< 24 March 26 March >

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. SpinningSpark 06:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Edmond

Alison Edmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being Fashion Editor of Harpers Bazaar is, in itself, not sufficient justification for a lengthy Wikipedia entry, in my view. I can't find any reliable evidence to back up the claim that she's "one of the best known celebrity stylists". If the Times article (behind a paywall and currently unidentifiable) is substantially about her it may not be enough to convince me she meets WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Harper's Bazaar is a pretty major publication. There is a precedent for articles on editors of notable magazines, although this may mainly be more for overall editors than for sub-editors. Under her tenure, the UK Harper's Bazaar was renamed from Harper & Queen, a major rebranding which is significant in terms of the magazine's history. I am pretty sure the sources are out there, and will look around. On the face of it, this is someone who sounds like she ought to pass notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, if she was the Editor I'd find better things to do. But she wasn't, while noone has found additional sources after two years. Sionk (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus [1] looks at first glance like a non-RS blog, but probing around, it appears to be a brand consultancy that specialises in professional women and promoting their work (and has been around a while, I found info on events they organised in Canada in 2008). I suspect there are probably quite a number of reliable sources that aren't readily available online for this lady - she's had a very impressive, long-running career and co-workers/colleagues (including Anna Wintour and Liz Tilberis) and is clearly highly respected in her field. Being a fashion editor for UK Vogue is pretty significant given that the magazine is focused on fashion. To people in the biz, she is clearly someone to know, although this is not always translated effectively into the wider world. I cannot support a delete vote in good faith for this reason, which is frustrating because we have kept arguably undeserving subjects due to technical notability, yet someone like Alison Edmond, who I am 100% sure would be notable if only she had a decent press agent keeping track of her published articles/interviews/features/press, is tricky to prove notability for. This is why my vote is a no consensus - personally, I want to keep the article, but I cannot support a keep vote, and there is no way that I can in good faith vote delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embroidery by naids

Embroidery by naids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only (unreferenced) awards are in local papers; unable to find significant secondary coverage of this (or the parent business—Alternative Stitching Co.— for that matter). Fails WP:GNG and such. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, those were my initial thoughts as well. Due to the claim of notability, though, I brought it to AfD—you never know about offline sources, or maybe the creator will chime in. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 07:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timanous

Timanous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some pretty heavy bias and lack of references. No one seems to want to help edit the page either. Mfribbs (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article barely even establishes notability for this summer camp. Most of the sources are either non-independent (the most often cited source is an offline publication co-written by the camp's co-owner), or broken links. And most of the article is unsourced anyway. The article is not much improved from how it was when it was last up for deletion in 2006 (the result then was "no consensus"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am one of the article's primary authors and originators (although I have sought to avoid a proprietary stake in this as I believe Wikipedia is best served when open-sourced). There are compelling reasons for preserving this article
  • Longevity: Timanous has existed for over 125 years, and continues to operate consistent with original institution
  • Popular influence: Timanous has thousands of living alumni, aside from the famous alumni listed on the page
  • History and Heritage: Timanous is plainly an example of the longstanding New England and Maine summer cultural and camping tradition. Aside from its perseverance, Timanous was founded by and operated by Luther Gulick, one of the established originators in Maine camping
  • Economic impact: this could be better stated in the article itself, but Maine camping and tourism industry is crucial to the Maine economy and preserving it matters; Timanous is, again, a well-established example and member of that industry.
  • Comparative value vis-a-vis similar Wikipedia pages: Timanous has long been a more comprehensive and detailed page than peer institutions
  • Broader concern with targeting camping pages for deletion, not improvement: I am concerned in noting that several other Maine camp pages have been recently offered for deletion. I suggest, again, that Maine and New England sleepaway summer camps are an important element of American tradition and history.
Crogle94 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is chock full of original research and dead links. I don't get it. What's so notable? Bearian (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know if I'm allowed to take part in the discussion since I made this page, but here goes. Crogle94 -- it's great that the camp has all those traits and stuff, but why should it be in an encyclopedia? Just because the thing is 100 years old doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. I think, though, if you do want to keep it, you have to start editing the page. It's very biased and doesn't have many resources in it. Do you know how to use references, because the article doesn't refer to many using a superscript. Mfribbs (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're definitely allowed to take part in the discussion by making additional comments, but I struck out the "delete" above because your delete recommendation as the nominator is already being taken into account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mfribbs, I appreciate your above advice. I notice that you've both nominated this page for deletion, but spent a great deal of time and energy contributing to the Camp Agawam article (a peer institution) and that you likely rescued that article from deletion. That page is much improved and is a credit to your good work. I am familiar with Camp Agawam and consider it an integral part of the mosaic of New England camping heritage and tradition. I request that you consider Timanous to merit the same due diligence. In the last two days, I have begun overhauling and streamlining the page. Most obviously, I have edited dead links and I have added 3 bona fide, legitimate sources explicitly detailing or referring to Timanous and its cultural role: the Burlington Free Press, Boston Globe, and Washington Post. Over the next couple of days, i intend to add further sources, including episodes of Nightline and the Portland Press Herald. I intend to incorporate several of the major camping publications, dating back over 100 years, the refer or reference Timanous. Your rationale for keeping the Camp Agawam article was as follows: "There are, as I know of, approx. 7 resources. The article is much more expanded now than it was when it was proposed for deletion. I think if this article is deleted, than most of the camp articles in Maine should be as well. Also to note, I have several other sources that are notable when it comes time to add them to the article." This same rationale would apply to the Timanous article, except that there are now at least 9 resources cited, with more on the way. As editing will continue, I request that this discussion be tabled to allow for continued good work. Thank you.Crogle94 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, Crole94 this means that the page can be moved to your userspace where you can work on it without the specter of this deletion discussion hanging over your head. J04n(talk page) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up; the references have been somewhat improved (probably enabling the article to meet WP:GNG), but the article also needs to meet WP:NPOV. Miniapolis 13:58, 25 March 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or Userfy - I'm not convinced the current sources are enough to substantiate notability. Unfortunately, most of the arguments made for keeping the article so far are straight from the list of arguments for avoid during deletion discussions. Things like longevity, comparison to other subjects with WP articles, alumni and economic impact. While these things might help generate coverage, it's still the coverage we need to substantiate notability, not the things that might theoretically be covered in that coverage, if that makes sense. That said (if it made any sense), I'm inclined to think the long history of the camp mean it would have received coverage prior to the era of the internet. If such coverage could be substantiated then I think we'd get over the line. As such, I'd have no problem with userfication until such times as those sources can be found/added. I'm at weak delete because I think there's some room to assume good faith that such sources might be added soon and so temporarily userfying this until then might not be in the best interests of WP. TLDR - technically fails, can probably be fixed, happy if consensus is that it shouldn't temporarily be deleted. Stalwart111 00:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stalwart111, these are helpful comments and appreciated as I plainly endeavor to incorporate the diverse sources into a coherent whole. The subject of the article is not one that routinely creates "news" (here, perhaps, is a good reason to consider peer-class summer camp articles) which hinders the ability to find sources that are useful from The New York Times or similar periodicals, although during the 125 years of the camp, I have found useful, reliable, and on-point sources including: Nightline, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Portland Press Herald, scholarly references from the likes of Gary Paul Nabhan, and literary references from the likes of Samuel Pickering, Jr.. Many of these have now been incorporated into the article, substantiating and documenting the subject's notability. Deadlinks and other technical flaws have been eradicated. Concerns about POV are being addressed through editing and steady incorporation of reliable, objectively independent sources (consistent with WP guidelines). While this process is ongoing, I believe that the significant enhancement of the article, in the direction you've already recognized, further merits its continued inclusion in wikipedia.Crogle94 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page looks cleaned up. I think it should be kept but the process of cleaning it up should definitely continue. Referencing isn't as much of an issue as it was when I nominated the page for deletion. Mfribbs (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy for further improvement. I have a feeling the camp is notable, but you can't tell it from the current references. The book contains just a passing mention, and what look like significant media articles are impossible to evaluate due to paywalls. I would encourage the article's author to find more sources that can be visualized (it isn't a requirement that a source be readable online, but it is very helpful in cases of disputed notability). I would also encourage them to trim or delete the detailed information about the camp's program and daily schedule, focusing more on the history and on what third parties have said about it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - userfication is acceptable to me, too. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Lots of helpful ideas and commentary on this discussion, and I think the article has benefited from it. I'd like commenters to please consider the Camp Timanous article vis-a-vis peer articles, particularly Summer camps in Maine. Keeping in mind that comparisons are merely tools for evaluating an article's worthiness, I suggest that the Camp Timanous article's notability, POV, reliability, accuracy, and technical formatting put it and the Camp Agawam article at the top of this particular heap. In the past two weeks, sourcing, technical flaws, notability, and overall quality have been addressed. Can you compare the Maine summer camp articles, delete the Timanous page, but ignore the rest? That seems frustratingly inconsistent; the peer articles are littered with the very errors that have been excised from the Camp Timanous articles: too few (sometimes zero) reliable or independent sources; little more than assertions of notability; rambling written style (including first person experiences and thoughts); little integration into larger Wikipedia; inconsistent care-taking and editing; etc. Should the whole category and its articles be deleted? As I noted earlier, I still suggest retaining the Timanous page, but instead of userfying, let the improved page serve as an accessible standard for peer institution articles Crogle94 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Atalla

Luca Atalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Founder of a non-notable magazine (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GracieMag). His BJJ achievements don't meet WP:MANOTE since none of them were at the black belt level. The article has been tagged for 2+ years as needing independent sources so it's hard to say he meets WP:GNG and my search didn't turn up significant coverage from independent sourcs.Mdtemp (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hinton

Chad Hinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With only 2 top tier fights he fails to meet WP:NMMA and he lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. Note as well -- he had a history of recent sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Saint M

Ill Saint M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are primary and there are no outside sources to support the claims made in the article. In addition, the article has a clearly promotional tone. Lack of coverage means he fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this at all a reliable source? It seems to be from his publisher, "a family owned business", and the source is laden with praise. It's a promotion piece, not impartial outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking another few minutes to find another source, I couldn't find one, so I will change my vote to Delete. Thanks for letting me know. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reconsidering. The page you found seems to me to be much like the rest of the sources backing the article--related to the subject and far from impartial, which only goes to further support deletion. Ducknish (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Gracie

Ralph Gracie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter who does not meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights. The sources given don't seem to show he meets WP:GNG, either. The only source that provides signficant coverage is bjjheroes.com and I don't know if that is a high quality source. The material there gives no additional claims of WP notability that aren't in the article and all the talk about his family members and who he's trained is just WP:NOTINHERITED.Mdtemp (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. 4 in WP:MANOTE says repeat medalist in other significant tournaments are notable. I see four titles listed on BJJ Heroes, including two from Rio de Janeiro. BJJ titles in Brazil are certainly not given away like candy. Luchuslu (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the titles he's won are sufficient--the Rio state championship is nice (though it's not on the national/world level), but I'm not sure the other Rio title means anything. The other two are from the Bank of Brazil Athletic Association and a tournament in Grajáu (which is a district in the city of Sao Paolo) and I don't see notability from them. I'm waiting to see if other information gets added, but right now I don't see him meeting WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This one's fairly close, since he's only one fight away from passing WP:NMMA and he's not that far off from passing WP:MANOTE either, but ultimately he does fail both guidelines. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt if he had some coverage, but there's almost nothing from independent sources, only three hits on Google News, none of which are about him. I'd say he just misses. CaSJer (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if Iron were an editor in good standing, which he is not (see below), his !vote would not carry weight. The subject need not meet NMMA -- whether he meets it or not is irrelevant, as long as he meets GNG. Which he does.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. Also, he has a history of socking. Those who have familiarity with that approach to editing, and unearthing puppets, might keep that in mind as we look at contributions of others to AfDs upon which he !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added a number of refs. There are many more -- but I got bored for the moment. He is covered a great deal in BBM, but also in the MMA Encyclopedia and other books.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With the addition of these references, in particular the ones from Black Belt Magazine, I'd have to say he passes based on WP:GNG. It's difficult to find online sources because much of his career predates the mainstream coverage of MMA and Jiu-Jitsu online, but he still received significant, non-trivial coverage in print. While he fails WP:NMMA and is borderline on WP:MANOTE, his notability in MMA, BJJ and as an instructor taken as a whole should merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Luchuslu (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated by Luchuslu above, because he meets wp:GNG inasmuch as he received significant, non-trivial coverage in aggregate as a fighter and as a trainer. Any !votes that did not consider GNG, but just focused on NMMA and/or MANOTE, of course should be discounted accordingly. It is, clearly, sufficient to meet GNG. And more than notable -- The Telegraph described him as "a legend in fighting circles."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - With the addition of the new references, I'm comfortable saying that he passes WP:GNG. Good work on digging them up. CaSJer (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was REDIRECT to Wolf (band). SpinningSpark 07:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Star (album)

Evil Star (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUMS.

Unreferenced, apart from an external link to the band's homepage. The only review I found which wasn't clearly user-generated is a 200-word piece at www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=6133 metal-observer.com (can't link because it's spam-blacklisted). That falls well short of the WP:GNG requirement for substantial coverage in reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. The "sources" you listed are:
  1. cduniverse.com, an e-commerce site. It's not an independent review
  2. answers.com fails WP:USERGENERATED.
  3. last.fm is just a track listing.
Please read WP:GNG before commenting on notability. Any old links from a Google search are not enough to demonstrate notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All I could find was an Allmusic review ([6], from which the answers.com review is copied) and a short news item ([7]). I think this can be summarized in the article on the band and redirected there. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Indeed, the person fails WP:NMMA. Indeed, failing WP:NMMA is not a reason to delete the article provided the person passes WP:GNG. There is no evidence that they pass WP:GNG, not in the article, not here, nor I was able to quickly find this evidence myself. Therefore the article is deleted, without any prejudice to restore it if the person ever passes WP:NMMA or WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magno Almeida

Magno Almeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter with only one top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. Note as well -- he had a history of recent sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current blockage had nothing to do with sockpuppets.74.43.63.145 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated, he had a history of recent sockpuppetry. Actually, it appears that MMA articles in particular have been a sockpuppetry focus.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wolf (band).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf (Wolf album)

Wolf (Wolf album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.

Referenced only to the CD cover and iTunes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wolf (band).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Wings (album)

Black Wings (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM.

The article is currently unreferenced, apart from an external link to the band's homepage. The only review I could find is a 185-word shortie at www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=483 (can't link because it's on the spam blacklist), which falls way short of meeting WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of slaves

List of slaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The function of this list can be entirely fulfilled by the slaves category. "Slaves" is a category with the potential to be incredibly broad in scope, and thus, this list has no reasonable topic restraint. The list adds no use beyond that of the category, and the should be deleted, as the category will suffice. Ducknish (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems as though their notability is entirely separate from their being slaves. For the majority of the list, being a slave is simply an aspect of their life that does not factor into their individual notability, and thus, it would be better suited as a category. Ducknish (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you wrote is an actual standard for lists, neither expressed in guidelines nor reflected in practice. We do not limit lists to what "factor[s] into their individual notability", but instead use both lists and categories as complementary indexes and navigational aids. See WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP, and for examples of this widespread practice, see any of the lists for people by place of origin, by educational institution, by year of birth or death...all of which are significant biographical facts but never why or for what someone is notable. What made you think otherwise? postdlf (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their slavery is part of their notability. However, those less notable (i.e. without articles) should mostly be emancipated from this list, e.g. Aelfsige. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A considerable portion of people on the list have articles, which proves their notability. However, I do agree with Clarity that those slaves who are less notable should be removed. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with the opinions expressed that there are many on the list who are, in fact notable. However, I would say that for precious few of them is slavery the lynchpin of their notability. If you could remove the fact that many of these people are slaves and still find them notable enough for an article, there's no need for an article serving as a list to categorize them in this way. Ducknish (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:OUTCOMES via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of electricians which had basically the same parameters. Some people notable for being others things who happened to once have been electricians and people notable for being electricians. I !voted for deletion (weak) there and would probably do the same here were it not for the fact that community consensus seems to disagree at this stage. Stalwart111 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ramos

Jo Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IP contested PROD without explanation. PROD reasoning was: "Fails WP:GNG as an individual. All notability is based on her father and notability is not inherited." Ducknish (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - Unfortunately, unless a first child gains notability for his/her own achievements, then notability is not inherited. In her case, her death did receive a lot of coverage, but only because she was former President Ramos' daughter. As far as I know, there isn't enough coverage of her (apart from being a first child) during her lifetime. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC) But it appears that she was a musician of some note, which does establish notability (especially with the coverage below), but I didn't know that since I was born in the penultimate year of the Ramos administration (1997) and it appears that she was mainly active before I was born. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, from the sources I can find in the news search the subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, as can be seen here, and here, as two examples of the many articles where the subject of this AfD was the primary subject of the article. Therefore, the subject passes WP:GNG & Criteria #1 of WP:MUSBIO. I understand the concern about the individual being primarily notable due to her relationship with her father, Fidel V. Ramos, and that the majority of easily find-able web content is regarding her death, however if one does a little digging, you'll find that the subject of this AfD received significant coverage not directly related to her father, or her death.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All the indications are that this is a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BrightSide Adult Entertainment

BrightSide Adult Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax; I can't find any evidence of "BrightSide Adult Entertainment" online, and the article seems to be lightly rewritten from the Elegant Angel article. Trivialist (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are not reliable, then they are irrelevant. Anyone can create unreliable sources making any false claims they like, and it is by no means unknown for authors of hoax articles to do just that. What is more, you haven't even told us what the unreliable sources are. We can't attach any weight at all to someone claiming to have unreliable sources that we can't even see for ourselves. See WP:RS and WP:V. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a more than probable hoax, fails verifiability. Zero GNews hits, zero GBooks hits, some Google hits that are all mirrors/derived from Wikipedia. I could have missed something, but none of the sources of the article appears to mention "BrightSide Adult Entertainment" or something similar. The same article mentions BrightSide just three times (in the infobox, in the lead and in the first sentence of History section), and for the rest it is a "copy and paste" of the Elegant Angel article. If someone has found some evidences about the contrary is welcome, but he should provide his evidences here. Cavarrone (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. All sourcing appears phony or irrelevant. Article "creator" has no other edits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. The article is a copy of Elegant Angel with only the lead paragraph changed. Searches for Brightside Adult Entertainment get Wikipedia mirrors. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

T.R. Dallas

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.R. Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - no evidence of being signed, charting, and only one source that is either in depth, or reliable. I couldn't find anything else in a Google search either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty much a household name in Ireland, in the bizarre genre of Country & Irish. "Who Shot JR?" was a #1,[8] and his renditions of "Hard To Be Humble" and "Daddy's Girl" almost certainly charted also. Has been the sole subject of television programs of the national broadcaster [9]. His place in the culture is demonstrated by pieces like this in the paper of record. Sad to relate this watergate. 86.42.107.13 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joy Division discography.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+− Singles 1978–80

+− Singles 1978–80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Come on; is this article on an insubstantial greatest hits album ever going to amount to anything? I say just delete articles like this. Lachlan Foley 08:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 March 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, Keeper | 76 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mishor Rohoshyo

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'm now convinced of its notability and the article has been improved considerably. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mishor Rohoshyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple issues plague this article, it's unreferenced, it's unreleased, and I can't find anything on the web that isn't primary, let alone any WP:RS. Unless someone can provide reliable Bengali sources, this is WP:TOOSOON, it seems. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough sources now that I'm willing to keep this. Ducknish (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found some sources and I was able to find where part of the filming has already wrapped up, but the big issue here is that the ToI is the only paper that has commented on the film production. They've somewhat fallen all over themselves, so I'm wondering if there are other sources out there under yet another spelling? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kakababu#Portrayal_in_film. Right now there's just enough to show that the film will likely become notable when it releases, but there's not enough in the here and now to show it passes WP:NFF. There's the ToI, but we need more than coverage by one paper to really show a depth of coverage. I discovered an article for the fictional character and while it does need work, this seems like a reasonable redirect to that article until the movie receives more coverage.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think about a withdrawal, but there's a delete vote still there: so I can't. I know AfD isn't cleanup, but there wasn't any real sign of notability when I nominated it, nor from a Google search. The flaws with the article were a secondary part of the nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Raskin

Sasha Raskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. There are a heck of a lot of references in here, but I can't see any that are cast-iron WP:RS - a lot appear to be primary sources, blogs, or tabloidy/gossipy things. The fact that he publishes his music for free doesn't help matters either (means he's unsigned, and won't have charted) - and several of them appear to be barely mentioning this guy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 00:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Dan

Dangerous Dan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that this character is notable. It says that he only appeared in the Beano comic strip for a few months during 2011, so people who didn't read Beano during 2011 have probably completely missed him.

There are five sources listed:

  • Three different issues of Beano. Obviously dependent of the subject.
  • A link to the artist's personal blog. Obviously dependent of the subject.
  • A link to Photobucket, included in violation of WP:LINKVIO. This is actually to illustrate that there is a different character with the same name in the comic Desperate Dan. This one is obviously independent of Beano, but since it doesn't mention this character, it can't be used to establish that this character is notable.

A search on Google for "Dangerous Dan" and "Beano" returns mainly unreliable sources (such as forum discussions) and dependent sources (such as websites belonging to the publisher or to the artist). Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I just put most of the information in the article into the relevant section of List of Beano comic strips. I now think a delete is appropriate. Eopsid (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (or merge, if there's anything useful). We still have a great surplus of Beano & Dandy character articles that are of far too minor significance to support them as separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 00:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Heart Tuesdays

I Heart Tuesdays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kept at AfD due to supposed imminent appearance, we are now almost a year on and this looks like a definite no-show (ha ha no pun intended). So WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MAKINGTHINGSUPOUTOFTHINAIR and so on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - pure WP:CRYSTAL. It wasn't kept at the prior AfD, it was userfied - which was the correct procedure in 2012 when it, potentially, might've aired. If it DOES get userfied again, make sure that there's some kind of enforcement for keeping it there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ne-Yo#Television. I've created a section about the proposed show on Ne-Yo's page and really, that's all that needs to be stated about it at most. I'm kind of ambivalent about whether or not it really needs that. It falls short of notability guidelines as it never really got any coverage other than the typical announcements that Ne-Yo was going to help create a show. I have no true problem with it getting userfied, although I think that it's probably semi-unlikely that it'll get created at this stage of the game. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. One of the conditions is that the event is "almost certain to take place". There's nothing certain about television program development. Many potential shows die on the vine. The article can always be recreated when the show actually happens, or at the very least when the network announces an air date. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fountainheads

The Fountainheads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school a capella club. Not signed to a record label, no major hits, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hence, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Had a lot of youtube hits, but that doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Wikipedia:No one cares about your school's a capella group. GrapedApe (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 11 March 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, 18 March 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, TBrandley 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 09:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael Day

Ishmael Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2011. Best assertion of notability: "Little is known of his life, except that during the American Civil War he was sympathetic to the Union Army in a neighborhood that had sympathy for the Confederate Army." FallingGravity (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Astor House Hotel (Shanghai). MastCell Talk 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900

History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely redundant to Astor House Hotel (Shanghai), which itself is already mostly redundant. The amount of excessive detail and trivia borders on the ridiculous for that main article, and there is nothing worth saving here. This isn't a walled garden, but it's a garden alright--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai), concerning a 40k splitoff from the main article, and our current "History" article is simply copied from that main article (in comparison, see this version from the day before the creation of the "History" article. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 March 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, TBrandley 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Datapreserve

Datapreserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable software Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 16:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Jacobs

Buzz Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject seems to fail the WP:CREATIVE guidelines. Subject was a political consultant for McCain and a minor functionary in the Bush White House. While several sources are given for the article, most are fairly trivial about the subject, either a brief mention of the subject or a brief statement by the subject. PROD declined by article creator without explanation. Article is an autobiography. Safiel (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (Safiel edit-conflicted me in creating this deletion discussion, beating me to doing so by seconds.) There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nearly all the references are pages which only mention Jacobs in passing, and the couple of exceptions are not independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Human capital#Risk. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Capital Risk

Human Capital Risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An essay, not a Wikipedia article, and a potential advertising/COI problem, given the author (though it is not explicitly spammy at the moment). No original research, etc. etc. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I usually mention this but forgot: I originally PRODded this, but the prod was declined by the author. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Human capital#Risk. This is a notable topic, with about 1,100 hits on Google scholar. Unfortunately, the present article is an original essay with no sources. To write a well-formed article on this topic would require blowing it up, per WP:TNT and starting over. In the mean time, human capital risk is discussed at Human capital#Risk. Given that the topic is notable and my best guess is that users may very well want to search for this term, it is better to redirect to a short exposition than outright deletion. This also provides the base for an editor to write a proper article on this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. This is not a very helpful article. Much better info out there (see Conference Board research). Even the info in the Human Capital page #Risk is pretty awful. HC Risk is much larger than individual people leaving off manhole covers. It's systematic form of value and risk. Potami.potami (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)potami (excuse any issues with this -- first time editor) moved from article talk page Writ Keeper (t + c) 22:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Human capital#Risk. The article, as it stands, should be deleted. Independent of this, it is also a perfect candidate for a redirect to the Risk section of the Human capital article as noted by Mark viking. Two birds, one stone. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Anderson (singer)

Jeff Anderson (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable person by our standards. Had one album on a somewhat notable label, and another one is mentioned in the infobox--but I don't see evidence of it and that by itself might not be enough. No hits, no coverage, nothing else? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Notable references added to article on March 3rd, 2013, including reference of hit single on Billboard's music charts. Article also cleaned of any promotional links to ensure the integrity of the article. ryanbattles (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 02:22, 17 March 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,  Gong show 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The CBN Music source appears to be nothing more than a profile page, that's not a valid reference for notability. The artist does appear to have two minor chartings from the Billboard source (although it does appear to disagree with the articles claim about the particular chart position). The Faith Artist Agency is blatantly not a WP:RS, nor is there anything substantial there anyway. AlphaOmegaNews doesn't appear to be a RS, and it really doesn't provide much of use anyway. Cross Rhythms seems decent, there's a good amount of coverage there - it's not a textbook RS, but it seems solid enough. The District Coffee House is neither a RS, nor does it provide much in the way of coverage. I'm not going to say delete yet, because this may be worth keeping, if another source turns up. There's no evidence of the Grammy award nomination, at least, not in the cited ref. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pocholo Gonzales

I believe this article has been compromised. He's one of the most notable voice over actor in the Philippines based on the websites and tv interviews. You check out his website. www.pochologonzales.com and www.creativoices.com

Pocholo Gonzales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional puff piece written presumably by someone with a COI. B (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a voice actor, it's possible that he can pass WP:ENTERTAINER if he's in several roles or has done a major of notable roles. Unfortunately, I failed to find enough reliable coverage for him. Being a fan of anime, and thus having a small interest in voice acting (or dubbing), it is with a heavy heart that I !vote weak delete, this time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:43, 17 March 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,  Gong show 14:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 02:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schuyler Iona Press

Schuyler Iona Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer lacking Ghtis and GNEWS of substance. The provided references are only single line entries and lack substance. There is no evidence of award or of nomination. Appears to be a vanity piece. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:AFTER showing that her work has received positive response.[12] One of the daugters of Darren and C. Fraser Press, she has received modest recognition just as is the entire Press family is receiving coverage. For example, a report on the2012 Orlando Film Festival screening of Theresa is a Mother speaks positively toward the film and family member's contributions to it, specifically stating "The multi-talented Schuyler Iona Press wrote and performed the feature’s score." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schuyler Iona Press has been the subject of non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician. Reliable sources are properly cited in the article. In addition Schuyler Iona Press has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a notable film. The film for which she wrote the score has won multiple Best Film awards. This meets two necessary criteria for Music. Furthermore, under the criteria for General Notability Guideline, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. To reiterate, Schuyler Iona Press has received coverage independent of the subject (Schuyler Iona Press) in reliable sources. Any issues with copyright regarding images is more about not providing enough or the correct information when uploading, this issue will be resolved as the intention is to upload images with Free License in Wikimedia Commons. The Schuyler Iona Press article is unbiased and was developed only after the topic (Schuyler Iona Press) received film festival awards as a musician, Film festival nominations as an actress, and coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schuyler Iona Press is a young (14 yo) artist with a growing fan base that is becoming more interested in her work and opinions. I would respectfully request not deleting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwalksintoabar (talk • contribs) 07:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - increasingly notable individually and as part of the family; better to have a separate article than to merge with Darren Press. – SJ + 02:12, 24 March 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,  Gong show 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schuyler Iona Press is starring in a film that has been reviewed and has won Best Film at 3 film festivals including the Orlando Film Festival. She has also been nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Award from an established indie film festival in Washington DC. In addition, the music video for her song "Playground Museum" was a winner at a major west coast film festival. All cites are legitimate and fit the criteria for acceptable and reliable cites. The West Orlando News is a legitimate news source in Orlando, Florida and supports with published information that Schuyler Iona Press wrote the score for an award winning feature film. I would respectfully request not deleting this article.Manwalksintoabar (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While we're on the subject, Darren Press could use some attention--most of the sources there refer only to his projects, a number don't mention him at all, and I didn't see a published source that was exclusively about him. The same COI may be at play in Theresa is a Mother (Film), which is a press release at the moment. Perhaps they all meet notability, but there's a promotional hand in this. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED. Miniapolis 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see substantive coverage in reliable sources, only mentions and appearances because of the father and an interview in an online magazine. No criterion of WP:MUSICBIO is met. Notability is not inherited. Hekerui (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mike V • Talk 00:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan Sikh riots

Amitabh Bachchan Sikh riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

can be merged with main amitabh bachan article Uncletomwood (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nominating user has not given any reason why this page should be deleted. Uncletomwood if you think it should be merged then use a merge proposal instead. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the content of this article has been deleted from Amitabh Bachchan on several occasions because of BLP issues, weighting, prose style and copyright violation. As such, this really amounts to a POV fork by someone who is determined to get the information on Wikipedia by one means or another. I rather think that it may still contain copyright violations. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content of the article looks correct, as this thing did appear in Media, however it doesn't require an article of its own. It was an allegation (without any proff) which was refuted by Amitabh Bachchan and also no further action is taken by any government or SGPC. The content of the article can however be inducted into 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, however after changing the tone a bit.--Vigyani (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallingbrook Community Elementary School

Fallingbrook Community Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Elementary school. Nothing special about it. A redirect to the school district has been reverted. Furthermore, the lead paragraph contains contact information, something that should be left out altogether. Recommending the creation of a protected redirect.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lorena Pinot

Lorena Pinot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

largely unsourced article. Sources not always backing up what is claimed. Due to a potential COI, article is unreliable. The Banner talk 14:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Her main claim to fame to date is being a member for a couple years of the revamped Miami Sound Machine (2001-3). I'm unable to find any coverage for her beyond passing mentions [13][14][15]. Miami Sound Machine does not have its own article, and redirecting to Gloria Estefan doesn't make sense. Subject also tried out for American Idol (season 7) but apparently did not make the top 24. She does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.  Gong show 15:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell Talk 20:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewardship economy

Stewardship economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have a few concerns about this article which discusses the theory 'stewardship economy' which appeared in one self-published book by Julian Pratt in 2011. The vast majority of the references on the article predate this publication by some date and do not discuss this theory by name. I have searched for references to this theory in academic library and can find nothing that suggests to me it is a widely accepted and discussed term in this field. After discussing it briefly with the reviewer who accepted at AFC, two further web citations were found - I feel that these are blog coverage however rather than the level of academic commentary that I'd expect for a notable economic theory. For these reasons and also that the article was written by the author of the book which some might consider promotion of his theory/book I thought this would really merit some discussion to see what people think generally. nonsense ferret 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from author

I agree that there is a reasonable concern about the notability of the topic and will be interested to see what consensus arises. The article does make several references to the self-published book of the same name. The references I put into the article do indeed predate the publication of the Stewardship Economy but are included to provide the reader with context and explanation, not to establish notability.

The thing that has convinced me of its notability has been the response of all three of the UK authors on land value taxation that I most admire. EllenCT has identified the response of David Boyle in his blog on the website of the New Economics Foundation, which is I think the most respected neutral UK body that is open to heterodox economic ideas. I have included in the article the review that Tony Vickers (author of Location Matters and Chair of the Lib Dems policy group on land value taxation and economic reform) that he submitted to the Lib Dem's magazine Challenge (www.stewardship.ac/reviews.htm) in which he describes it as 'a term that deserves to stick' and says 'There will be no success for us land-taxers until we can frame our policies within a stewardship context'. But the most weighty endorsement of the ideas comes from the influential newsletter of James Robertson (author of many books including Benefits and Taxes and founder of the New Economics Foundation) (http://www.jamesrobertson.com/news-jul11.htm). I was also delighted when the main UK publisher on Land Value Taxation, Shepheard-Walwyn, chose to promote it on their Ethical Economics website.

Whether these are sufficient indications of notability only the Wikipedia community can decide. But there is a real problem faced by anything in the field of heterodox economics, that there will never be a long list of articles in widely respected peer reviewed academic journals, because it lies outside the remit of such journals.

I will attend to the removal of bullets and addition of references to the benefits section, but that is I think a side issue. And my Africa credentials are interesting to me but not material.

Many thanks for giving your time to this Julianpratt (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: On first pass, given the placement in the economic footer and reading it, it sounded like an easy keep. Upon closer examination, I could find only one real source for this: A single book by one author. Given that is is being shown as an important economic model, I would think there would be one reference on Google News, World Cat, National Library of Australia, National Library of Australia, the US Library of Congress, Newsbank, Google Books, the University of Canberra catalog, The Economist website, the Chicago Tribune. I just could not find anything there to support this being an economy type of any note. Reading the text and absent any other reliable sources based on independent search, it appears to border on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Of the sources listed by EllenCT, the first is trivial, the second references "product stewardship economy" and is unclear if it is the same topic (and also trivial), Sustaining the earth source is also trivial, the next source has more details but is also about "product stewardship economy" which never appears in the article, Report - Water Resources Center, University of California, Issues 77-84 is a trivial mention to a resource stewardship economy and is trivial, the next reference is also trivial, and the same for the last. Not the same names and trivial. Does not establish WP:GNG and shows major problems with WP:V for this article. --LauraHale (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I agree with the nominator's rationale. Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the nominator and also User:LauraHale above. I'd expect that if this was a notable theory the book would be widely available in libraries, but the only copy I was able to find anywhere in the world was in the Rhodes University library in South Africa. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mike V • Talk 00:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obopay

Obopay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been deleted six times: once by PROD and five times by speedy deletion. I think it is time to settle the issue of whether it should exist once and for all.

It is a largely promotional article, with no evidence of notability. At least one reference is a link to a page that does not mention Obopay, one is a dead link. Another one is a page at www.obopay.com. The rest appear to mostly be pages on sites which provide promotional services to businesses. Some are obviously that, such as one at www.prnewswire.com, but others are clearly similar in nature if you look closer. For example, there is a page at www.finextra.com, a site which says of itself "Finextra is the leading independent newswire and information source for the worldwide financial technology community. ... Finextra offers a range of advertising, lead generation and promotional opportunities to support marketing campaigns, build brands, attract delegates to events and reach new prospects." Another reference is a page on a website which says of itself "F&I Management & Technology Magazine's mission is to be the leading business media resource for dealer F&I opportunities", which is a roundabout way of saying that it provides advertising. It is, in fact, not clear to me that any of the references is a genuinely independent source, the most promising of them apparently being write-ups of a few press releases telling the world about particular business deals that Obopay has entered into. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Completely agree with nominator's analysis of the sources in the article. On a search of Google News, I found one article of significant coverage at Business Week. Other items that look at first glance like significant coverage turned out to be press releases, such as this one published by (and disavowed by) Reuters. Google News Archive turns up a few passing mentions in Reliable Sources like Bloomberg. Bottom line, a single article in Business Week plus some passing mentions and press releases do not amount to significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and this subject does not pass WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt as per MelanieN and JamesBWatson: couldn't put it better myself if I tried. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Fails WP:CORP, the nominator has analyzed the article better than I ever could at this point, and I agree with his assessment.
  • Delete, As noted by MelanieN the subject has received significant coverage once, and has received multiple passing mentions in non-primary reliable sources, that being said it is my opinion that the article the subject has not yet passed general notability as one significant coverage article is IMHO sufficient to pass GNG. Perhaps it is too soon for this subject to be considered notable, so I am not ready to declare that the article title should be salted, given that the multiple other mentions may increase at some point in the future where they may added up to be significant coverage, I would say it is just too soon for this article to be considered notable at this point in time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been created and recreated SEVEN TIMES. There is clearly somebody really pushing this. I still say salt, and if there is better information in the future, they can request that it be unsalted. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Presumably "sufficient to pass GNG" should read "insufficient to pass GNG".
  2. The fact that the situation may change in the future is not a reason for not salting, as it can always be unsalted if and when new evidence is found. Nevertheless, my choice would be to leave it unsalted for now. If the people who keep re-creating it accept the consensus here then there is no need for salting, and if they don't, and re-create it, then will be the time for salting. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The coverage is mostly passing coverage or press releases. I could not find anything beyond the Businessweek item already mentioned above. As for salting, given that this article has only previously been deleted with low scrutiny methods (PROD and speedies), I think we can leave it unsalted and deal with salting later if it reappears and is still not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mike V • Talk 00:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Pabrai

Ali Pabrai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long tagged as resume-like, at least one of the claims of notability has long been verification-failed per talk-page, overall reads like hopelessly promotional piece. Both the original and recent major contributor are COI (one of those is who deprodded (prod supported by two other editors) and made it even more blatantly promotional instead. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Intent, Pennsylvania

Good Intent, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unincorporated spot, that doesn't show any notability. It's not a Census-designated place or a seat for a township. The sole source here is that the US Geological survey saying that it exists. Google didn't turn up much either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, whether this unincorporated community has a zip code or not is irrelevant. Whether this is a township seat is irrelevant. Whether this is or ever was a notable place is the question. The nominator's contention that Google "didn't turn up much" is not entirely correct, as these things go. Take, for example, this HISTORY OF THE GOOD INTENT FIRE COMPANY of Pottsville, published in 1899, noting organization in 1846. Is that a firm name or is that a firm name derived from a place name? Is that a firm name that provided the origin of a future community place name? Not entirely clear. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming good faith here, so I'd appreciate it if you do the same. I'm not "entirely incorrect". In fact, you're pretty incorrect. That source is about a fire company in Pottsville, which is on the other side of the state. While you're wildly guessing about company names etc, I'm not. Since I'm actually familiar with the location, I don't have to chase my tail about a fire company that doesn't exist (because Good Intent doesn't have one. They're covered by one of the Finley townships.), from a town on the other side of the state. Good Intent is a sign post and a gas station. That's it. A township seat or zip code would give some indication that we might find notability. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ENN tell us that simply existing isn't enough. There needs to be significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your sneering demeanor notwithstanding (love the bolding, nice), I tend to agree with you at this point that Good Intent is a non-notable unincorporated suburb of Pottsville. There is certainly a far less substantial case here than there, if you follow me. Try a little WP:AGF, it works wonders... Carrite (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have zero room to talk about AGF my friend. And you are still not getting it. I don't know or care if there is a suburb of Pottsville called Good Intent. We're talking about the one in Washington County, not Schuylkill County. Your source (and apparently you) are talking about the wrong place. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix that but got shut down by a site interruption. Your point is well taken about my pdf link being to a company in another part of the state, now fixed. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, it would. Striking my delete, I will sit this one out. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment (more sources): rather than add clutter here, I added more potential sources to the talk page 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the five pillars, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and therefore should include articles on all verified settlements. Based on WP:OUTCOMES and a whole lot of past AfDs, there is a lot of precedent for keeping settlement articles as well. The GNIS citation in the article and the source provided by 78.26 show that this is a verified place. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, nobody disputes that it's there. I attended elementary school there. Actually, the 5 pillars doesn't say this is a gazetteer. It says it combines features of gazettees with other things. While Outcomes is interesting, it's not policy or even a guideline. It certainly doesn't carry more weight than WP:NGEO, which tells us that populated places without a legal designations need to pass GNG or be redirected to the bigger entity (in this case West Finley Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TheCatalyst31 is correct. This is a real place, and we've now found some substantial coverage. That's enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OUTCOMES documents the overwhelming precedent at past AFDs that real communities whose existence is proven will be kept; this article is no different from the subjects of past AFDs. A major reason that we keep communities is that local histories are routinely printed about them, although many haven't yet made it online; someone who visits the Washington city library or the university libraries in Washington, California, or Pittsburgh will find reliable local histories that discuss this community's history. Meanwhile, note that there's no such designation as "township seat", at least in Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The township seat is a relative term. It would be where the board actually meets or even where the township gets their mail. Neither would apply here. I happen to be one of those who has been to the libraries you mentioned. Even the offices of the newspaper in question. I know my personal experience isn't a reliable source, but it does seem strange that the only person in this conversation that has actually been there is the one who knows it isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Apparently consensus is that if something happens in a mine or factory of the same name as a nearby town, then notability is absorbed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania

Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unincorporated spot, that doesn't show any notability. It's not a Census-designated place or a seat for a township. The sole source here is that the US Geological survey saying that it exists. Google didn't turn up much either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same source, different page, indicates that Hazel Kirk is an unincorporated area that is part of Carroll Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Flicker photo caption of a 1948 photo doesn't count towards GNG (not that this is all that important in terms of notability of places of confirmed exitence) but does lend support to the idea that this was a mining ghost town, calling it a "village." THIS from the same set of photos repeats the claim and gives a look at the unincorporated community as it appeared in 1948. That seems amply sufficient for verifiability of a place. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER WEB SITE (Coal Camp USA) offers a color photo of surviving homes from what would seem to be the company town period of Hazel Kirk and notes that Hazel Kirk No. 2 was the site of a mining disaster. You will note that the caption also refers to "Hazel Kirk, PA" as a place. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody denies it exists. So proving it exists isn't really helpful. Neither is showing where it is. What is being questioned is the notability. It is not a CDP. It doesn't have a zip code that I can find. Simply existing doesn't make something notable. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect to Carroll Township. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a place that exists, we are done here. I've added sourced content on the 1905 Hazel Kirk mine disaster which should be more than sufficient reason to demonstrate why company town pages are worth keeping, even if the United States Postal Service doesn't give them a zip code in 2013. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it exists we are done? Wrong. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ENN disagree. Second, your claim about the accident is a red herring. The name of the mine was Hazel Kirk No. 2. The article refers to it as a mine, not a town. It goes so far as to say "near the village of Van Voohis, six miles from Monongahela". It never talks about a town or village of Hazel Kirk. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at WP:OUTCOMES. Populated places of verified existence are almost always kept. Whether something has a zip code or is a township seat is irrelevant. MAP QUEST doesn't seem to be confused as to whether there is a place called "Hazel Kirk, PA." The search engine RECORDSBASE.COM seems to think it is a place that exists... Carrite (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I've seen it before. That essay is an interesting read, but not policy or guideline. A more detailed essay relevant here would be WP:NGEO. For Populated places without legal recognition (which is what this would be) it says "are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." GNG, which is exactly why I'm here. I see coverage of a mine with that name, but as a "community", I don't see anything passing GNG. In the event that GNG isn't met, then "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." would apply, bringing us back to the redirect that I said I wouldn't oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to make formal note that the nominator is stripping out new work and laying in inapplicable DUBIOUS tags in an effort to tendentiously undermine the saving of this piece. I am going to step back now for a day or two to allow others to weigh in here and advise the seemingly overinvested nominator to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think published newspapers and non-commercial historical websites are not Reliable Sources, the RS Noticeboard is thataway.-----> Burden of proof that they are unreliable is upon you. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, nobody said a newspaper isn't a reliable source. But your source isn't a newspaper, it's a Geocities site where two women type things and tell you that's what the newspaper said. And yeah, check your talk page, already at the RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, nobody disputes that it's there. Actually, the 5 pillars doesn't say this is a gazetteer. It says it combines features of gazettees with other things. While Outcomes is interesting, it's not policy or even a guideline. It certainly doesn't carry more weight than WP:NGEO, which tells us that populated places without a legal designations need to pass GNG or be redirected to the bigger entity (in this case Carroll Township). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Reliable Sources Noticeboard debate related to sources cited in this piece is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_published_history_site. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources name it as a company town. United Mine Workers Locals 1477 and 2029 were there.[16] The location was home to many Slovakian immigrant miners and their families, and boasted a schoolhouse. (Pittsburgh History, 1993, volumes 76 and 77, pages 102, 113. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania.) The 1926 edition of Pennsylvania: A History (Lewis Historical Publishing Co.) describes a farming and mining township called Carroll, near Monongahela, containing seven towns: Frye, Hazel Kirk, Riverview, Black Diamond, Eldora, Baird and Baidland. Two obituaries describe persons born in Hazel Kirk, PA: Raymond L. Dale and August Katrencik, Sr. A bus franchise dispute was described in 1932 as involving transit between Monongahela and the "mining communities" of Hazel Kirk, Dunkirk and Van Voorhis. A 2005 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described a guy documenting all the disappearing "coal towns" of Pennsylvania, including Hazel Kirk. A 1984 newspaper article describes the danger of flooding because of ice jams at Hazel Kirk and Van Voorhis. A 1968 news article is datelined "Hazel Kirk", discussing mine fires. A 1905 news article differentiates between the Hazel Kirk mines and the community named Hazel Kirk. A 1988 news article discusses a power outage in Carroll Township affecting Hazel Kirk residents. I think the article should be kept because the place has an interesting history, and the topic can be made informative enough for our readers. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amazed at how mere mentions that someplace exists (something not in dispute) keeps getting seen as significant coverage. Even the first source you cite here is a table that names the mine, then gives the address as someplace else. Apparently separating the fact that there were mines named Hazel Kirk from an actual notable community named Hazel Kirk is not possible. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why so much effort is being expended to erase valid and useful information from the encyclopedia. The place exists, we all agree, so why delete it? Various interesting events have occurred in this place; a fuller article may be composed about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OUTCOMES documents the overwhelming precedent at past AFDs that real communities whose existence is proven will be kept; this article is no different from the subjects of past AFDs. A major reason that we keep communities is that local histories are routinely printed about them, although many haven't yet made it online; someone who visits the Washington city library or the university libraries in Washington, California, or Pittsburgh will find reliable local histories that discuss this community's history. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until someone visits? Um, I'm the only one in the conversation that has visited the Washington library (hundreds of times), and the Observer-Reporter offices We're here citing mere mentions as coverage. If this amount of coverage were being given to an actor, he'd likely get deleted. Same for a company. But the argument to avoid WP:ITEXISTS seems to get suspended when it's a signpost along a back road or named similarly to some mines that had an actual event.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being, of course, that notability for actors is a relatively high bar while the notability of populated communities is the lowest of low bars. Long-established precedent is that named populated communities of confirmed existence are kept. I appreciate that you are apparently local and feel strongly about this, but this seems a clearcut keep per both precedent and cited sources. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 01:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MizzFIT

MizzFIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is apparently an article about MizzFIT and not about Bianca Jade. That's just a false veneer trying to hide it's true purpose. But for now I'll pretend. Since this is about MizzFIT lets look at the sources. Passing mentions of the subject. EG The New YorK Post used three times. A Baldwin attends an avent related to MizzFIT, passing mention that is so important that this "encycopedia" article fells it's so important to use it repeatedly. Look at the rest, which provides independent covereage of MizzFIT beyound saying Bianca Jade of MizzFIT. A bunch of pieces where they talk to Jade, they mention Jade or are provided by MizzFIT or Jade (not independent). Stopping pretending, This is just an attempt to backdoor an article about Bianca Jade pretending to be about her website. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If in doubt, WP:IAR to stop Wi[pipedia from being overtaken by spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of credible sources, what exists has been stretched out beyond reason. No significant coverage about the website or its role in the grander scheme of things. Passing mentions, but no extensive coverage. As this is the third time the page has been created, would salting be appropriate? Mabalu (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Prophetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musical group, but I can't find any indepth, reliable, and independent sources which discuss it. All sources are superficial (mere listings of their recordings) or they aren't reliable (a few non-reliable blogs) or they aren't independent (the group's own website, for example). It doesn't appear that any reliable sources have covered this group outside of themselves, and as such, the article does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. Jayron32 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, This article should not be deleted. There are reliable sources available on the artist in question. You are bullying and not explaining your reasons rationally. It is clear that the artists has had releases and has been involved in TV campaigns. Instead of screaming delete! delete!, You have been broad in your statements with no real clarification behind your accusations in trying to fix the article which offends you so greatly. Stop being so unhelpful and be more accurate with reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John shaftman (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 March 2013‎
Please show which words I wrote above were not rational, or please show where I screamed "delete! delete!". I have simply and rationally explained why this article needs to be deleted, and I have not screamed. --Jayron32 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- To be considered notable enough for an article they need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Can you find any newspaper articles that mention them, for instance? Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you added does not mention the band.Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and user is a sockpuppet.Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article Look again user:Paul Bardson was right to submit the link, the article submitted does mention the band. user:john shaftman 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link I removed was this one [17] and it doesn't mention Blak prophetz? Please assume good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is good and truthful, Much of what the artist has achieved was pre-internet and documented in magazines which has not yet full been available electronically. It is clear that there are sources and it is clear that the artist in question has achievements. The user user:Theroadislong has been harassing this creator of the article without understanding that the user user:john shaftman has been trying to comply and help. Links to external sources has been provided as proof of the works by the artist. To say that the artist does not exist is an outright tactic of bullying as there are factual evidence out there that does demonstrate that the artist is prominent and is and has worked with prominent and other known and respected artists who would vouch for his work.

KEEP THE ARTICLE It is unfortunate that the artist has become a target as no one other user has looked into the Wikipages of the very people he has worked with without order or stipulating that those pages be also deleted as harshly as the Blak Prophetz page has been targeted as they too consist of similar styled references. Stop bullying and targeting the article without looking at the other sources they are referencing. If Blak prophetz is guilty then so are all the others he has done work with. Not all documentation of achievements can be found electronically but it is clear that publications are talking about the achievements.

[1] Hello Cotton

[2]British Hip Hop Database

[3]Flavour Magazine (A Reputable Music Publication in the UK)

[4]UG Rap Online Magazine, Europe

[5] Blues and Soul , which was added by user: Paul Bardson and disregarded.

Literally 5 mins after user:Paul Bardson published a reference it was targeted by user:Theroadislong to disregard with insult. This is targeting and bullying and it should not be allowed.

Keep Article It is clear that they do exist and they qualify for a place on Wikipedia. The author of the article has asked you on many occasions to help and to stop being so insulting and instead help to build the article in a respectful manner as it is clear they have done work. Wikipedia should not allow targeting in this manner.

I would like to see the delete statement at the top of the article removed from the article as it is insulting especially when there are pages within the article referenced which are like the very article which has not been targeted for deletion in this way. please take your time to look at the other articles referenced by the creator of the article and you will not find a single article deemed for deletion in this manner. user:john_shaftman —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Keep : The Article Blak Prophetz

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - Section C,

Point 1. - If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. The article should not had been pushed for speedy deletion.

This article is not being "pushed for speedy deletion". This is a discussion of whether this article belongs in Wikipedia. "Normal editing" will not fix the deficiencies in the article.

Point 2. - If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. The contributor issuing the speed deletion ignored the the user:john shaftman's request and plea for time to update the article correctly. The author is and was seeking Editor assistance and guidance at the time, hence the request for time which was ignored.

John, this article was not recently created. You created this article on 10 July 2007.[18] Maintenance tags were added that reliable sources were needed to establish notability shortly after it was created.[19] Other maintenance tags were added[20] by and editor and you promptly removed them[21] without improving the article and did so again[22][23] and again[24][25] and again.[26][27] Five years is more than sufficient time to improve sources to establish notability and generally develop the article.

Keep According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Section D.

Point 2. - If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. The user issuing the AFD Nomination did not give the contributing author user:john shaftman enough time to obtain help to fix the article. The focus was primarily to insult and delete with these simple considerations.

As noted above, sufficient time was available to fix the article.

Point 3. - If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. - The user forcing deletion did not comply instead requested speedy deletion therefore invited disagreement to the author with a cause for argument, This behavior could be considered Harassment hence the authors reaction to removing the AFD consistently was a reaction to the disagreement as there was no consideration of time to improve or assist.

Maintenance tags should not be removed until the noted problems are removed. Removing unsourced material from articles is not harassment, it's Wikipedia policy. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 19:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is on these grounds I request a Speedy keep and the removal of the AFD Notice on the said page entitled Blak Prophetz

(User:john shaftman) 19:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please visit the article entitled Demon Music Group owners of Track licensing and you will see evidence. If you still can't see it, then here is a raw link to their home page, simply scroll down the page and you will see Identifying reliable sources. You might then even reply with the claim that Demon Music Group does NOT exist and it is a made-up scam who makes the claim to be owned by the BBC. Please also reveal and tell us, which sources you used to check for globally music released singles or albums as you claim is not valid if the band holds a valid registered Barcode and ISRC code registered with Neilson Nielsen Company. Therefore I suggest you try typing the following registered barcode into Google 829282000030 Your claim in itself is unreliable as you have not revealed your method of investigation. I find it stunning how such a statement and 'claim' of personal promotion can be made without revealing methods used to investigate. This article meets and is currently been worked on. Visit [- Global Barcode Search]

(User:john shaftman) 19:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added the details of Blak Prophetz to the Demon Music Group article but there is no evidence of them on the website? http://www.demonmusicgroup.co.uk/ArtistAZ?arg=B Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demon Music Group handle labels, Artist and Track Licensing, Please click on the icon called 'Track Licensing on the top right, then scroll down on the home page and you will see the artist known as Sure Shot aka Blak Prophetz where they also speak of the Mentos TV Advert which they did the music for. Track Licensing is the licensing division for DMG, owned by the same company and the BBC - Previously know as 2 Entertain who got taken over. I understand that you want the answers blatantly and directly but sometimes a little research helps. (User:john shaftman) 12:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the responsibility of the reader to do the research. If YOU want to add material to Wikipedia, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the reference to a reliable source; see WP:BURDEN. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David, Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentos_fruity_3 - I take it this has no reliable sources righty and will be recommended for speedy deletion too, yes? (User:john shaftman) 12:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(User:john shaftman) 09:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(User:john shaftman) 09:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's a 6 line review of one record, and the source is hardly reliable. Major hip-hop press would be magazines like Vibe or The Source or Hip Hop Connection, which are well respected hip hop magazine. Your link is to a website which does not appear to be a well-respected reputable source of music industry journalism, and doesn't appear to have been active since 2011 (the copyright notice has not been updated since then). A single 6 line review in a sketchy website which may or may not even still be active is not enough to hang a Wikipedia article on. Extensive, repeated, and in-depth coverage in magazines like Vibe or The Source would be. Come back when magazines of that caliber and reputation cover this act. --Jayron32 20:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was once upon a time, one administrator deleted all these fairtytale articles. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (Once Upon a Time)

Snow White (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Snow White obviously is a notable fictional character. A notable alternative incarnation is Snow White (Disney). The previous two articles are well sourced, discuss narrative/plot briefly, and document the out-of-universe notability of the character. None of this is the case for the article on the Once Upon a Time (TV series)-incarnation. This one consists of a bloated "character biography" (basically an overly-detailed plot description) and a short section on "personality". None of this is sourced and basically reflects the opinion of the editor(s) who have added this text. There is no indication whatsoever of any out-of-universe notability. The article completely fails WP:FICTION and for those who would like to argue that that is just an essay, not a guideline: this fails WP:N completely, too. Perhaps some would like to argue that this article needs to be split off from the List of Once Upon a Time characters because it is getting to big. However, that list itself simply consists of bloated, overly-detailed plot descriptions and needs to be pared down considerably before becoming even remotely encyclopedic. WP is not a fansite. Hence: Delete.

For the same reasons as above, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion:

Dr. Whale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Victor Frankenstein (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red Riding Hood (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jiminy Cricket (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Charming (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Captain Hook (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pinocchio (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil Queen (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henry Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regina Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mary Margaret Blanchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Archie Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August Booth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Nolan (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Huntsman (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mr. Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruby (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rumplestiltskin (Once Upon a Time) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sheriff Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge basic information to List of Once Upon a Time characters and/or redirect depending on how much information is needed. This level of depth fails WP:INUNIVERSE, and there simply is not enough reliable source text analyzing these characters to justify stand alone articles for each. If there comes such a time in the future when there is enough independent, reliable source text that analyzes a character from the show to the point where a stand-alone article can be supported, then that character can be spun out as its own article. I don't see that we are there yet. --Jayron32 12:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of independent, RS, non-trivial coverage of these characters. It is enough that these characters are extremely notable outside of their original versions. Enough sources can be added later on. • Sonofaphrodite (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Where are these claimed RS, non-trivial outside coverage of these characters. The Snow White article has 15 references, all of which are to show episodes. The Mary Margaret Blanchard article only has a reference to another wiki. Wikipedia is not a fan site, we do not do blow by blow coverage of characters. This is worth a sentance mention in the Snow White article at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, for the reasons spelled out by Randykitty. Not only that, but the majority of the summaries on these articles have been taken word for word from the corresponding articles on onceuponatime.wikia.com. Utter solitude (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as I agree with Utter the pages were created, and whole paragraphs from after the date of page creation on Wikipedia on February 3rd, 2013, were taken from the onceuponatime.wikia.com website. As per the history edit, the page history for Snow White on the Wikipedia dated February 3rd is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_White_(Once_Upon_a_Time)&oldid=536334780

And the state of the Snow White page on the wikia dated February 3rd (the same date) is as follows: http://onceuponatime.wikia.com/wiki/Snow_White?oldid=156078

Open both in separate windows, and tell me you don't see they are nearly identical word for word. I can assure you that the Once Upon a Time Wikia does not and never copies history summaries from anywhere else, and all the summaries written for recaps, individual character pages and pages detailing items or locations were all written by a handful of users who help contribute to adding information to the website. I am very upset to learn the creation of these pages on Wikipedia is as a result of Sonofaphrodite copying whole pages from the Wikia, and taking all the credit for himself in the process of pasting everything in, and unassumingly, several users editing the page after him have no idea they are editing plagiarized content that he did not write. If he did help write *some* of the summaries on the Once Upon a Time Wikia, it is still wrong to copy and paste everything on the Wikia's individual page itself onto here because he obviously did not write the whole page on the Wikia, which is a group writing and editing effort on the Wikia itself. Applegirlz (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Darn, I missed those somehow. As several people have already !voted here and this AfD has been under way for several days, I think it is inappropriate to simply add them to this nom, so I'm afraid it will have to be a separate AfD. Let's wait until this one is over and then start that one, just not to swamp SfD with OUaT discussions... --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Yeah, i'm a fan of the show, but this is overkill. List of Once Upon a Time characters is enough inclusion in the encyclopedia. We don't need to content fork each one into a different article. Feedback ☎ 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I definitely agree with deleting all these pages, especially after discovering that they were mostly plagarised from the Once Upon a Time Wiki. There is definitely not enough real world, verifiable sources besides talk from fans and the cast and directors themselves to justify the creation of multiple pages for separate characters. There is already a lot of detail on other pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Once_Upon_a_Time_characters and the pages for each separate episode of Once Upon a Time.

By the way, if these pages do get deleted, then most of the links to character pages on the main OUAT page will have to be changed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters PS: looks like I just got a conflict (look above) when writing this. Jhgenius01 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per WP:CSD#A9. SpinningSpark 12:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Gambling for Vegas

Leave the Gambling for Vegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, fails WP:GNG and hence WP:NALBUMS. the references are mostly inappropriate ones to sites such as Amazon.com and iTunes and myspace. The one ref which looked like it might have some substance is the Allmusic.com entry, but that's just a bare listing. So there is no sign of the significant coverage in reliable sources which would meet WP:GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per WP:CSD#A9. SpinningSpark 12:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Smile from the Trenches EP

A Smile from the Trenches EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, mostly referenced to blogs. No sign of any of the significant coverage in reliable sources which would meet WP:GNG (and hence WP:NALBUMS).

See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caught Cheating BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although my comment will see biased, the band itself is reliable. They have clashed with Ronnie Radke, have had notable members such as Derek Jones from Falling in Reverse in. Ahmad Alkurabi has been in Rob the Cartel with Mika Horiuchi whom use to be in Falling in Reverse. They have signed to DC Records which is a fairly big label if I must say so. There are a lot of bands who are not notable but yet have made it to wikipedia. Seeing as this article and A Smile from the Trenches EP have been around for a while, deleting it is a tad silly as you've left it late. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Ericdeaththe2nd[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A9. SpinningSpark 12:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caught Cheating

Caught Cheating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, referenced solely to Facebook, iTunes, and Spotify. No sign of any of the significant coverage in reliable sources which woud meet WP:GNG (and hence WP:NALBUMS) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although my comment will see biased, the band itself is reliable. They have clashed with Ronnie Radke, have had notable members such as Derek Jones from Falling in Reverse in. Ahmad Alkurabi has been in Rob the Cartel with Mika Horiuchi whom use to be in Falling in Reverse. They have signed to DC Records which is a fairly big label if I must say so. There are a lot of bands who are not notable but yet have made it to wikipedia. Seeing as this article and A Smile from the Trenches EP have been around for a while, deleting it is a tad silly as you've left it late. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Ericdeaththe2nd[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. I have seen the !vote for redirect, but Cornerstone (Danish band) is not a sensible redirect and can easily be created by anyone who thinks different. Jax, "BAM" is not a policy based argument and what that argument might supposed to be is not obvious from the contents of the links provided. I have interpreted it as a request for userfication which will shortly be at User:Jax 0677/Cornerstone (Danish band). SpinningSpark 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone (Danish band)

Cornerstone (Danish band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced perma-stub on a non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.

A search for sources threw up nothing, and there are no references in the linked pages on the German, Russian or Italian wikipedias.

Note that the band's two albums are both at AFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell Talk 20:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival (Cornerstone album)

Arrival (Cornerstone album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
And also:
Human Stain (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pair of wholly unreferenced articles on obscure albums. Both fail WP:NALBUMS. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilli Sørensen

Gilli Sørensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD contested by creator with no reason given. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact. The article was never PRODded, so the creator can hardly have contested a PROD, either with a reason or without... Struway2 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. It was requested for speedy. I dont know if the rules still applied however that an article can not be prodded if the speedy is declined so I AfDed it. I put PROD in my reason as I was rushing it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD was not declined.It was withdrawn(by me).I planned to start an AfD and hence withdrew it. TheStrikeΣagle 12:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I rushed when I created the AfD so I did not really look carefully enough and that is my mistake here. Either way it is in AfD now so lets make a decision. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Faroe Islands Premier League is not fully-professional. It is listed as a league that is the top tier of the country/Island but not a fully-pro one. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 10:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clemmie Moodie

Clemmie Moodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence for notability--no adequate third party sources about this journalist DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Guardian blog [32] is third-party. —rybec 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reason why a journalist from a major newspaper would be intrinsically notable, though some of the most important ones will be. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to The 3AM Girls. I cannot believe that we need an article on its editor as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the piece, I am new to this so please forgive me if I sound naive. I have added more third party references as suggested and will continue to do so. '3am girls' no longer exists and is now a column in Clemmie Moodie's name so this is why I did not add it to the '3am girls'.Dobbin1 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: want to give editors a chance to see the editing done to the page yesterday. J04n(talk page) 10:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kurtagić

Alex Kurtagić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prior discussion closed with zero community input, so renominating. Not appearing to be notable, few (if any) good sources to work off of (especially for a BLP involved with controversial topics), last two debates went no consensus although they were very underrepresented. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: difficult to assess consensus in a discussion that consists of "fails AUTHOR...passes AUTHOR", please describe how it passes a specific guideline or why the references on the page are insufficient. This is a BLP so our standards should be high. Thank you, J04n(talk page) 10:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the sources in the article adequately cover him in substantial enough detail to pass WP:GNG. Unless someone can show how the sources are inadequate, we should keep it. Ducknish (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I second that. It also seems like someone is pushing an agenda here. Four nominations for deletion in such a short time? You have to be kidding! 91.44.6.244 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

single edit IP

  • Keep - Sufficient by WP:GNG also just passing on music and book but overall a keep. What is surprising is that the most substantial source, the Searchlight (magazine) 2008 article on neo-Nazi metal music which mentions Alex Kurtagić extensively isn't in the article footnotes. Has it never been added, or been removed? Well it's there now. Personally my instinct would be to delete every heavy metal fan who thinks nazi imagery is cool, but WP:GNG doesn't take account of how repulsive that notability can. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VCU Rowdy Rams

VCU Rowdy Rams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a student sports fan club was speedy deleted for not asserting notability. A discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 March 10 concluded that it should be listed at AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion.  Sandstein  19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Milan Allievi Nazionali

A.C. Milan Allievi Nazionali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As big an A.C. Milan fan as I am, I don't think their under-17 team meets the notability requirements. Besides, there's already a section about the youth system as a whole in the A.C. Milan Primavera article, so I don't see the point in having a stand-alone article for any single age group. Luxic (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Luxic (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Shinde

Pratik Shinde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by IP. Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 of those sources are routine, explaining that he has been signed by the team. Almost every player in the world has one. Meanwhile the Hard Tackle one could count but that is just one, not enough for notability. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does that matter? In fact the All India Football Federation sent a bunch of under-14 players to the IMG Academy in Florida which has produced players like Landon Donovan. Do they deserve pages? Uttam Rai signed for Grasshopper Club Zürich when he was around 13-14. Does he deserve a page? No. The point here is the Shinde maybe Indian born and now plays in the United States but he has not played for a professional football club yet, nor has he gained enough coverage to warrant an article. That is the reality here. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment: Also note that him being an Indian footballer playing abroad does not count as notability. It is not as if he is the 1st one. He has not even done anything notable abroad anyway except for playing in the "4th tier" of American soccer. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dose he need a page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArsenalFan700/Uttam_Rai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.224.79 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Deletion Request Should Be Cancelled:Even i dont think Uttam Rai also need a page here !! He has also not done any grat for Indian football !! See i want to say clearly Shinde plays for 4th division ... that donot matter at all. He is the youngest Indian who plays abroad and is facing financial problem to go there and represent the club. He just wants a sponsor, who can sponsor his airline ticket fares only. ArsenalFan700 you sponsor him and this page will be deleted for sure !! Leave about that financial part, at least he is signed by some club to play for not like others who have joined Academy. I dont think this page need deletion at all as it have all kind of references that Wikipedia wants. Indianfootballlovers (talk)
Weird comment! We don't write articles in Wikipedia to find sponsors! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khawjah Wajhullah Shah

Khawjah Wajhullah Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable person.in my opinion not fit to be on wikipedia,let the community decide. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request for suggestion on improving the content value for the article. Thanks. Hajanazemuddeen (talk · contribs)28 March 2013

Dear Hajanazemuddeen -- Khawjah Wajhullah Shah seems like a remarkable person and I would like to have met him. However, for a Wikipedia article to exist on a person there needs to be some documentary evidence that others outside his circle and independent of him have acknowledged the noteworthiness of his career. For instance, were there obituaries (non-paid) in newspapers? Can you add a quotation from " Sufi Commentaries on the Qur'an in Classical Islam" which talks about K.W.Shah himself directly. Basically, his teaching and career needs to be documented by people not directly connected to K.W.Shah. Best of luck in searching. A delete vote here does not (or should not) be taken as a lack of respect for the subject but reflects the community's apprehension about its ability to ensure that what is said about the subject is true. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Scott Cuthbert's description of delete votes as needed "to ensure that what is said about the subject is true" is an accurate description of what the policy is intended to convey. However, statements like the nominator's really undermine the good faith efforts of deletion votes to reflect verifiability, and instead suggest disrespect of the subject. So, advice to the nominator to be neutral in description of reasons to nominate. Incendiary language like "not fit to be on Wikipedia" is not actually helpful to those of us looking at the pages. "unremarkable person" is a personal comment on the subject of the article, not an encyclopedic and neutral evaluation of reliability and verifiability of sources. Turning nominations into personal attacks on subjects of articles can offend the editors who wrote or edited the article, and frankly does not help the encyclopedic project. --Lquilter (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto and Elena Cortina Foundation

Alberto and Elena Cortina Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncletomwood (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- El Confidencial is a major Spanish news source, the BOE, is the Spanish government official publication, Mensajeros de la Paz is a NGO with more than 50 years experience, consulting status at UN and numerous awards, Zona Retiro is a local electronic newspaper for Madrid. Vicentealvarez2 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Enriched source references by using appropiate Cite templates Vicentealvarez2 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prodosh Aich

Prodosh Aich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable academic promoted because of a self-published book [33]. It remains unclear what Prodosh Aich's academic positions actually were. The article does not seem to use any reliable sources for the claims to notability. Mostly there are interviews on Hindutvadi websites. The non-reliability of Aich's book has already been discussed in detail on the Max Müller page. See Talk:Max_Müller#Muller.27s_educational_Qualifications. He appears to be the author of some sociology articles, and one 1962 book called Farbige unter Weissen, about Asian students in the West. I submit that he fails WP:PROF. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 March 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Some of the sources (particularly the first one in the article) seem to directly analyze the author's work. We usually do WP:PROF C1 by citations (here unimpressive, with 32, 28, 20, 16, 11 and an h-index of 5 on GScholar), but having other people view your work as sufficiently important to make it the main subject of articles in reliable sources is another way of going about things, so there's a plausible claim to notability there. Holdings of his books in Worldcat are fairly thin. This is the most marginal case of WP:BARE I've seen in a while, so opinions may easily differ. RayTalk 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep His major german works have holdings in more than 50 libraries each in Worldcat. For wa nonEnglish work of this nature, that's substantial. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet, let us discuss one more week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; the WP:BLP1E argument is persuasive. The suggestion in favor of redirecting this article to Shady Lady Ranch is arguably reasonable. However, since this is a BLP article and the subject is linked in the article title to prostitution, the approach of least harm is probably to delete rather than redirect. MastCell Talk 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markus (prostitute)

Markus (prostitute) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded for "too many sources" even though the prod made it clear that they're all from the same two month timespan. The notability seems to be totally on WP:BLP1E, as he is notable only for being the "first legal male prostitute in the US", and did literally nothing of note afterward. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My actual explanation for deprodding this was as follows: "Deprodded: too many sources, too much edit history, multiple editors asserting notability, redirect/merge might be more appropriate, so this would be better considered at AfD." PROD is for non-controversial deletions, and when you have an edit history with multiple editors who have contested deletion and assert the notability of the subject [34][35], PROD just isn't the way to go. Also, WP:BLP1E is not necessarily an argument for deletion, since it instructs that "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article". This article is densely sourced, and if we conclude that it is an appropriate case for BLP1E, the better course of action is a merge to male prostitution or to Shady Lady Ranch, in both of which this professional pioneer is already mentioned. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources appear to cover him both leaving and joining his place of work (for want of a better term), so WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply in the strict sense. Plenty of sources in the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would it be reasonable to redirect this to a subsection for the article on Shady Lady Ranch? That article seems to mostly be about him anyway and together, the two could be a decent article. If/when Markus does anything that would give him additional notability outside of being the first legal male prostitute, we can un-redirect the article and flesh (drum riff) it out at that point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After re-reading parts of the article for SLR where it talked about how the brothel had tried to hire a male prostitute in 2009 but had to go through some legal issues at that point in time. It kind of confirms that I think this should redirect there, as the primary reason he was able to become legal is due to the actions of the brothel appealing to the applicable government agencies. I don't know if Markus is the same one that is discussed in 2009, but I'm more heavily leaning towards merging and redirecting there. The act was mostly accomplished by the brothel. Markus sort of just showed up at the right time. I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be a mention anywhere, just that I don't think it's really necessary to have a separate article at this point in time. It's a little premature, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. He just happened to be there- the brothel was actively looking for male applicants for the position after managing to get the ability to legally hire men. [37] I'm more thinking that the notability here lies with the actions of the brothel at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shady_Lady_Ranch#Male_prostitution, but keep the history. For right now the most important thing is that a brothel fought and won to have a legal male prostitute. The event itself is notable in my opinion, but this came about as a result of the actions of the brothel owners. Markus happened to be the first guy that was hired and while things of this nature don't automatically mean that people that "just happened to show up" can't become notable as a result, I don't really feel that this is the case here. If you get rid of all of the stupid stuff he said, ultimately what happened is this: "a brothel successfully campaigned to get the laws changed so they could hire male sex workers legally". When you boil it down to that level, I just don't really see where (at this point in time) he's notable outside of his time spent at the brothel. If he becomes notable for something else we can un-redirect and flesh the article out from there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be a useful redirect, especially since he apparently didn't use the term prostitute. In any case, career less than 2 months, 10 paying customers... not exactly the top of the profession there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue for the inclusion of the term "prostitute" as a potential redirect term. While he didn't use the term to describe himself, several newspapers and articles did, meaning that it could be possible that someone could write the term "prostitute" with his name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as Tokyogirl said. As the article stands, I see a lack of notability to justify maintaining it. However, as I can see this being a plausible redirect, there's no harm in making it one. There's no real loss, and if someone wants to search for him, a relevant article will appear. Ducknish (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A couple 404-ed sources in the footnotes (which doesn't imply they don't exist, I presume they do), but it's very clear that this is a first — which should count hugely towards notability, being the first legal male prostitute in America. Multiple instances of substantial sourcing about him, so blowing this up for a redirect doesn't seem appropriate. The Rosa Parks of American gigolos... Carrite (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shady Lady Ranch. WP:BLP1E, but a plausible search term I suppose. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Philippines relations

Iceland–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. a country comparison table says nothing about actual bilateral relations, the rest of the sources merely confirm existence of non resident embassies. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of coverage of relations. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Still working on it as of this writing. There are numerous sources about the bilateral relations of Iceland and the Philippines: 1 2 34 Sorry if I have not been updating this regularly. adkranz (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I think the article complies in WP:GNG now. I've edited the article as much as possible immediately after AfD notification was posted. Will look for more sources by the way. adkranz (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell Talk 20:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlock and starvation

Deadlock and starvation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, appears to possibly violate WP:OR or WP:SYNTH primary resource is russian wikipedia. If a software expert comes through and this is indeed notable please drop me a line on my talkpage and I will withdraw the nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect To Multithreading (software)#Multithreading. This is neither a pattern (such as thread pool) nor a type of parallel programming technique, it's a description of what happens when two processes (or threads) lock on an event or semaphore/critical section/mutex while trying to leave a wait state. It's not that the concept is not important (the differentiation between the two terms is), but it's just a an aspect of a larger topic. I'll also note that "as we shall show in chapter 7" might be indicative of a copyvio from somewhere, and since the "source" is the Mongol Wikipedia (not Russian), maybe it's a book in Mongol. Basically this is WP:OR, assuming again it's not a copyvio. This is the most plausible redirect I can offer... if someone would prefer some parallel computing topic I'm all for that too. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. No content that would not already be mentioned, plus a possible copyvio. However, the title is a plausible search term. The original Russian article looks dubious too, but I can't say for sure, because I know next to none Russian. JIP | Talk 06:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per possible copyvio as noted above, and because the term is already adequately covered (and would provide a suggested search term in shortened form) under Deadlock.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deadlock is already covered in Deadlock and starvation is already covered Resource starvation. Both of these articles are better sourced than the current article. Deadlock and starvation are concepts used both in multitasking (managing multiple processes in an operating system or multiple systems on a network) and multithreading (managing multiple threads in a process). Multitasking seems the more general term. --Mark viking (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the previous two users said, the information presented here is already available elsewhere is superior form. There's no sense in trying to preserve any aspect of this article. Ducknish (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Hotel

The Northern Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of significance. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be consensus to delete; while the station could be mentioned in University of Notre Dame#Student-run media, there's really no sourced material in the current article worth preserving for a merge. MastCell Talk 20:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Television

Notre Dame Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student-run cable channel that only appears on on-campus cable. No outside viewership. Article fails WP:GNG's requirement of coverage in independent reliable sources. GrapedApe (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:25, 11 March 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) 02:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:32, 19 March 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would also add that in my opinion changing the nomination text after others have already replied to it is a very dubious practice. Far better is a new comment after the replies, and if necessary striking the offending passage. SpinningSpark 15:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig McMorris

Craig McMorris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to his record he recently placed 50th in the FIS Snowboarding World Championships 2013, and at best 17th at the FIS Snowboard World Cup (and most recently 32nd). If we're not using his placements to assert notability, I don't see a lot of WP:SIGCOV outside run of the mill or WP:ROUTINE coverage for his events. Note: Google News mainly comes back with stories by Craig McMorris the news reporter. Mkdwtalk 06:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking (points accumulated) and final position are two different things. You can be any rank but if you finish 50th then the ranking means little. For example, on the FIS official 2013, he had 0 points and ranked 139th in 2013 and you can find him near the bottom despite placing 50th. If you're point out that he's notable because he's been in commercials then we'd look at him through WP:NACTOR but he wouldn't meet that criteria either. Getting sponsorships, advertising deals, and interviews is fairly routine for athletes. Mkdwtalk 07:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - McMorris has competed at the highest level in his sport. He is a member of his country's national team, competed in multiple World Cup competitions, and he has competed at the World Championships for slopestyle. There is simply no more higher level of competition than the World Championships for slopestyle. As for the assertion that a top 10 finish is needed in the world championship, I do not see it stated anywhere in the sports specific guidelines with the possible exception of the one for triathalon. On the contrary, many of the sport-specific guidelines mention participation in the World Champhionships without qualification based on their results at the competition. This is in line with the general guidance that competing at the highest level in the sport indicates notability; specifically WP:NTRACK, WP:NBADMINTON, WP:NCYC, WP:NSKATE, WP:NGYMNASTICS, WP:NHOCKEY. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's hard to compare specific guidelines that have to do with a completely other sport. It's oranges to apples, some of those are even team sports. As many guidelines cite they must have medalled or top 10 finishes. I just don't see how someone who didn't qualify for the Olympics and placed 50th at World's is notable enough for a standalone article. I mean, he would be a longshot precedent if you compare him against Category:Canadian snowboarders where they all have medalled. Mkdwtalk 16:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Can you clarify which guideline you are referring to which cite "medalled or top 10 finishes" because I didn't see any. As for comparing McMorris to other snowboarders, it's a rather WP:OTHERSTUFF type of argument. The fact that we don't have articles on all the snowboarders who have competed at the World Champioships indicates to me that nobody has got around to it yet. I would agree that they don't represent high priority articles for creations, but they would all meet WP:NSPORT which is what guides thje decision on topic inclusion for sports people. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely pointing out that saying other athletes in other sports are notable because is the same argument because they're unrelated sports. I think we can both agree that in lieu of no direct guideline about snowboarders that WP:ATHLETE (WP:NSPORT) is the prevalent guideline that should be used. The basis for my nomination was a lack of SIGCOV outside of WP:ROUTINE and run of the mill coverage since most stories I find are not directly about him across a wide range of publications (most about Team Canada, the World's, or other teammates). Mkdwtalk 18:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I mentioned the other sports is because the nominating statement stated "finished in the top 10 when competing in their respective World Championship", and I was trying to address that point of your nomination. It would be helpful if you clarified what you mean by that. It appears we both agree that no such statement appears in any of the notability guidelines, so it would be helpful to me, and any other editors coming into this dicsussion later if you can explain what you mean by that statement. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've condensed my nomination to be more clear of the main point. Mkdwtalk 19:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:24, 11 March 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) 02:22, 18 March 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument that sources are required that discuss the competion as a whole rather than its component matches is reminiscent of George Berkeley's argument that one cannot think of an abstract triangle, only a particular one. I might have found that more convincing if a single example of a good article demonstrating how such a thing could be constructed were offered. None was, but several counter examples of articles that don't were offered. I could not find any myself either: even very high profile competitons such as the 2006–07 FA Cup have only citations to individual games or players. I would not normally give credance to any kind of WP:OTHER argument but in this case, this kind of article is so ubiquitous that if we are to start deleting them then some kind of community debate is required first to establish that we don't want them in principle. I accept that this article is in WP:summary style and that the components of that summary are primarily the individual matches that made up the competition, thus the decision is to keep. SpinningSpark 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Leinster Minor Football Championship

2007 Leinster Minor Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find RS support to reflect notability of the subject of this article, per wp notability standards. It has been tagged for lacking refs since 2007. It is an orphan. It has been tagged for being an orphan since 2010. And it is at the "minor" level (under age 18). And amateur football. Similar minor competition AfDs that have closed as "delete" are the past AfDs for Connacht Minor Football Championship and Laois Minor Hurling Championship. Epeefleche (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the Leinster MFC is one of the four provincial championships within the All-Ireland Minor Football Championship, one of the highest-profile sporting contests in Ireland - the final is played in front of up to 80,000 spectators along with the Senior final. The amateur status is irrelevant: all Gaelic sports are amateur but at inter-county level the players are of the highest standard. Yes, minor players are under 18, but the county minor sides are where most senior inter-county Gaelic footballers begin their careers. The article could certainly be improved but should stay. Brocach (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read what I wrote? - high profile/part of national championship with huge attendance/major amateur competition/highest standard/minors become seniors... Brocach (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I would expect (for a "high profile" championship) to see quite a bit of media coverage, even local coverage. There is some, but mostly local reports of particular games, rather than coverage of the competition itself. What makes me hesitate is my understanding that the competition has been run in years other than 2007. Is that the case? And if so, why don't we have coverage of years other than 2007? Is there a "parent" article into which this could be merged? Say Leinster Minor Football Championship? Stalwart111 01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 11 March 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, 18 March 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources and links. Enough reliable sources available. The Banner talk 20:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are the ones I was talking about. They are okay, but aren't they all basically routine coverage of particular games during that season? They don't really talk about the season itself, why it was different to other seasons, things that would justify its notability as a standalone season article (especially since we don't have equivalent articles for 2006, 2008, 2009, etc). Also, they are all from the same source (hoganstand, the Hogan Standard?) and so could only really be considered one source for the purpose of WP:N. But they are absolutely the reason my !vote was weak. Would be interested in your thoughts. Stalwart111 22:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes me hesitate is my understanding that the competition has been run in years other than 2007. Is that the case?
Yes. Looks like it has been going since about 1929.
And if so, why don't we have coverage of years other than 2007?
Who knows? Everything has to start somewhere. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Maybe this part just hasn't been completed yet.

Some other things worth considering might be:

  • The competition is a direct gateway to the All-Ireland Championship, i.e. the Leinster winner contests the All-Ireland Championship at national level.
  • The final is usually played at Croke Park (the fourth largest stadium in Europe, and the largest not primarily used for association football) so it wouldn't be a small event.
  • A similar Laois Minor Hurling Championship is referred to by the nominator but this is even further apart from the top in terms of grade. Laois is a county, in Leinster incidentally. Leinster is a province and leads directly to the All-Ireland Championship.
  • The use of "orphan" as a reason for deletion is dealt with at WP:ORPHS and needs hardly to be expounded on further here.
  • The nominator questioned why the competition was amateur. In fact the italics suggest they turned their nose up entirely at the thought that it might be amateur, that this is somehow disgusting. The competition can only ever be "amateur" - there is no and has never been a higher grade.
Professional sports seem to be a relatively recent, largely American phenomenon and it would be absurd to delete every Gaelic football article on the basis that it does not measure up to this standard. The professional sports article suggests sports like cricket and rugby union have resisted a so-called "professional" approach. Even the Olympic Games have traditionally been "amateur" in their approach.
  • No one has specified what else is necessary apart from coverage of the games. The games themselves are the events that make the competition, that make any competition. This article is reliably sourced. It has more reliable sources than 2006–07 Heineken Cup or 2007–08 La Liga, to select two entirely random examples which would never seriously be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.194.23 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability for this artist has not been properly demonstrated. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Goossens

Mario Goossens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. As per the requirements of WP:NMUSIC, while the artist has been a member of multiple notable bands, "these are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". However, "the article itself must document notability." This doesn't and this musician isn't otherwise notable. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator; the article clearly fails WP:BIO. It is referenced only to http://www.gretschdrums.com/?fa=artistdetail&id=775, which says in full "About the Artist: Here are some bands Mario plays with: Triggerfinger, Savalas, Hooverphonic and Winterville" (and then lists his drum kit). Not only is this way less than the substantial coverage required by WP:GNG, the page is basically an advert for the drums which Goosens uses, so it isn't an independent RS. Time-wasting "article"s like this should really be speedy deleted.
    Note that from 2007 until a few hours ago, the page was a redirect to Winterville (band), where it should be redirected again. It was resurrected as an article by the creator of Template:Mario Goossens, who is WP:POINTily trying to bulk out the link count on dubious navboxes by creating pointless articles. (For another recent example of this disruption, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyeur (War from a Harlots Mouth album)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Mario is a member of multiple notable bands, therefore, what proof is there that this violates WP:POINT? How do we know to which article to redirect Mario? --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. See WP:NMUSIC#If_the_subject_is_not_notable: "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves.".
        The WP:POINTiness is your creation of a "tiny article that can never be expanded". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A10, article was a copy of the Barry Pring, which is also up for AfD.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Barry Pring

Death of Barry Pring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. This is nothing but a news event and all the reliable sources are simply reporting the event, not proving any sort of lasting notability. See relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Pring Ducknish (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 War from a Harlots Mouth, independent notability has not been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voyeur (War from a Harlots Mouth album)

Voyeur (War from a Harlots Mouth album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album (fails WP:GNG), created as a piece of WP:POINTy disruption to increase the link-count on the band's navbox (which is at TFD).

The article contains only 4 references, all of which are bare URLs.

  1. http://www.allmusic.com/album/voyeur-mw0002431028 -- just a track listing
  2. http://www.metalsucks.net/2012/09/17/exclusive-premiere-war-from-a-harlots-mouth-scopophobia/ -- a 1-paragraph blurb about a preview of 1 track from the album
  3. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=180737 -- just an announcement of the album's release
  4. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=186943 -- just an announcement of the release of a video

This comes nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, as required by WP:NALBUMS.

Note that I initially PRODed the article, but the PROD was contested by the creator of the article (who is also the creator of the Template:War from a Harlots Mouth (the TFD for which prompted this POINTy creation). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 02:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonequa Martin-Green

Sonequa Martin-Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for lack of substantial coverage by reliable sources. She also fails WP:NACTOR as to her roles' significance within their productions: she has had no roles that make her encyclopedically notable. Plus, there's nothing reliable (save Twitter?) to lend actual biographical details. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of her roles are substantial or significant? Appearing in minor roles in major shows is not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She's actually had significant recurring roles on most of the television programs she's acted on. I wouldn't simply write them off as minor.

Army Wives - Kanessa Jones (3 Episodes)
The Good Wife - Courtney Wells (8 Episodes)
NYC 22 - Michelle Terry (5 Episodes)
The Walking Dead - Sasha (5 Episodes so far)
Once Upon a Time - Tamara (3 Episodes so far)
Silver Buizel (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Obviously she meets WP:NACTOR. This AfD smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT --93.209.88.115 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC) — 93.209.88.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - She appears to be an up and coming actor, so no prejudice to recreation in the future as her career develops. However, at this point, she has basically got supporting parts in multiple TV series, but without any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The ones in the article are insufficient. Coverage is insubstantial, with the best of it being coverage of a the casting decision for Once Upon a Time. These are simply short annoucnements of the casting. My own search for significant coverage turned up nothing. I'm prepared to change my mind if those asserting obvious notability can provide sources to back up the claim. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm on the fence, because I do think Ms. Martin-Green is noteworthy enough to merit an article (there are, arguably, several persons who have less credentials who have WP articles). However, there doesn't appear to be enough sources outside of blogs and IMDB to satisfy WP:V standards. Kkbay (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are not significant roles as per the criteria, I think, and I can't locate significant coverage of Martin-Green. Hekerui (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was upgraded to a series regular for season 4 of The Walking Dead [55] --93.209.74.190 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's been in multiple films. She has been a recurring character on mutliple TV series. And now she's been promoted to the regular cast of the top-rated scripted show on television (The Walking Dead) for its upcoming season: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-season-4-spoilers-tyreese-beth-sasha-432869 . If we examine the text of some of the rationales cited in support of deletion, I don't think the policies support deletion in this case. In fact, some of those policies actually support inclusion. For instance, WP:OTHERCRAP most definitely does not exclude which other articles exist from the discussion. In fact, that essay (not a policy) explicitly states that the comparisons to other existing articles "may form part of a cogent argument". But it states that such comparisons should not alone be the basis for an AfD discussion. Comparisons are definitely relevant in this case, but some elements of WP:NACTOR are subjective. Defining what is a "significant role" can be aided by looking at the roles of other actors who have articles. And I think recurring in a multiple episode arc of a TV series is significant. I watch NYC 22. Sonequa Martin-Green was integral to many episodes and the main story arc of one of the lead characters. WP:BASIC was cited in favor of deletion, but the text of the actual policy strongly favors keeping the article. Breaking down by elements. (1) There are multiple sources (12 including references and links). (2) All but one (the Twitter post) are secondary. (3) They are reliable, with several coming from notable entertainment news or general news sources (The Hollywood Reporter, The Huffington Post, TV Guide via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer site), Digital Spy, TV Line, etc.). (4) The reference are intellectually independent rather than just mirrors on different sites. (5) With the exception of the Twitter post, all the sources are apparently independent (not published by people other than Martin-Green or a concerning conflict of interest). And I know some might find page views entirely irrelevant, I think it's worth mentioning as just one element in a detailed analysis. The Sonequa Martin-Green article has over 41,000 page view over the last month. --JamesAM (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. SpinningSpark 13:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Cottonwood

Eli Cottonwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar case to Novak. In his 4 years as WWE Develoment wrestler, he does nothing. Only appear a few months in NXT and when he was fired, he retired. No notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - The article is so un-notable and uninteresting that no one has even participated in the AFD yet. That shows how much value this has to the encyclopedia. Feedback ☎ 04:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notability established through discussion in reliable sources. Duration of (one reason for) fame or lack of interest have nothing to do with WP:N. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the page is well sourced, those sources simply establish his existence. They do not establish notoriety because in the case of Mr. Cottonwood, there is no notoriety. The pinnacle of his career was losing a professional wrestling contest which was broadcast exclusively online. He never appeared on television, never held titles (even in FCW) and his career in basketball seems even less notable.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know much about basketball. If he's done enough to be recognized as a notable basketball player, disregard this. But per the word of the Lord, merely existing isn't good enough for wrestling. Any notability is inherited from being associated with NXT, not on his own merits. Think of him like the minor cast of Big Brother or The Ultimate Fighter. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure there are enough reliable sources off which to base an article. Also, clear lack of notability. Icarus of old (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 02:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icizzle

Icizzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography about a non-notable person. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any depth. I was only able to find a trivial mention in one Times of India article. Fails WP:ENT. - MrX 01:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have been added and sourced to subject page Icizzle. apologize for not providing sources at time of published page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonvandervien (talk • contribs) 01:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those are not reliable sources. Please have a look at WP:RS to better understand what constitute reliable sources. We usually look for newspaper, magazines and books that are published by reputable organizations, independent of the subject. IMDB, Youtube and Wikipedia are self-published (anyone can edit them - there is no editorial oversight). What we would need for this article would be a a couple of good biographical sources that discuss the subject in some depth, and not simply sources that discuss productions that he was involved in. - MrX 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant indepent coverage in reliable sources. In particular, I can find no coverage about his film Laugh! Paws! Be Happy! winning an award which is probably the strongest claim to notability in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insurrection (Trojan horse)

Insurrection (Trojan horse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

declined prod; unreferenced software / computer virus article of unclear notability; tagged for multiple issues since 2009; created by an SPA as possibly promotional Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 10:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badger GP

Badger GP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small website that doesn't meet WP:WEB and WP:GNG. A web search gives nothing bar primary sources. QueenCake (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Astor House Hotel (Shanghai)--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1922-1959

Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1922-1959 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely redundant, in all its excessive detail based on primary and tangentially related sources, to Astor House Hotel (Shanghai). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 State Committee for Cinematography. I have as a temporary measure boldly added TWilkerson's information to the article on State Committee for Cinematography, and redirected this to there. I urge TW or whoever is interested to expand this. I notice the weakness of the ruWP articles for these bodies, so this will require more than translation. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sovkino

Sovkino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither of the two target pages mentions Sovkino at all. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link to Lenfilm is correct, according to the Russian wp article. Presumably it's not mentioned in the English article because there were many different names but I'd rather they were all included, being likely search terms. Perhaps they could be hidden by default. Can't see anything on the Russian dab page ru:Совкино (значения) about the alleged Ukrainian studio, but there do appear to be some villages by this name. Siuenti (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there should almost certainly be an article at this title, neither of the current disambiguation links is entirely satisfactory. The GBooks links make it clear that Sovkino was the main film production and distribution organisation in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic from 1924 to 1930, succeeding Goskino (not to be confused with the far later State Committee for Cinematography) in that role and replaced by Stalin in 1930 with the all-USSR Soyuzkino. While what later became Lenfilm was one of its main film production facilities, it was not the only one - what later became Mosfilm was another. So far as the Ukrainian animation studio link is concerned, I can find no trace of that studio outside mirrors of this article, and suspect that it results from misinterpretation of sources - Sovkino seems to have made animated films (among many others) but it never seems to have had studios in the Ukraine and had been abolished by the claimed 1930s date. PWilkinson (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Siuenti (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Endeavour

Wright Endeavour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey2010 Talk 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayita Goswami

Jayita Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Sources in the article do not appear to be mainly about her. A search fails to find enough significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Uberaccount (talk) 03
  • 18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. SpinningSpark 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optare MetroCity

Optare MetroCity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey2010 Talk 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a fairly new model so may not have much about it yet, nonetheless I'd be surprised if it hasn't been featured in at least one of the magazines. Buses, especially London buses, tend to get a reasonable amount written about them, some proportion of which is usually in what WP is likely to deem RS, so for now I would have thought that as long as we can find one source, that should be enough to keep for now in anticipation of more? Quackdave (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We have articles on models of car, so why not of buses? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE to Wright Endurance. SpinningSpark 19:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Cityranger

Wright Cityranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey2010 Talk 01:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it clearly needs some work doing on it, but that's not a reason for deletion - it's a reason to improve it. It should only be deleted if it is not realistically possible to cite reliable secondary sources, which I'm convinced it will be, because automotive designs of all kinds have plenty of publications dedicated to providing commentary on them, and are therefore routinely considered notable.
For starters, almost all newly-available bus models would get an article in Ian Allan Buses magazine around the time of their launch, and probably in other magazines too, and all but the most obscure will be listed in the same publisher's Bus and Coach Recognition book series by Alan Millar. (Sadly I don't have either available at the moment, so can't provide said citations myself right now, but hopefully others can.)
At a push it could perhaps be merged into Wright Endurance, which it is derived from (albeit less obviously so than the UrbanRanger), but there seems no clear reason to deviate from the established one-article-per-named-model convention we currently have.
Indeed, a more extreme solution of merging the entire Wrightbus "Classic" range into one article could be a possibility, but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work when the rationale for doing so isn't clear-cut.
Quackdave (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 19:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall C37

Marshall C37 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:GNG Davey2010 Talk 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - publications such as Buses magazine and Bus and Coach Recognition books can be used to establish that it has required notability. Merging into Marshall Bus might be a last resort, as that company in its 1990s incarnation produced relatively few designs and maybe they could all fit into one article - but I think it is generally neater for vehicle models to have their own article separate from the manufacturer. Quackdave (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WE have numerous articles on models of car; so why not of buses? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. SpinningSpark 18:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zonger

Zonger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is basically a dictionary definition of a non-notable term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's kind of an essay trying to be a dictionary definition or maybe original lexicographical research. Either way, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Maybe Wiktionary? Cnilep (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwikify the dictionary definition (a slang term) to Wiktionary. The list of "references" (so called - not references for the article content) points to us having a valid article on the Zong massacre (on a slave ship). It might be possible to add a note to that article on the content of this one, but I would not encourage more than one sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Zong massacre article. It's worth a footnote at least.--Auric talk 01:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and oppose merge. This is a dictionary definition. As for a merge, it's relationship to the Zong massacre is speculative and is not supported by reliable sources; urbandictionary.com is not a reliable source. I'll also add that the dicitonary definition as claimed in the article not supported by the urbandictionary.com reference supplied. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.hellocotton.com/mentos-3-gum-one-s-good-three-s-better-triple-hydraulics-donk-commercial-song-what-is-rap-mentos-tv-advert-remix-by-blak-prophetz-1717263
  2. ^ http://www.britishhiphop.co.uk/features/articles/fatt_jointz_entertainment.html
  3. ^ http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/video-the-soul-garden-unveil-dont-stop-the-hustle/
  4. ^ http://www.ugrap.de/album_review.php?id=766
  5. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QylLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT4&img=1&pgis=1&dq=blak+prophetz&sig=ACfU3U3fP4-CYwrh3WmyIjaoVBo0Yxu3Yg&edge=0
  6. ^ http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kurtagi%C4%87#Schriftsteller
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_25
No tags for this post.