them as nontrivial. Does Wikipedia need an article about Camp Manitou? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misery Index / Bathtub Shitter

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

Web search shows no reviews or even reliable sources discussing it, mostly just sites that have it for sale or discography sites like Discogs and Metal Archives. Will probably never be more than a tracklist. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also the article about the band BUCK Enterprises has been deleted so this qualifies for deletion under CSD A9, as a music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance, as well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless EP

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

Non-notable album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please note that the nominator has also listed BUCK Live for deletion as well. A detailed search at Google News archives provided nothing relevant nor did a Google Books search. I would suggest redirecting to the band but it seems the band themselves aren't notable and this is probably due to the Christian music ties. A Google News search for the band only provided one result here and Google Books one result as well here (third result from the top, Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music). I am very concerned that articles were created for all of the albums with no references and no references for the band's article itself either. I plan to nominate the band's article very soon after some more searches (to be absolutely sure) and will mention both of these nominations. From there, we could simply A9 the other albums rather than wasting time with individual nominations. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would your purge perhaps be appeased if someone uploaded physical evidence the albums existed? Why are you going on the war path against a particular band, especially when some of the information here is unique to Wikipedia, especially the chronology of the albums (versus rooting through several websites in order to come to the same conclusion about the band's name)? The band does not have their own website but neither does Beethoven. Amazon sells their music. It's recognized on last.fm, MySpace, and Yahoo Music.

Further, Buck was signed to several smaller labels. You appear to connote being a Christian band implicitly means they are not important. Perhaps I am misreading that but it sounds a bit biased.. --Primetech 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep-- see reasoning above. But if obliterating the content is deemed worthwhile then please do not allow the removal of the band's information at the very least. --Primetech 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with SisterTwister. Primetech, this is not a purge, and having things sold on Amazon does in no way make you notable. last.fm, Myspace and Yahoo Music are also not a method of determining notability - anyone can appear on those. Being signed to a number of small band labels isn't a grounds for notability either. I also don't see any criticism of the Christian genre of music... Lukeno94 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. CSD A9 Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stops Here

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

non-notable album Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To BUCK Enterprises as plausible search term. Fails WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Fireflight discography. Consensus to merge and redirect following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Subject of Moving Forward EP

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

Unremarkable and otherwise non-noteworthy EP Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fireflight discography. An article on the EP isn't justified, but there is content here that should be retained. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Fireflight discography, per Michig. This fails WP:NALBUMS but it's old enough that it merits a redirect regardless of the awkward title. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartak Tennis Club

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

Article has not expanded at all since its creation almost six years ago. The first AfD ended in Keep, but by a very slim 2-1 margin. I have not been able to find enough evidence of notability for this club. While searching it online comes up with a lot of results, most of them are just tennis blogs, fan forums, and Wikipedia mirrors. The article's three sources do not prove notability at all since the first one no longer mentions the club, the second one only proves Anna Kournikova trained there (which violates Wikipedia's policy of no inherited notability), and not everything that is featured in a New York Times article is notable for Wikipedia. If that was the case, we should have articles on every single crime, accident, real estate/place, or special event it refers to. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be covered under WP:CLUB. The references I found point to it being one of the few top tennis schools in Moscow/Russia. I replaced the first reference (which was meant to point here), referring to the number of courts, with a book source and removed the unnecessary Kournikova site. I'm unsure what the objection to the NYT article is because it seems like a valid relevant source. There probably is more info in Russian, if anyone is fluent. Funny ^Pika! 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources exist to show notability; the ESPN and NYT pieces cited in the article, discussion in books like [36] and [37], and there certainly are plenty of additional sources at GNews[38]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obscure club. Maybe of interest in Russian language Wikipedia but not suited for an article here. SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is suited for Russian Wikipedia, it is also suitable here, since the notability policies are the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable, added a couple of sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's tough to say what might constitute a notable tennis club, but having 17 courts and claiming multiple international pro players sounds good enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fireflight discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glam-rok

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

An unremarkable album that does not appear to meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fireflight discography. An article on the album isn't justified, but there is content here that should be retained. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fireflight discography, content can be added logically there and non-notable albums are conventionally redirected to the band's discography article (if it exists) or the band's article (if it does not). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Star Wars: Battlefront II#Plot. Any user can get the article's contents from its history to merge some of it to 501st Legion (Star Wars) or Star Wars: Battlefront II. Salvidrim! ✉ 01:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

501st Legion (Star Wars)

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

Minor part of Star Wars "Expanded Universe." Delete as unsourced, non-notable, WP:Cruft. GrapedApe (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a little of it into the fan organization of the same name, as that organization was the inspiration for this subject. —Ed!^(talk) 03:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars: Battlefront II#Plot - While this is normally the type of subject I would insist on keeping, there aren't sources for notability, and all that is in this article is either in BFII plot or not needed to be told. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 05:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds far better-suited to Wookieepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avapoet (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars: Battlefront II per WP:NOTPLOT. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Star Wars: Battlefront II, ensuring there is a link from there to 501st Legion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Disney XD#International channels. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD Asia

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

Completely unreferenced, similar articles have been merged into Disney XD#International channels. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the proposed International Channels section. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge now, without prejudice to recreating the separate article when and if there becomes enough information to support one. --Jayron32 01:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These individual Disney XD articles have cropped up again and again. While some have been kept, there has been enough information there to make a complete, well sourced article. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Merge back into main article. RadioFan (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheng_Yuanzhi ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ning Sui

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

Appears to be fictional and only existing in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. And even in the context of that novel, not particularly significant. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Include this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Yuanzhi? LDS _{contact me} 23:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- That would be nice. --Nlu (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kootikooti

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

Has been notability tagged for 5 years. I was completely unable to find any reliable sources; the only search results that even seemed relevant were a game using this name as a trademark. —Darkwind (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be a widely coverage or notable game. I would also say that under WP:NOTHOWTO that the article has very little content outside the rules of the game. Mkdw ^talk 00:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot establish notability after 5 years, no reliable sources Retrolord (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hanna–Barbera TV shows on DVD

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

The list has no sources, only one incoming wikilink from the article namespace, and most importantly, it seems entirely unnecessary. Everything in it could be put in the articles for the individual TV series. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-reasoned rationale, unnecessary content fork. Secret ^account 05:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced list cruft. Merge content back into individual articles. RadioFan (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say keep if sources were added. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Acceptable.TV. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kitten Calendar

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

Notability is the issue here. Article is about a 4-episode microseries that's a spinoff of a canceled VH1 series. Also it's unsourced. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 04:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Acceptable.TV. Assuming that notability can be established for the TV show it spun off of, it'd probably be best to redirect this to that article. I don't see where this series has any notability independent of Acceptable.TV, as all of the RS I'm finding tend to mention this briefly in relation to the bigger TV show.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cleaned up the article for Acceptable.TV and it is reasonable to redirect it there. The show has just enough to show notability for itself, but OKC doesn't seem to have notability outside of Acceptable.TV.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Martin Helme