Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:16, 11 July 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 July	5 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy close. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big 4

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

Although the four bands are individually notable, I see no indication that a group of the four is notable. Anything not in the individual band articles should be moved to those articles and the group article deleted. —teb728 t c 23:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn someone converted it to a redirect. —teb728 t c 23:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There are plenty of reliable sources. Obviously notable. There's absolutely no point dragging this argument out for a week. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Hopkins

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

Delete - Violates WP:GA, WP:CITE, and WP:NOTE. Most citations are tabloid articles that do not provide any certifiable notability outside of sensationalism. Most citations are either repeats or are just poorly written. 2dFx (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Much as I would like to remove this woman from the planet, never mind Wikipedia, I cannot but recognise the fact that she is a fairly regular and high-profile commentator on several national television programmes. I am no expert on bio notability guidelines here on wiki, I'd be the first to admit, but I would've thought that this in itself is sufficient. She has also had a presence in politics if that article's sources are anything to go by. The article may need a re-word but outside of that, this article should stay. Pigduck (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as there are 389 ghits on the bbc site alone, ranging from 2007 to 2013, her notability seems beyond question. Oculi (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.107.230 (talk • contribs)
Speedy keep The large number of refs immediately show widespread presence. Yes, most of them are from tabloids but that's just a reflection of her tabloid-type, populist persona.--A bit iffy (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Apprentice. Crookesmoor (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Pigduck Atlas-maker (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came across the article as I was looking for some background on her as she's had significant news coverage today (Google News [1]). Given this, I think she is notable enough to merit an article. davidprior ^t/_c 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next Egyptian presidential election

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. No election date. Sorry to say it but there is no certainty there will be one anytime soon.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC) ...William 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Egyptian presidential election, 2014. The source is provided on that page. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ansh666 02:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Struck, barely passes notability IMO. Ansh666 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - ~~On second (third?) thought, not enough to pass. Delete still. Ansh666 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - To clarify, this line from WP:CRYSTAL is what has me saying delete: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (emphasis is mine). This election is not "almost certain to take place" by any means. Besides, there is no set date, per the links below - the closest mention is "which could be held early in 2014", nothing close to a set date. On that note, I suggest an admin move it back to the original title. Ansh666 06:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, userfy to David (the author). Ansh666 06:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Pburka (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one way or another this election is going to happen at some point, we might as well hold on to it (after all we have an article for the next Palestinian election, because we know it's going happen, if not when).
- Well, the Palestinian election has a definite date, and has attracted enough attention (including delays, so it should already have happened, anyways) to meet WP:GNG. This one simply has not. When a date is established, we can create a new article including it, as it won't fall as afoul of WP:CRYSTAL at that point. (On a side note, having the link be piped is very misleading - the actual article is Palestinian general election, 2013.) Ansh666 17:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nothing wrong with keeping "next election" articles as we have around WP. There is sourced info yet no date. So there is notability there...and precedence (see National electoral calendar).Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample precedent for articles on next elections that have not yet been scheduled with a date. Not every country has a rigid fixed term elction timetable for one reason or another. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be decades before the next election, and the information in this article will date quickly. There's not enough concrete information to form a reasonable article. All we have right now is a handful of potential candidates. If the election were held ten years from now, it's unlikely that any of these candidates would participate. Pburka (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:CRYSTAL -we don't know if there will be an election and what kind of election will it be. Merge whatever sourced information in articles about the Egyptian politics. -- cyclopia^speak! 20:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A general date has been set; see [2] David O. Johnson (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously we need to improve content, but just because a date hasn't been set doesn't mean that there is nothing to write about. People are declaring their candidacy, we know what parties there are, and we have a context of the coup and political pressure from major countries suggesting that there needs to be another election. I would also support reanaming this to something like Egyptian Presidential Election following the 2013 Coup d'etat Edited to add: Hey look, Adly Mansour just issued a timetable! link Peace, MPS (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then add it to the article. See WP:HEY. Ansh666 02:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to Egyptian presidential election, 2014. The source is provided on that page. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved it back. See above for why. Ansh666 06:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. A scheduled event, we've got thousands of articles for those. —Nightstallion 10:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL suggests we keep scheduled events only if they are "almost certain to take place". I think that this event falls well shy of that bar, and still believe that the content is more appropriate in 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Pburka (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Date of the elections was set. --Meno25 (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See what I said above for why there is not actually a set date for the elections. I suggest an admin move this article back to its original location for that reason. Ansh666 06:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tynwald Hill International Football Tournament

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

Contested prod with no reason given. Non-notable football tournament for non-FIFA teams. Fails GNG no real indication of notability seems to be a random locally organised tournament not even one organised by one of the bodies attempting to regulate non-FIFA football. Fenix down (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:23, 5 July 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 (T • C • B) 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable tournament for non-notable teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is keep. Feel free, should you wish to dispute, to take the conversation to Deletion Review. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent bookstores in the United States

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

Unmaintainable and guaranteed never to be complete list. Wikipedia is not a directory of independent US bookstores. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." See also: Category:Independent bookstores of the United States. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the nomination have I mentioned a thing about category vs list. I state, simply, that this is unmaintainable, and a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most all of those bookstores listed have Wikipedia articles making this list very maintainable. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was going to say that this would run into the tens of thousands of listings and run afoul of NOTDIRECTORY, but if one clicks the edit button it is specified that included listings MUST be the subject of a Wikipedia page. As such, this has limited size and a valid navigational function for users. I will make a more explicit note to the lead. Carrite (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this AFD just inspired me to start a piece on a bookstore. See, it works! Carrite (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid and standard list satisfying WP:LISTPURP. That it only contains bluelinks is a rather strong argument against any claim that it is "unmaintainble," and "guaranteed never to be complete" is not a valid reason for deletion as no list is required to be complete, particularly not here where the list is limited only to notable entries (i.e., those that have or should have articles). Is the nominator confused on that point, that we commonly maintain lists on that criteria, or just unaware that this is how we index articles? Wikipedia does include directories of its own contents. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the nominator's defense, the lead didn't specify the requirement that the list MUST have an existing WP page and there were half a dozen redlinks and spamlinks that I just culled out of there. The way the lead reads now, the problem should be resolved, one would hope. Most bookstore owners know how to read, presumably. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And contra that defense of the nominator, those are obvious and standard ways to clean up a list of companies that he should have thought about before listing it for deletion. I appreciate you doing it in any event. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valid, maintainable list. Passes WP:LISTPURP. AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent bookstores

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

Incomplete, never to be complete, unmaintainable list that is not even broad enough to be a directory, which Wikipedia is not. Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." See also: Category:Independent bookstores. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with the old category vs list argument. Look at the list! It is impossible to maintain. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at related AFD.[3] postdlf (talk) 20:31, 6 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have considerable concerns over lists such as this, because Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (notability) are only indirectly related to their merit as places to go for books today, especially as notability relies on historic evidence. They may be mere shadows of what they were, under different and incompetent ownership. The average user cannot be expected to understand the subtleties of this, and that the listing is in no sense a recommendation by the Wikipedia community. Other, and better, bookshops may be available. At the very least, the lead should make this clear. Wikipedia is not a directory. --AJHingston (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entries for the UK include Foyles and Stanfords which are major institutions and seems quite appropriate for browsing and navigation. My concern would be the word independent which seems an unhelpful distinction and open to argument. We shouldn't keep the chains while deleting major stores that don't have that business model. Warden (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that these are identified as "independent bookstores" within the individual articles' text and via the category structure Category:Independent bookstores, an AFD regarding only this list really isn't the proper place to be questioning that whole classification. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the list forms part of a set of connected classifications and categories, it is not sensible to consider it in isolation. The structure is therefore relevant to the AFD. Warden (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If wikipedia has enough of them with Articles to warrant a mention on the {{Companies by industry}} Table, then there should be a List to assist people that Browse by that method. Also, This List cannot be considered in isolation from its counterpart List of bookstore chains either. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the subject is definable (a bookstore is either independent or a chain: some indie stores have multiple locations, but with each store allowed to make purchasing decisions. chains centralize buying decisions, with the store managers having little or no say in purchasing), the inclusion in the list is based either on the store having an article, or refs which show notability (and thus could have an article or article section if someone tried). all lists get unsourced names added, thus all lists are "unmanageable" to a degree, if no one is watching them, just like articles are "unmanageable" if left alone too long. as long as we allow former stores back in (we are NOT a directory for potential customers), the list is fine. problems with maintaining it are a separate concern from AFD, which is for determining if the subject is both notable and, if a list, definable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the things listed have blue links to their own articles. Perfectly valid Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 14:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacies

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

Unmaintainable and inexhaustible list. Do we list all shoe shops? We do not, nor all fishmongers. That is because Wikipedia is not a directory. Doubtless this was created with good intentions, but those are misguided. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." See also: Category:Pharmacies and Category:Pharmacies by country‎. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with the old category vs list argument. Look at the list! It is impossible to maintain. Fiddle Faddle 23:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as a completely standard article list. Why is a list of notable pharmacies (i.e., those which have or merit articles) unmaintainable? The nominator needs to read the first part of WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." And this is nothing more than a standard index of articles. postdlf (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar with the policies surrounding this kind of article, but I would comment that a lot of work seems to have gone into this page, and it might be a shame to delete it. However, there is a noticeable lack of sources and the style could be more consistent throughout. Lesion (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You need sources saying that these are pharmacies? If the individual pharmacies are completely unverifiable, then they shouldn't have articles and shouldn't be included in this list. If the pharmacies are at all verifiable, and particularly if they merit an article, then any source that discusses them is going to confirm that it's a pharmacy, and it's just clutter to add references for that basic and completely uncontroversial fact to this list. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on principle- you should need a source to say anything on Wikipedia. However like I said, I am unfamiliar with the policies for lists. What stands out more than the unreferenced list of pharmacy companies is the often unreferenced "trivia" comments that accompany many of the individual items in the list. I don't have a problem with those, but I think ideally they should be sourced appropriately. Lesion (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last two sentences. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 8 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but set out guidelines in the Lede. Costco may have a pharmacy in there stores, but Costco is not a pharmacy. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that's not hard to do, as Costco is not included in any pharmacy category. Same issue regardless of whether we're using a list or a category to say "this is a pharmacy." Many grocery stores also have book and magazine racks, yet I don't think we have much of a fight over whether they belong in bookstore lists or categories. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Interpretation of Dreams. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Dreams (Freud)

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

Not sufficiently distinct from The Interpretation of Dreams, methinks. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Interpretation of Dreams. I cannot find specific sources that describe the topic without reference to the main text. The content in the article is relatively small and could be easily added to "The Interpretation of Dreams". If the content is significantly expanded in the future (with support of suitable references), there may be scope to spin it out into its own article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Axl. If this is just an ordinary abridgement, the place to describe it would be in the article on the original work, unless there is some particular history to this version that is worth discussing separately. postdlf (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music Teen Awards

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

Non-notable (possibly non-existent?) music award. For an "annual internet show", it seems to have no web presence. MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 21:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I managed to find the website. It seems 800 people voted last year -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 22:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This has no sources first of all and is not notable at all. I agree with Macaddct1984. Newsjunky12 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and really, a teen awards show where a certain Canadian teen singer hasn't had his Twitter fans stuff the ballot box? Can't believe this one has the WP:GNG to go with it. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of any notability, undoubtedly fails WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Methodism (methodology)

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

Unclear topic, orphaned, unsourced Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear exactly what this topic is. It has no links from other articles, and a google search doesn't identify what a "Methodist methodological approach" might be. This might be merged with Methodism (philosophy), but it's hard to tell whether this is the same topic or not. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 21:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete - I think this article could be something, but where it stands now I say delete because it has no sources and is only 1 sentence. I agree with the points made by Hazhk. Newsjunky12 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Proud member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this bears any mentioning at all it needs to be put in a much bigger article. Such narrow topics do not deserve their own free-standing articles. I also feel like someone just made this up when they made this article. LazyBastard Guy 19:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you probably could have PRODded this article successfully. It doesn't seem like anyone would put up a fuss about it. LazyBastard Guy 19:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on Super Match. There are some suggestions to merge here, and while the sourcing in the article could be better, Xymmax' did present a source that gives a reasonable merit to the notability claims. There is no such defense on the Jijidae derby article however, and the consensus is reasonably clear to delete that one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Match

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason provided. Original deletion rationale of "no evidence in reliable sources that this is a significant, notable football rivalry" remains a concern. Giant Snowman 12:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for deletion because they both cover the same subject:

Giant Snowman 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of 'evidence' and 'reliable source' do you want to verify its significance? All sorts of media in S.Korea say it is the biggest and fieriest derby match in S.Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.10.225.210 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super Match and delete Jijidae derby

Rivaly of FC Seoul vs Suwon Samsung Bluewinsg is a world-famous and Super Match is best derby of K League

If the this derby is not notable, How can press in FIFA website. Please refer to FIFA website. http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/rivalries/newsid=1085354/index.html

Officialy, Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Seoul are same club. So Jijidae derby have to delete and integrate to Super Match. Offcial K LeagueSuper Match records including Jjjidae derby (Anyang LG Cheetahs vs Suwon Samsung matches)Footwiks (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is "world-famous" (not supported by reliable sources) and you also say it is "best derby" (your personal opinion). You need to evidence notability. Giant Snowman 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaly page of FIFA websites only introduce world-famous derby. Refer to FIFA website http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/rivalries/newsid=1085354/index.html

Attendace records proved best derby in South Korea. K League Highest Attendance records.

#	Competition	Date	Home Team	Score	Away Team	Venue	Attedance	Notes
1	2010 K-League	2010-05-05	FC Seoul	4 : 0	Seongnam Ilhwa Chunma	Seoul World Cup Stadium	60,747	Children's Day
2	2010 K-League	2010-12-05	FC Seoul	2 : 1	Jeju United	Seoul World Cup Stadium	56,759	Weekend K-League Championship Final 2nd Leg
3	2007 K-League	2007-04-08	FC Seoul	0 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	55,397	Weekend
4	2011 K-League	2011-03-06	FC Seoul	0 : 2	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	51,606	Weekend 2011 Season Home Opener
5	2012 K-League	2012-08-19	FC Seoul	0 : 2	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	50,787	Weekend
6	2010 K-League	2010-04-04	FC Seoul	3 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	48,558	Weekend
7	2005 K-League	2005-07-10	FC Seoul	4 : 1	Pohang Steelers	Seoul World Cup Stadium	48,375	Weekend
8	2004 K-League	2004-04-03	FC Seoul	1 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Seoul World Cup Stadium	47,928	Weekend
9	2012 K-League	2012-05-05	FC Seoul	2 : 1	Pohang Steelers	Seoul World Cup Stadium	45,982	Weekend (Children's Day)
10	2003 K-League	2003-03-23	Daegu FC	0 : 1	Suwon Samsung Bluewings	Daegu Stadium	45,210	Weekend

High attendances at a match is no indication of notability. Lots of matches around the world have crowds of 40 or 50k on a daily basis. Giant Snowman 13:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40 or 50k may not be a significant number in some countries, but considering the size of local football league fanbase in Korea it is a HUGE number. If you see the attendance record of other matches in Korea you will see its significance.

Keep Jijidae derby is exist until now. Suwon Samsung Bluewings and FC Anyang's match is it. FC Anyang have taken over Anyang LG Cheetahs's legitimacy.--Fetx2002 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an actual reason to keep the article, not just that it "exists". Giant Snowman 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004, Anyang LG Cheetahs has moved to Seoul and changed the name to FC Seoul. In a instant, Anyang citizens lost supported team. So Anyang citizens were furious and they were founded team by their effort. That is FC Anyang. Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Anyang's identities are recognized equal. Jijidae derby's another name is Original Classico. If different in their opinions, Footwiks is famous to other people's personality profanity. I only speak the truth.--Fetx2002 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Super Match Fetx2002 tells a lie. Officialy Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Seoul are same club. and FC Anyang is new club which founded in 2013. Please refer to official club prophile at K League website http://www.kleague.com/kr/sub.asp?avan=1006010000&league_id=3&team_id=K27& and check out official founding year.

Suwon Samsung and FC Anyang rivaly called not jijidae derby. It is called as Original classico and had a just one match with small spectators in May 2013. Therefore this match is not notable also in South Korea and Definaltely not notble in the World. Controller have to this article in English Wikipedia. Footwiks (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Super Match Jijidae derby have to be delteted or redirected to Super Match. This is very obvious without discussion. Super match is including jijidae derby. Why same contents exist in English Wikepedia? Currently Super Match article including jijidae derby results. New jijidae derby Suwon Samsung vs FC Anyang is not notable in Korea and just one matches happend in May. Article regarding football rivaly with just one match have to be deleted. Footwiks (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on Super Match, delete Jijidae Derby. There is some support even in English language sites for this match being the most notable in South Korea, see this article. Though identified as a blog, it appears to be within the editorial control of the magazine publisher, and therefore an appropriate source under WP:NEWSBLOG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Super Match to Football in South Korea, delete Jijidae derby. Neither article meets WP:NRIVALRY for a standalone article. Miniapolis 13:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jijidae derby and Super Match are different. Jijidae derby is Suwon Bluewings and FC Anyang's rival match. There is no reason to delete or merge.--Fetx2002 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Jijidae derby is Suwon Bluewings and FC Anyang's rival match, Definitely we delete Jijidae derby, There is not notabilty in South korea. Just done one match in May 2013 and We don't know that when next match happen, Because FC Anyang is 2nd division club. If the Jijidae derby is allowed, I think that all football match over the world can become derby match and we can created it on wikipedia.

Keep Super Match and definatley delete Jijidae derby .Footwiks (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said, Anyang LG Cheetahs supporters were founded team by their effort is FC Anyang. So Anyang LG Cheetahs and FC Anyang's identities are recognized equal. Therefore Suwon Bluewings and FC Anyang's relationship is established as a rival.--Fetx2002 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FC Anyang is not founded by Supporters. Exactly, FC Anyang is founded by Anyang City Governmentd. And Suwon Samsung and FC Anyang's rivaly is not important. Although the rivaly is exist, It's don't have notablity, Just one match held and only both team supports are intertested inFootwiks (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You must read South London derby#Wimbledon and AFC Wimbledon. Millwall F.C. and Wimbledon F.C. were rivals. but in 2003 Wimbledon F.C. was relocation to Milton Keynes and in 2004 rebranding Wimbledon F.C. as Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. but now Millwall F.C. and AFC Wimbledon are rivals. Also Millwall F.C. and AFC Wimbledon are different division. Two teams were only met once in FA Cup. If your insistence is correct, Millwall F.C. and AFC Wimbledon's relationship can't established as a rival. What's the difference between South London derby and Jijidae derby?--Fetx2002 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall v AFC Wimbledon

As of 9 November 2009.

	Played	Millwall wins	Drawn	AFC Wimbledon wins	Millwall goals	AFC Wimbledon goals
FA Cup	1	1	0	0	4	1
Total	1	1	0	0	4	1

Suwon Bluewings v FC Anyang

As of 8 May 2013.

	Played	Suwon wins	Drawn	FC Anyang wins	Suwon goals	FC Anyang goals
Korean FA Cup	1	1	0	0	2	1
Total	1	1	0	0	2	1

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panchbibi Stadium

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

It apparently exists (there are a few references to some local event starting or ending there), but it hasn't received any attention, there don't seem to be any pictures of it even (Google shows an empty field). Either the "stadium" really is simply an empty field without stands or other infrastructure[4], or the info given in the article's referenced versions is incorrect. I have been unable to find any further information on this stadium, e.g. its capacity, year of construction, ... and can only conclude that it is not notable at all. The team that plays there, Panchbibi Football(?), doesn't give any results either. Fram (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stadiums in Bangladesh as a possible search term, but does not appear to be independently notable. Giant Snowman 14:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A redirect does not make sense as the list should not contain non-notable stadiums and assuming the outcome of this AFD is delete, the entry at the list article should be deleted as well. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California's 16th State Senate district#2013 (special). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad obama arif

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

Possibly non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Arif and Mohammad "O" Arif on Ballotpedia, which this article is mostly copied from. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A politician from California; no evidence of notability. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to California's 16th State Senate district#2013 (special) . I prefer deletion; he only got 0.7% of the vote in that election. If redirected, the article title should be fixed with proper capitalization --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California's 16th State Senate district#2013 (special). Since there is an page about the 2013 election, a redirect is an appropriate action. Otherwise, I support deletion. Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of special elections to the California State Senate. There's an entry there where he is listed, and he is more notable (to the extent that he is) for being a candidate in the election than he is to the district itself. Holdek (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle: Happy Summer From William Hung

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

I previously PRODded this article for deletion, which was successful, and a curiosity journey led me to discover someone had recreated it. I ran a Google search for the phrase ("happy summer from william hung") and found nothing to really justify the existence of the article out of a whopping 94 results. I may have been in error PRODding his other two album articles, and for that I apologize, but this one I can testify is not important as its article would remain forever a stub. There is nothing that this article says that can't be said on his page, but even then a merge really isn't in order because it's not big enough to be a merge. LazyBastard Guy 03:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm still on the works of this article. I'm sure the few reviews, the coverage by New York Times of only selling 7,000 units, among a few other sources I've haven't put here yet should still be enough to meet the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. EditorE (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a lot of more work on this article I'm sure this isn't much of a stub anymore. Yes, it's a little short, but not so much it would be a stub. EditorE (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article where it stands right now looks good. Enough sources and its notable for being one of the worst albums in history. Also I am a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians so I dont say keep too often. Newsjunky12 (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Proud member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians![reply]

To be fair, it is bigger now than it was before. Right now I might favor more of a merge for his three albums, because that might actually create a substantial article and there seems to be a lot more to say on them than I thought. Unless EditorE can expand each one significantly beyond where they stand now, I would be more in favor of a merge to an article containing all three at this point. (It's going to look much better than the discography I collated recently: Scale the Summit discography.) LazyBastard Guy 03:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I guess I am something of a deletionist too, but it's not so much I delete whatever I please as I'm picky about which things I feel deserve their own articles. At the time of nomination, this article was identical to when I had it PRODded, as back then it was very weak and unmaintained, and I recall finding nothing of use when I went looking. But I won't withdraw it just yet; I imagine something good can come from this. LazyBastard Guy 03:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think all album articles look fine on it's own. They have enough coverage to pass WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG, and I've already nominated Hung for the Holidays for a good article. How about you look at how short the good article Hitmixes is before merging all album articles. EditorE (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might just be the shortest GA I've ever seen, but I have my doubts an article could be any shorter to be GA. And FYI, I never said anything about "merging all album articles", whatever that means. Try not to assume I'm here to destroy you, okay? I couldn't help but read your post in a confrontational tone, so let me defuse the situation by saying I'm trying to be helpful. Again, I might not be in favor of a deletion at this point. So take that for whatever it's worth, okay? I only suggest merges wherever it seems a merge could possibly exist. If it doesn't make sense to merge all like-minded articles and that means leaving a few shorter ones behind, who am I to argue with that? LazyBastard Guy 19:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as nautical nonsense. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language SpongeBob SquarePants voice actors

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

Fails WP:GNG. Contains a lot of fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 21:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing notable about the list, and it's incomplete and some sections are unsourced. Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fire from the Krusty Krab - This information probably belongs in the List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters or to another related article. Having a list of foreign language voice actors is just listcruft. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destin Sparks

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

The sources for this article do not seem to provide information to satisfy any of the four criteria under WP:CREATIVE. Although multiple awards are listed, the sources are either self-published or broken links. I attempted to find evidence, for example, of the Creative Asia Awards, but I was unable to find Sparks's name amongst the top 25 award recipients in any of the categories I was able to check. Another editor has previously noted that another of the awards was not supported by the provided independent source. Sparks has a social media internet presence but has not been verifiably covered by RS. Available news coverage seems to be local coverage of a vehicle accident in which a female with the same name was involved. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Several months ago I tried verifying the notability of this photographer (as well as the notability of the awards themselves), without success. The tone of the article seemed overly self-promotional. Bahudhara (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotional and spammy article, no evidence that "awards" have any notability. Subject fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article is just outdated. Upon a quick search I've located four of Sparks' images in the top 50 places of the 'International Loupe Awards' medium format category http://www.loupeawards.com/Top50_12.php?CatId=93&Category=Landscape&Award=Medium I also found another news story featuring Sparks which is not cited in the article http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/destiny-sparks-passion-old-school-photography/1810943/

It would appear he does have a photographic presence in Australia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.10.159 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 101.165.10.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 02:45, 9 July 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) 21:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to weigh in again on the issue of awards, on which Bahudhara, WWGB and I are in agreement. Under WP:CREATIVE, 4c is where Sparks's work would be closest to notability. However, receiving 22nd place in one of at least 12 categories at a largely unknown online award competition (which itself does not appear to be the subject of much if any news attention) does not seem to constitute "significant critical attention". Furthermore, we should be able to establish notability without resorting to WP:OR: there should be multiple independent sources telling us what Sparks won and what it all means. With no disrespect to the artist, self-published sources and promotional material combined with original research do not establish notability. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are the Epson Pano Awards, another competition at which Sparks is said to have received several "bronze" mentions, although none of the given sources can be retrieved. Around 3200 entries received bronze or higher at this competition, out of 3853 total submissions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two newspaper articles on Sparks, the one referenced in the article appeared in the Border Watch, a small regional daily newspaper in South Australia with an audited circulation of just 6,814 (December 2012). The other one cited above by the anon IP appeared in the Sunshine Coast Daily, a regional newspaper in Queensland, which has an audited weekday circulation of 15,086 (January to March 2013 - the figures in the WP article are out-of-date; the Sparks article appeared on Monday 1 April 2013). According to the List of newspapers in Australia by circulation, the Sunshine Coast Daily ranks 23rd in Australia. Bahudhara (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage about Sparks or his works in independent reliable sources. The awards section has been puffed up significantly. None of the photo competitions appear to be significant as they attracted no notice in reliable sources and the results are really just a bunch of honourable mentions as shown by each of the award pages: [5], [6], [7]. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DVD-Audio Explorer

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

I found nothing to show that this software is notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. There is no sourcing in the article. The external link leads to a web forum which is not useful as a source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 9 July 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 (T • C • B) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no RS, just download and user-editable sites. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of fashion designers#Italy. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion designers of Florence

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

I'm not sure what purpose this list serves - the individual designers where appropriate appear on List of fashion designers#Italy and many are red-links. I don't see where we have other lists for people from Florence, apart from the clearly encyclopaedic List of mayors of Florence. It does seem a bit redundant. Maybe merge the names to Italian fashion, although almost all the names checked here seem to also have namechecks on that page. Also, I see no equivalent lists for say, London, or Milan, or Paris, or Tokyo, and don't think they are required at this point in time. Mabalu (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge No indication that this is a significant category considered as a group by reliable sources, as required by WP:L. Florence isn't one of Italy's biggest fashion centres; there's no article on Florence's fashion; the section Florence#Fashion is one paragraph long. List of fashion designers#Italy covers the same topic and we don't need both. Maybe there would be a case for a page which lists Italian fashion designers with info like city and dates, but we don't need the sort of granularity given by one list per city. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 5 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of fashion designers#Italy per above sound analysis. Cavarrone 07:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That might not quite work because that list is (unfortunately) sorted by where people are born rather than where they are active; the criteria makes it rather useless, unless the two happen to coincide. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can see, all the bluelinks listed in Fashion designers of Florence are of Italian origin so yes, it appears a case in which the two happen to coincide. Cavarrone 06:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believers (¡Mayday! album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL. Article about an unreleased album, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Little more than a track listing at this point. It may become notable once it's released, but at this time I can't find any reviews or other coverage in reliable sources, except this passing reference, which contradicts the information in the article. Pburka (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is gonna be released in less then 2 weeks and is sure to chart on the Bilboard 200. Koala15 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best coverage I can find is this write-up at HipHopDX. As suggested above, it's possible this album will become notable after its release five days from now, as of this edit. Gong show 05:01, 12 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already released by a notable group on a notable record label; once this discussion closes, I will be adding some more reviews and other sources to this (I think this AfD might have scared some editors away). Tom Danson (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has now been released and has charted in the top 100 of the Billboard 200. STATic message me! 20:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Three weeks ago, when this was nominated, the topic was non-notable. It has now achieved notability. Pburka (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Plus™ Program

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

While this article's author appears to have striven for neutrality and for a collection of reliable sources, there does not appear to be any indication that this particular company's loyalty program is in any way unique. It may be unique among food retailers in Canada, but it is not unique in the world. While there might be a legitimate call for a general article about digital loyalty program that could be separated from the main loyalty program article, any article written about one particular company's loyalty program, unless it is truly unique, can only be seen as advertising. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a sufficient argument to justify deletion. A subject does not have to be "unique" in order to have an article in Wikipedia. Failure to achieve uniqueness ≠ WP:SPAM. Taroaldo ✉ 17:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Loblaws. Since this article is about a loyalty program specific to one store, I suggest that it be merged with Loblaws. With the exception of loyalty programs shared by multiple companies (Air Miles) or programs with notability on a national level (Canadian Tire money), there are very few articles on specific loyalty programs. --Ahecht (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title also appears to violate WP:TITLETM. The spelling with the trademark is not demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. --Ahecht (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should've cited MOS:TM instead: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." --Ahecht (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Glow Window Coverings Products of Canada Ltd.

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is an article about a non-notable company and the page itself is more of an advertisement than an informational page. The sources are all links to the company website and there is no good 3rd party sources. Newsjunky12 (Talk) 21:22, July 4 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship anarchy

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

Non-notable neologism. I'm not seeing anything in reliable sources about this; lots of blogs and forum hits, but nothing that could be considered reliable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As either a non-notable neologism or something made up in one day, which is a less generous spin on the same idea. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC) // Urban Dictionary is thattaway...----> Striking my previous in the light of the cites by George Makepeace below. Moving opinion to Keep under GNG based on that. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a relatively new term, but I wouldn't say that it's non-notable. As for sources: Could this be considered reliable? http://sex.sagepub.com/content/13/6/748.full.pdf (page 763). George Makepeace (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that could be, actually; good find. I'd say it takes more than one, but I see that there's another work using the term that's cited in that one; that might do the trick. I don't have an opportunity to look at that at this moment, but I will, and the combination of the two might well be enough to get me to withdraw the AfD. Nice work! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! If it helps, I've also found some studies done by Jacob Strandell in 2012 and 2011. Unfortunately, the latter one, which is entirely about relationship anarchy, is written in Swedish. George Makepeace (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-English sources are acceptable if equivalent English sources are unavailable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an undergraduate thesis on the topic, also coming out of Sweden. groupuscule (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a neologism. There are probably already other articles about the same concept. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean: You think that relationship anarchy is not distinct enough from polyamory to warrant a separate page? George Makepeace (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't seem to be. Although there is very limited evidence. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if better sources than a single blog can be found. As posted above there do seem to be professional publications using the term, so it is potentially notable. Lesion (talk) 11:40, 4 July 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) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relationship anarchy is not polyamory, it is distinct from that style of relationship. It is a relatively new term but is quickly gaining usage in the polyamory and fetish communities as a way to describe relationship styles that have previously had no clear description. It should be kept on the basis that at the moment there is no central repository for information about relationship anarchy and thus it can be hard to find out about. The ability to have a central article such as this, that can be expanded and added to by anyone, is of great importance when discussing concepts such as new relationship styles. As a practitioner of relationship anarchy myself, I cannot stress how helpful it would have been to have had this resource while I was learning about it. By having this article we also encourage more people to write about the subject and eventually will no longer be considered an underground movement. Much of the writing about Relationship Anarchy is currently in Swedish and therefore not accessible to English speakers. CharlotteM85 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your motivations for wanting to keep the article, and ask yourself whether these correspond to Wikipedia's aims or represent your own personal interest. See, of possible relevance WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY. Lesion (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I have vested interest in this subject, there is no conflict. I believe that it is a legitimate inclusion alongside other relationship styles in a place that is a written compendium of knowledge. It could be a decade or more before it is included in academic discourse, yet there is much discussion on specialist interest sites of this practice. This practice has been happening for decades, but only recently have communities put a term on it via the internet. CharlotteM85 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. A few academic sources were suggested above, but I assume you meant common usage of the term in academic publications. I think this article is potentially notable to stay and grow on wikipedia, but someone would need to use these better sources instead of the current blog that is used. If you are interested in this topic, please consider doing this as a lack of reliable sources is the main reason people are "voting" to delete it. Lesion (talk) 18:47, 5 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have two Swedish bachelor theses on the subject (Jacob Strandell, 2011; Ida Midnattssol, 2013) (non-English sources are acceptable), and an article mentioning the term on SAGE, amongst other things. George Makepeace (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find these citations to be compelling — this is indeed a term used in academic sociology. I stand corrected. Passes GNG, and an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bajoo

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

Article about a cloud computing/hosting company. The references are almost exclusively press-release-driven (notice the dates). Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 20:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed many mistakes I made by publishing the (not finished) article. Sorry for the mess. The press references have been removed as they were exclusively in french and one in english has been added. - ElinaCA 09:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 4 July 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 (T • C • B) 19:43, 11 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Hat in Time

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

apparent publicity for an upcoming game, based almost entirely on unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

DGG the sources I used fall under the newspaper and blogs clause under Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Please consider reading my post on the page's Talk page if you haven't done so already. If it makes any difference I have no personal stake in the article's existence; I am not working for Gears for Breakfast.

Of the sources I cited (1 2 3 4 5) which one is unreliable?

The article as it stands is just a stub mentioning some stories written by the video game press. If this is not a valid means for being an article to you, then I would like to point you towards other video game stubs as other examples, which happen to be in the same status of A Hat in Time. Chiefmartinez (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem with pointing out other articles is that their existence doesn't mean that they actually deserve to be on Wikipedia. Sometimes they have notability, but in many cases such articles only exist because someone hasn't found and nominated them yet. I have to say that I'm somewhat undecided on this. There is a lot of buzz about this, but so far the coverage is entirely about the successful Kickstarter campaign. There aren't many articles that only talk about the game rather than focusing solely on its Kickstarter success. So far there isn't that much of a depth of coverage because of this. The Kotaku article that talks about actual gameplay (rather than just talking about screenshots or videos) helps a lot, but it's still a little less than I'd normally like. Don't get me wrong- I do think that this will become huge when it releases. The only problem is that we can't guarantee that it will become as big as everyone is expecting it to be. There are a lot of times where people will expect games to do big things, only for the actual release to never happen or for the game to be so underwhelming that nobody really reports on it. I hope this isn't the case, as I'm tempted to buy a copy of this myself, but it sadly happens more often than we would want it to. I'm still undecided, but I do think that if this does get deleted it should absolutely be incubated or userfied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to mirror Tokyogirl79's comment above as I too am undecided. Though the article is blatantly not deletable for the nomination reasons (To me the article doesn't read like that much of a promotion, and the sources are almost entirely reliable), there is the trouble that it seems notable only for its Kickstarter campaign, and though it may make a good article in the future, currently there simply isn't enough information for a decent article. I am, however, tempted to side with keeping the article. There are other sources which haven't yet been used such as this and this, and I think the article could be expanded into more than it currently is quite easily. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously notable. Don't know where all this hand wringing above is coming from. - hahnch e n 15:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG with suitable WP:VG/RS sources already present in the article with the topic being the subject of the features. I too, don't see how these are unreliable sources. The game is upcoming, yes, but it has already received enough independent source coverage. Purely from editorial stand-point, current sources will be excellent development/history sources once the game is released and properly reviewed. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to significant changes that have taken place in the past week. The current article is no longer a stub as it used to be, and has several sources backing up every major point in the article. There are also no obvious links that could possibly attract the reader to help support to the game if they wanted to, and the prose has been modified to the extent which I believe fits the NPOV policy better than before. Chiefmartinez (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on existance of quality sources. Your argument seems to be based completely on article's content. This is something routinely ignored by the closing admins. A notable subject can have a terrible article and non-notable subject can have an article with brilliant prose. The deciding factor here is notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Going back to the sources used in the article for references, here they are in the current form: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The other three (Grant Kirkhope tweet, the Valve SteamGreenlight page, and Kickstarter data) all are related to the game's Kickstarter campaign, which was important in the game's development. I guess in my second argument I was trying to say that the article no longer resembles an advertisement as far as I can tell, which was a criticism by DGG on June 27. Chiefmartinez (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Enterprises

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

Non-notable company. Additionally, article creator has conflict of interest: "i am working in this company,so i want to put information about my company in Wikipedia. so please consider my request and don't delete this page ) --Ursragu (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)" "This page should not be speedily deleted because... (this my company profile) --Ursragu (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC) i am aadhavan joinded in this company which supplies cool things for cool people" (quotes from Talk:Rishabh Enterprises) Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom. Newsjunky12 (Talk) 20:43. 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appear to fail WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. Only finding passing mentions (e.g. [8], [9]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hammond

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

Non-notable author, unless we take the unsourced assertions of his publisher as Gospel. Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I certainly don't agree with the man, but he and his ideas get substantial coverage in books such as:

Michael Cuneo, American Exorcism, Random House, 2010.
Gregory L. Reece, Creatures of the Night: In Search of Ghosts, Vampires, Werewolves and Demons, I.B.Tauris, 2012.
Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Sense and Nonsense about Angels and Demons, Zondervan, 2007.
Harvey Cox, Fire From Heaven: The Rise Of Pentecostal Spirituality And The Reshaping Of Religion In The 21st Century, Da Capo Press, 2001.
Thomas J. Csordas, The Sacred Self: A Cultural Phenomenology of Charismatic Healing, University of California Press, 1997.

Hammond's writings had a very strong influence on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, as well as on Protestant "Deliverance ministry" ideas (both in the US and internationally), and this is documented in books such as those listed (all of which are neutral or critical; there are also hundreds of sources from inside the "Deliverance ministry" movement, and several Google Scholar hits in journals on religion and mental health). I think there has been a very clear failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the surprising number of hits in google books that do actually appear to be more than passing mentions. It all seems a little bizarre to me, but there does appear to be coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Mentions in selfpublished books notwithstanding. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The books listed above are published by Random House, I. B. Tauris, Zondervan, Da Capo Press and University of California Press. Hardly self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point, but I don't think mentions in some books constitutes notability. Can you provide any sources where there is substantial coverage? I would be happy to reconsider my viewpoint. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first two, at least, of the books listed above by 202.124.73.12 have substanial coverage of Hammond's work. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a 3rd party source (Cuneo, cited above) for one of Hammond's books selling over 1,000,000 copies. -- 202.124.89.10 (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and rename. Some more expansion would, of course, be greatly welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Campos Torres

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

WP:BIO1E. This was a non-notable person who was killed by police. Althought the crime did get coverage, it doesn't make him notable. Nothing is being said about Torres here, except that he's not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He was killed, but many people are killed. I would understand an article if his death started something significant. SL93 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename: He wasn't just killed, he was murdered by the Houston police, and that led to national outrage and rioting. Either keep the article or rename it to describe the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.171.13 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC) — 98.200.171.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Police abusing their power and then having people be angry about it nationwide is not uncommon which includes beating people to death. SL93 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, murdered IS killed. And this article says nothing about "national outrage" and mentions some localized riots a year afterwards. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Police murders are noteworthy. Murder is not identical to killed (you can be killed by a stray bullet or a bad piece of tuna without being murdered). For national outrage, see the Time magazine article reference.

No, police homicides are not inherently notable. They may be newsworthy, but wikipedia isn't a newspaper. I didn't say murder and killed were IDENTICAL. I said murdered is killed. Is there any way you can be murdered and not be killed? No. Don't tell me what you think I mean and just look at what is said. The Time article is behind a subscription wall. Perhaps you should review BIO1E and maybe WP:VICTIM. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Murder of Joe Campos Torres as per Murder_of_Jeff_Whittington and lots of other murders which are notable when the victims are not. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost agree, but this one doesn't really appear to be that notable. It was mainly a local event. Granted, if the same event were to happen today, it'd get far more coverage, but it simply didn't in that era. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the concept of "notable" is like the concept of beauty, it is always in the eye of the beholder. The fact that he was not known to you does not mean he was not notable. The death of Jose Campos Torres, and the subsequent Moody Park Riot, are both notable to the civil rights history of the city of houston. It led directly to improvements in the relationship between the houston police department and the hispanic community. The case was later made aware to a larger audience, through the song"Jose Campos Torres" by Gil Scott-Herron. Perhaps you are not familiar with Gil Scott-Herron. Again, the fact that you don't know him does not make him "not notable." There is no reason at all to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayside54321 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Bayside54321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but where do you see "I don't know him" as one of the reasons listed? I listed policy based reasons. You, on the other hand, have used WP:IHEARDOFIT as your main reason. BTW: I always get a little suspicious when a new account registers and the first thing is does is come to an AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This text would be better worked into a new Moody Park riots article (for which there is plenty of source material) as the catalyst for those riots. - Dravecky (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First since it is a minor change I would like propose a spelling change of the first name from Joe to Jose.^[1] Secondly, Jose Campos Torres along with other deaths (Murders) not only started a movement but continue to be part of todays strugle for Latinos and African Americans so he is still relevant. This was the onlysite that I found not just a clear understanding of the connecton with what transpired but also a picture of Jose. For those of you who are not familiar with Gil Scott Herrons' "A poem for Jose Campose Torres" I understand why you can not make the connection with him today in 2013. However, as we once again work our way through this depression, aftermath of war (I am a 20yr Vet), and enter into a new era Jose reminds us along with many others, that the followers many time are the ones to pay the ultimate price here at home for change. The leaders from JFK, Martin and possibly next Michell or President Obama may join us but we will surely line the streets before them. Our history has so many holes that one could say our history is yet to be written. From the living Great Grandparents here in Georgia who were born salves or born to slave who were eventually freed during their childhood. To the new researchers who are trying to fill in the gaps. Additionally, I will remind you that many people who use this site (even on phones today) are doing research for personal or educational purposes do not have the time to do what I just went through (yes I'm a newbie). Thank you for your time and understanding. --SFC Burch, Sr. (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)SFC Burch, Sr.SFC Burch, Sr. (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)--— SFC Burch, Sr. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge - I forgot to mention that if a deletion is decide to be necessary I would request the consideration of a merger (in its entirety, to include picture) with a ref to Gil Scott Herrons' --SFC Burch, Sr. (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)SFC Burch, Sr.SFC Burch, Sr. (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)--— SFC Burch, Sr. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I appreciate the emotional connection you feel here, but that's not a valid reason to keep an article. An article about my grandfather might mean a lot to me, but that doesn't make him notable. Your !vote should be based on the policies and guidelines, not emotion and "what if's". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as renamed to cover the event. Notable murder. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you make that change while this is in AfD? Actually, a better suggestion about an article on the Moody Park riots has been put forth. Little premature, aren't you? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is better covered in an article about the Moody Park riots I have no objection to that being effectuated. Certainly the subject is better covered in an article about the murder than as a policy violating biographical article. I didn't think article improvements ceased during AfD discussions and based the move on the discussion taking place here. If it needs to be undone until after the discussion concludes, so be it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article isn't "improvements". Fixing spelling, adding more sourced material etc. Those are improvements. This actions should not have been taken, it pre-empts the process and it should have already been undone. Saying you'll undue it until after ignores that possibility of any outcome besides yours. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Murder of Joe Campos Torres.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James John Bell

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

~~Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO has no real sources and reads like an autobiography. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [10]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed the nominator's vote inside the nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that the subject has written a lot, but not that he's been written about much. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence this person even exists. Possible hoax. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find reliable coverage. Andrew³²⁷ 21:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. Supposed "cover story" link goes to a 404 error, link to the "communications firm" he was supposedly writing for until 2003 leads to a generic blog with generic entries, none of which are even close to 2003. Probably a hoax, and if it isn't a hoax then it's someone so non-notable that even their existence can't easily be proved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Panther

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

~~Article fails WP:GNG and notability template was in place for 5 years warning of the problem. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [11]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Redirect to Globe (band) as per WP:MUSICBIO is there is no evidence of individual notability. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Globe (band). Insufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also removed nominator's vote inside nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note that Marc Panther as a solo artist has one charting single (see here). This fulfills criterion two for WP:MUSICBIO, even if it only charted at number 90--the criterion does not specify how high it has to rank. One can in addition also find independent coverage in multiple sources (some of which is not positive: he was suspected of being involved in a shady business): [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc.. Michitaro (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoang Danh Ngoc

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Appearance in national team is not confirmed by reliable sources. This remains more or less valid. The only coverage he's received are the usual player profiles, which WP:NSPORT explicitly states are trivial sources, making them insufficient for WP:GNG. He has still only ever played in the Vietnamese top flight, which is confirmed as not fully pro. His international appearances are no longer asserted and confirmed not to have taken place. He has been called up to the Vietnamese national team, but since he has yet to play, the article still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a fully professional league (per WP:FPL) or represented his country at senior level. There seem to be a few name-checks in google searches for sites in Vietnamese but not being able to understand Vietnamese, or the Google translations thereof, I would like to get the opinion of a Vietnamese-speaker in this regard. Hack (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hack well there's a lot of newspaper articles mentioning him and a few focussing on him so passes WP:GNG. He has his own vi.wp article, has played for the U23 against Myanmar so is a hope for the national squad. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should be at Hoàng Danh Ngọc, passes WP:GNG but newspaper articles in Vietnamese not English. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have links or references to the articles? And, IIO, are you familiar with the footballer notability guidelines, because they are clear-cut. Are you arguing that the sources definitely indicate he meets our criteria? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Pavlović (footballer born 1982)

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

Restoration of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Article was restored on the grounds that he now plays in a professional league. However, the Macedonian First League, in which he currently plays, is confirmed to not be fully professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find significant coverage in online sources and the article fails NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not sure why this was relisted, ignoring the WP:SPA keep votes, this is an A7/G11 Secret ^account 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media Fame

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

Article about an advertising agency created six months ago. Primary sources, press releases, blogs and non-reliable sources. Fails to meet WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable aggregator of several news, and a quite a large one that is interesting many people. Most of the big important writers and pundits in this field of communication are contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan115 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to confirm notability of this new firm. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough secondary sources are provided. I think that this article follows the guidelines of Wikipedia. --105.158.227.97 (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — 105.158.227.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no signficant independent coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article at the time I reviewed this consists of a press release (not indepdendent); a blog ( nota reliable source); another blog (not a reliable source); MediaFame TV (not independent); and Womenofhiphop (no evidence this is a reliable source).-- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gazetteer. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pronouncing Gazetteer

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

The only results when searching for this publication on the internet are those of the publication itself. Due to this it appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for books. There is no hope of communication with the user who created this article, as the user (Claire Wynn was a suspected sock puppet of Gladys Tuffnell. Both accounts have been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. Jackc143 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gazetteer? I see many such publications included there with article links and external links. Seems worth noting in the encyclopedia. The author (Thomas Bladwin) has published some other work, but I can't find much on him. Alternatively merging into an article on him would be an option if some bits can be put together. He seems to have been from Philadelphia and to have worked with another fellow (http://montgomery.pa-roots.com/Biographies/DavidThomas.html David Thomas) who published some other Gazetteer type pubs and seems to be of some note. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 12 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Programming with Big Data in R

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

Lots of references but which of them actually demonstrate that this software is notable outside the narrow world of statisticians? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. pbdR is series of packages(technically not a software) and is expanding continuously after it's apperance in october 2012.Recently it appeared on Google summer of code for mentoring a project . link: http://rwiki.sciviews.org/doku.php?id=developers:projects:gsoc2013:mpiprofiler and it has been selected for mentoring : your proof :http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/google/gsoc2013/igaurav/30001 . So it is making it's way out of narrow world of statisticians to public. igauravsehrawat —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is it correct that you are doing a GSoC project mentored by pbdR, i.e. you are affiliated with it? --188.98.216.174 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. pbdR is also interested by HPC community; however, common inaccurate impression of pbdR and Rmpi can be fount at http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2013/02/21466.php. Wikipedia should be a perfect place to distinguish and educate this. Wccsnow (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would you please disclose whether you happen to be affiliated with pdbR? Your name indicates you might be Wei-Chen Chen. I've seen you promote this package and his articles all over Wikipedia... --188.98.216.174 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Yes, name changed in personal page. Thank you for your time and contribution. Any editing from anyone to the page is welcome. Wccsnow (talk)

Keep There is no WP policy that states an article needs to be notable outside a given specialty. Instead the real criterion is whether (1) there are multiple independent in-depth reliable sources and (2) the article has surmountable problems. The article itself is well-written and well-cited. Most of the citations specifically about pbdMPI are primary, so the main question is whether there are RS available. Reference 25 is a tutorial by Raim, who I think is independent of the authors and reference 26, the CRAN task view by Eddelbuettel is almost certainly independent. The tutorial goes into a great deal of depth about pbdMPI and the task view has a paragraph about it, which is marginal for the in-depth criterion. Thus notability is marginal, but I am inclined toward keep because (1) a CRAN task view is a short list of the best R packages for a task and the presence of pbdMPI on the list indicates notability by itself and (2) notability for this new R package will only grow over time. Marginal notability and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although weak for me. Indeed, just because there is a narrow community of notability is not by itself grounds for deletion. The article does however, need to show it is notable by reliable sources outside of the group that produced it. There are all sorts of packages promoted by their own developers, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote them using assertions of those same developers. I agree with above arguments that notability is marginal but seems more likely than not to stand the test of time. However, I think the article itself has huge problems. Parts are OK but other parts include a HOWTO which might not belong. Worse is the over-use of inline raw URL links. Generally the body of the article should not have the raw URL links, but be in English with wikilinks on first use of each related term. If a term is not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, then do not link it in the article, but put in external links section of the article on the term that it describes. The section order is also not up to standard. But those can be worked on if it stays. W Nowicki (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to have a strong advertisement bias (see above for the COI question), and we shouldn't start documenting all R packages on Wikipedia. It could probably be merged into some R related article, too. "Appeared in Sept. 2012" certainly does not indicate this is widely adopted yet, is it? --188.98.216.174 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a pass over the article, removing a lot of unrelated references (e.g. citing R; but since R has it's own wikipedia article, we don't need references for its existence!). Now very little references remain, in particular I didn't notice much independent third-party references on pdbR. Google Scholar doesn't find any either. So I'd say delete it for now, and maybe re-add it in 1-2 years when the test of time has proven it to be a commonly used package. --188.98.216.174 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An average CRAN package, as far as I can tell. I see no indication of Wikipedia:Notability. This is and end-of-2012 and 2013 development, and has not received substantial attention yet even within the R community. As such, it lacks in "Significant coverage". The appropriate place for this as of now are CRAN and their homepage, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to cover all 4688 CRAN packages... we can't even cover all of these in footnotes to the R article. That is exactly what CRAN is for, after all. --Chire (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage at Google is not to be found with the exact article title, but with the package names. There are many hits for rmpi (being described as "Two packages (snow, Rmpi) stand out as particularly useful for general use") and for pbdR, and there's of course the website with the same name as this article has been also directly cited by scientific research. Diego (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse pbdR with Rmpi. It's not Rmpi; but a competing approach! The articles citing pdbR are either authored by the pdbR authors, or refer to e.g. "Primary Budget Deficit as a Ratio (PBDR)", I could not find any independent reviewed references. --Chire (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Peer-reviewed papers "authored by their authors" are still relevant to establish notability from the moment they're published by scientific media. And there articles like this that are not by them. Diego (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ample coverage in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Diego (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The scholar link is for a competing package, Rmpi! --Chire (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the other links, pbdR has papers of its own. Diego (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Çelikyurt

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

The last afd resulted in no consensus due to disagreement whether or not playing in the Turkish 2nd division confers notability or not. In recent afd's (here and here) the decision was that it does not. His playing time in Germany was always for reserve teams playing in the fourth division or lower, which does not confer notability either. Most importantly, he has not received significant coverage. Of the sources listed three are player profiles, three are routine transfer announcements, and one is a squad list. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those discussions actually touch on the subject if the 1.Lig is a "fully professional" league. Sources for it being a professional league are easy to find (finding a source including the exact term fully professional is unfortunately difficult for leagues with very little English language coverage), attendances are comparable to the English League Two or the German 3rd division (http://www.mavisimsekler.com/zmanset/en-fazla-biletli-seyirci-adana-demirspor.html), and the clubs sign foreign players from unquestionably professional leagues, who most likely won't play there for free (e.g. from the 2. Bundesliga, Jupiler League, Scandinavian and Eastern European first division leagues). The last two points indicate that the Turkish FA's definition of professional can be read fullfilling the criteria here.Alexpostfacto (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I continue to believe that the article passes the GNG and it is very possible that the Turkish second level is fully-pro. Online Turkish-language sources are difficult to find for me, but there is enough here to warrant keeping the article. Jogurney (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the nominator is correct that the previous AfD reached no concensus because of uncertainty about the fully-pro status of the Turkish league. Instead, editors were split about whether the article satisfied the GNG. I've added another article of significant coverage to show that GNG is truly met here. Jogurney (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has any Turkish speaking user comment on this subject? I mean the full pro status of turkish second divison? I find it hard to believe a country so fanatic with football only has 1 fully pro league. I would go with Alexpostfacto point, maybe the lack of verifiable sources in english is the problem.--Threeohsix (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shirukume

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

Non-notable and defunct rock band with no reliable sources which maintain their place. Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article helps improve Wikipedia's coverage. NHCLS (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improves Wikipedia's coverage of what? A band which fails every criteria set for the notability of such a topic. Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 05:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion, leaning towards keep. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FCEUX

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

Insignificant NES emulator. No evidence of notability over others. Beerest355 Talk 23:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I do see coverage in multiple RSes (e.g. GameSetWatch, Kotaku, Kotaku, etc.). I guess the question of notability turns on whether or not this is significant coverage. Certainly sources like these cover FCEUX through a large proportion of the source article, but then again the source articles are pretty small. I tend to !vote keep for topics like this that are of borderline notability. -Thibbs (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comment by Thibbs.Besides,I think this can be considered as significant coverage.L smll 10:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. As noted below, the article's history remains available for anyone interested in merging. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sextape (song)

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

Evidently, demonstrating this subject's notability is very much impossible. Article has been tagged with questionable notability since November 2010 without substantial changes since then. Appears to fail WP:NSONG. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:NSONGS as it has not charted and is not notable. STATic message me! 02:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diamond Eyes - If it is not notable, the remaining content also can be easily merged into the main album's article after redirection. Deletion process isn't even necessary for this case. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press Association

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

advertisement The Banner talk 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is clearly notable, and if it reads like an advertsiement to you, The Banner, simply reference it and rewrite it using neutral language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and in 25 years it is still written as an advertisement as nobody seems to care. But even the slightest digging made clear that the author is a professional marketeer working for a corporate client. Not illegal, but I I prefer to use WP:TNT. If it is really a notable club, it should not have needed a marketeer to get an article. The Banner talk 09:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you even read the article? This is not about anything resembling a club in the slightest. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I have read the article, but did you read the article Club? I quote: A club is an association of two or more people united by a common interest or goal. The Banner talk 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but not every association of two or more people united by a common interest or goal is a club, for example limited companies, military units and political parties fit that description, but are not clubs. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wp:snow. This is a major press organisation in the UK, that shares stories between news agencies, a bit like Reuters. Finding third party source on the agency will be hard because they report the news, a bit like finding third party sources on the BBC or CNN.Martin451 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a well known organisation that it would be absurd for WP not to have an article. It is highly unsatisfactory as it stands, not because it is an advertisement but because it is little more than a directory listing, but that is not ground for deletion. As Martin451 points out, sources are limited and like many other commercial organisations the information needed must come mainly from within it, directly and indirectly. 'Independent sources' is a myth in WP in such cases - either they are using information the organisation provides, or it is in some sense made up. Company reports are best because they are audited and regulated despite their limitations, but I cannot get the latest copy to download properly from the PA website. The biggest nonsense in WP is where company profiles published in business pages are proclaimed as independent and reliable. It may come as a shock to some that the writer is unlikely to have spent months finding out for herself, and even then she would have been relying on company records. In reality she will have used a press briefing and perhaps the company reports, and that is not even going into the circumstances in which it was written in the first place. The article refers to a history of the PA written in 2001 by a former member of staff not available online, and content from that would be invaluable in the article, but it would be of little help for the current organisation. --AJHingston (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article badly needs editing, but the Press Association is an important and long-lived organisation. There's a lot of media coverage of the Press Association and its parent company PA Group.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Arguably this isn't independent coverage, but with most British media buying from them, and staff moving back and forth, it's going to be hard to get 100% independence. There's also a book Living on a Deadline: A History of the Press Association by Chris Moncrieff, a former PA employee, though independently published.[24] Here's a bit of coverage from other media.[25][26][27][28] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this nomination is simply absurd. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ridiculous nom: even the proposer agrees that the subject is a notable one. Yes, the language could be construed as being biased, but that's a case for re-writing, not deleting. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That i why I suggest WP:TNT, because it is easier to remove this marketing language all together and start all over again. Everybody is complaining about the languages, but nobody acts upon it. Removal is then the better option. The Banner talk 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This article is about the largest news agency in the UK. The article isn't even that bad, save for some promotional language in the intro. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 09:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate keep -- EVen if it is full of ADVERT language. This is an extremely notable organisation. The fact that it needs cleaning up is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ECircle

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

advertisement The Banner talk 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve: If it was clearly just an advert with no redeeming value then it could be speedied, but it doesn't appear to meet that criteria. Just because the article is currently overly promotional is not a reason to scrap it entirely. The company seems notable, from my cursory Google searches for "Teradata ecircle" and "ecircle news -teradata":

-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work of course to salvage the article. I might have some time to start that today.... W Nowicki (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the lack of independent reliable sourcing mandates deletion here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanaza

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

Non-notable start-up. It has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Edcolins (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I scrolled the first 3 pages of Google results and listed some of the links that I found. I will need some help to understand which ones are totally insignificant, as most of them seems to be written by independent bloggers / industry experts, newspapaers, startup-related publications. What can make all of them irrelevant?

Patro-claus (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 13 references you listed do not show that the company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. See in that respect Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Blogs such as references 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 are largely not acceptable (see WP:USERG). References 5, 7 appear to have been directly or indirectly published by the company (see WP:CORPDEPTH), i.e. they do not appear to be independent sources. The TechCrunch reference (reference 11) is acceptable as such but only contains a passing mention of the company amongst quite a few other companies. Thus, so far, we haven't enough coverage to keep the article. --Edcolins (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I limited a Google search to articles written in Italian and still couldn't find any good references. If Italian press doesn't cover an Italian company, then I think it is unlikely that other reliable secondary sources will be found.--Nowa (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:22, 12 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Linardos

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to Anorthosis Famagusta. However, since he is yet to actually play for them, this is insufficient for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Easterday

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

This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E, only known for his illness. Delete Secret ^account 18:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable for life's work and per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't really see what the issue here is as far as questioning notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:42, 7 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:02, 12 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there's no "event" here, this is not a "textbook WP:BLP1E." The policy is not WP:BLP1THINGOFANYKIND, and we do not delete articles just because the subject is notable only because of a physical/medical condition. Plus, as the focus of BLP1E is to avoid separate articles on people incidentally caught up in larger news events who otherwise remain "low-profile", it's nonsensical to try and stretch it to cover someone who played a semi-fictional version of themselves in a feature film, appeared multiple times on The Jerry Springer Show, and was the subject of a TLC special. Clearly not someone who is trying to remain low-profile. So per satisfying WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources (and sustained over time, so not a NOTNEWS issue), keep. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candle and postdlf. Is it starting to WP:SNOW yet? A medical condition is not an event, and the guy's gotten a lot of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The focus of a movie and a television special, that should be sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete York Blues Project

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

The band exists, and thought I could do something with this, but there's not enough information available. Merely a list of CVs of its members. I have hidden the content as a) it reads like a translation, and b) it could be copyvio. Technopat (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:03, 12 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This brings to mind WP:GARAGEBAND. Probably more prominent than the fictional example given but it still applies in my book. Lazy Bastard Guy 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think WP:GARAGEBAND is not really applicable here. This group consists of individually notable musicians. In fact, every member of the group has a Wikipedia page, and arguably they meet WP:BAND point 6. Are they a supergroup of blues musicians? Possibly, but given the lack of sources writing about them, I hesitate to say point 6 is met. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content is very likely a copyvio. See this. The article as it stands is completely unsuitable to the point that it would need to be blown up and started over again. I'm not sure this collaboration of musicians is notable, although the individual members are individually notable. Looking at the deleted contents, and the line-up for this project, it looks the same as the Jon Lord Blues Project which is in horrible shape but which at a cursory glance does appear to be notable. Did this band morph names? The deleted contents would seem to hint they are the same. If so a redirect would be appropriate but given the copyvio concerns, that can be done after deleting the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:. Thanks for feedback. I think, without having gone into it too much, that the Jon Lord project is actually a spin-off of this one, but it's evident that the possible copyvio issues are key here (if not at the other page????). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I don't know which came first as teh rambling text doesn't make it very clear. It also doesn't help that there is no reliable source discussing teh band's history on which we can ascertain if the Jon Lord Project is a spin-off. There is no copyvio apparent at the other page. It may not be well-written, but it doesn't appear to have copied material. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After more poking around, I found this site which seems to be the source of copy for this article. I read it again more carefully, and it seems that the Jon Lord Blues Project is the original name of the band, and it has undergone name changers after Lord's pancreatic cancer sidelined him from playing, and ultimately he succumbed to the cancer. So I'll reiterate that this must be deleted as a copyvio. The band is best known the Jon Lord Blues Project, so a redirect after the deletion makes sense. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:. No objection :) Regs., --Technopat (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Kazemi

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

This is a WP:1E of an immigration dossier. The person is not notable and there is no claim of notability in the article. Farhikht (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I wouldnt at all object to moving the article to a different non biographical name it seems the case has been notable, and is ref'd. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the article be moved to Asylum case of Mehdi Kazemi? I don't see a move button.. Seems the case has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There are 100,000s of asylum claims. 1000s of them are accepted. Because homosexuality is persecuted in certain countries, that is a ground for asylum, and there are probably 100s of which cases. What makes this case unique enough to be notable. Apart from his sexuality, I see nothing notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admin could move it. If you want that to happen, Candleabracadabra, I suggest you vote to keep. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:50, 10 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High profile case (see here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-life-or-death-decision-792058.html). Worth keeping. Kabirat (talk) 12:04, 14 July 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) 18:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although there are more keep !votes than delete ones, remember that AFD is not a vote. I am closing this as no consensus as, after 3 weeks, there have been only 2 policy-based delete !votes... not enough for a solid consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traedonya

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having done my own search I could find virtually nothing. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, sure, but nothing by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Happy to consider anything anyone can find, but I can't support keeping this at the moment. Stalwart111 08:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have done my research and honestly, I do not know why this article is being considered for deletion? It's obvious that the page is being worked on constantly to reach proper page standings. The musician is an established performer. Some of you guys just like performing deletions because it's fun for you and may assume some type of power. I say allow the page to continue to be developed. Wouldn't that be fair? Plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are listed for this article to remain. I support keeping this page. Ugene' Cromwell111 7:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Ugene' Cromwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You are the creator of the page and you have a conflict of interest therefore your vote does not count. Koala15 (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Why wouldn't my comment count if I'm making a "valid" point? The artist has plenty of press on line as well as in print, do your research. Ugene' Cromwell111 (talk 8:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No need for the dueling "comment" notes - just indent properly.

Ugene, the conflict of interest is one thing but the ad hom attack on anyone who has supported deletion as fun and a power-trip is not the right way to go about it. There's nothing "valid" about that point. If you truly want to make a "valid point" then demonstrate you have met your burden of proof and have provided significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That hasn't been included in the article so far and saying such coverage exists doesn't make it so. There are broken links, obviously un-reliable sources, things sourced to her myspace page and things filed in "press release" categories. My advice? Avoid all of those along with the passing mentions in articles about someone else. The New York Magazine article is in the right direction but still doesn't really provide significant coverage of the subject. Go back and provide some proper sources, lose the personal attacks and you'll have a much better chance of saving your article. Stalwart111 03:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm not sure why you decided to borrow my 111s (though I have absolutely no problem with that) but the link you used doesn't work. Stalwart111 03:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, I'm quite new at building and editing articles, I'm learning as I go. In ref to personal attacks, that was not intentional or directed to anyone specific. It's just something that I've noticed about different articles since paying attention to different type of articles. So my statement was just my opinion, not personal and not directed to anyone specific. I indeed do need help as I go and would like your guidance, until I get the hang of the wiki community, the proper way to do things and what not to do. This is my first time building an article. As far as your "111", I thought that I needed that for my comment to be listed, my apologies. I do look forward to you helping with this page, I see that you have many credentials on wiki. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugene' Cromwell (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're new, you're not connected to the subject and you have a genuine interest in contributing here, you should probably start by creating articles about obviously notable subjects and then move on to creating some about subjects of marginal or questionable notability. There are plenty of things in the world that are obviously notable but don't have articles here. Start on those, gain experience, build your skills and then go back to articles where you're going to have to fight to prove notability. If you have a basic understanding of the principles of notability and verifiability here, you'll have a much easier time of it. For this article, you still need to demonstrate that the subject meets our General Notability Guidelines. Stalwart111 22:45, 1 July 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)} 15:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. New York Magazine, Carribeean E Magazine etc. Article simply needs improvement. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The CEM piece you cite is a press release, is categorised that way and has been discussed above. It has been acknowledged that the New York Magazine article is a start but there is literally nothing else available, certainly not "substantial coverage". Stalwart111 03:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literally nothing else? From the Seattle Post Intelligencer "On the stage, get ready for the talent of TraeDonya, the "Bride of Funk." Calling her work "hip opera," the diva "sings with raw passion, love and sometimes anger." TraeDonya also offers workshops for young women in which she discusses the highs and lows of the music industry." see here. There are also several book sources including in an encyclopedia. She is noted, for example, here, here, here and elsewhere. This coverage seems pretty substantial. This doesn't seem insignificant. She seems to have garnered coverage in reliable sources. She's not the most famous artist, but she's been noted for her solo work, her band, and for her work with other more notable talents. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact I see numerous sources are listed in the "Further Reading" section. I don't see how this recording artist could be considered nonnotable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere! The Amalgamation Mag content is certainly worth using. The line from the Seattle PI is the only line in that article about her. A passing mention in an article about other things really isn't significant coverage, though it is better than some of the stuff cited now. Likewise, the passing mentions in books or magazines (where title, authorship and reliability are uncertain) don't add much. I'm 50/50 on the Urban Network source. It was added by a site administrator though authorship is unclear. It's not the worst source, but probably not the best. If you have a look at the Further Reading list, most of the material there would fall into the category of WP:USERG, which was the issue from the start. In total, I'd say we're looking at 2 decent sources, 1 possibly okay source and a passing mention. It won't take much more than that and you've certainly found more than me. Got anything else? Stalwart111 07:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agata Materowicz

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

Artist bio that seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY. The author has been friendly and tried to argue for notability on my talk page (User_talk:Piotrus#Agata_Materowicz_article), sadly despite their efforts, I am still not seeing anything about notability. There's no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; author's publications are almost completely in her role as an illustrator, she has one solo article in a mainstream newspaper, her awards seem non-notable, etc. I would be happy if people could argue otherwise, particularly as it is a shame to waste the author's effort. If it is deleted, I am asking for this to be userfied in the author namespace. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of this article. I would like to open discussion, how should we treat those two TV video programs about Materowicz. In my opinion, they are meeting reliability requirements and standards : “ Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.”- SOURCE WIKIPEDIA.

TV Programs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA1sP3HBk3A -Video interview by TV Polsat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30jDbBE3jw8 -Video interview by TV WOT Regards The author of Agata Materowicz article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiciatycia (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's true that lots of sources can be used to verify notability - but not that youtube is a reliable source. What we do here is say "TV Polsat interviewed Agata Materowicz on such and such a date on such and such a programme." And then we cite the original programme, air date, station, etc. We can't cite youtube, because anyone can post anything and say that it's whatever they want. I don't know about the notability here, and have not had a chance to look into it, but wanted to comment on the source issue noted above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ultraexactzz, Thank you for your comment. I don't agree with your opinion about Materowicz video, but I agree -we don't agree :). I have added some other reliable sources: 1.Agata Materowicz, the article: "A Puff of Absurdity , TVN Warsaw , 2011, Retrieved 10 June 2013, URL: http://tvnwarszawa.tvn24.pl/material/w-klebach-absurdow,88731,0,0.html 2.Materowicz own book, except the text, Agata Materowicz: "Mushroom Dreams”, published by A.M.Design, 2010, ISBN 978-83-62624-02-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum 3.Materowicz drawings in Anna Sieradzka: "Cloak, train dress, peaked for-pointed cap: art and fashion in Polish Modernism", Ossolineum, 1991, ISBN 8304024535, ISBN 9788304024533 4.Article about Materowicz in the newspaper: Warsaw Guest, page 8, Gosc Warszawski Retrieved 17 June 2013, URL:http://gosc.pl/files/old/gosc.pl/zalaczniki/2007/11/12/1194861444/1194861459.pdf 5.The article about Materowicz International Exibition: “Art for Documentation - Documentation for the art”, (paragraph#7), Anka Lesniak, Retrieved 17June 2013, URL: http://www.lodz-art.eu/wydarzenia/sztuka_obiekt_zapis5 6.Two pdf files about Shankar’s International Children’s Competition, Delhi a/ https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B98i2xjTQ6YtSE93eEVwQ09fUmc/edit b/ https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B98i2xjTQ6YtNElyb0hIa0JRa1E/edit?pli=1 7.Award for Materowicz- photo competition, URL: http://www.warsawvoice.pl/WVpage/pages/articlePrint.php/16532/article Regards The author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiciatycia (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the refs above: http://tvnwarszawa.tvn24.pl/material/w-klebach-absurdow,88731,0,0.html is an article by her, on a relatively mainstream web portal; few such articles still don't make one notable as a journalist (this is the case of a person being almost notable in a number of categories, but not notable in any of them). 2 and 3 - yes, she is a book illustrator, but that does not count for much, not unless her work has generated coverage in itself. 4 is an article in a small local newspaper (not mainstream), about a photo by her son; her own work is briefly mentioned (she is not the main subject of the article). 5 covers her work in one paragraph; she is not the main subject of this - this is simply a (self-published, I think) about gallery (or at best a local newspaper) article about an exhibition. 6 docs.google screams self-published so much I am not even going to bother clicking on them, sorry 7. Warsaw Voice is a (notable) local newspaper; she is listed there as one of several winners of a minor, local competition. I am sorry, nothing here is enough to warrant notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. The article has a lot of issues and needs work. I suggest the author take it through the articles for creation process... Can someone provide a link? :) There is some notability, but it's hard to sort out and expertise is needed to work up an appropriate article that might meet present Wikipedia standards or in future with additional coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muni 4: Ganga

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

The original Muni (2007) was a box office hit; Muni 2: Kanchana (2011) had a turnover of crores of Rs and won many awards; Muni 3: Ganga is in "post" and will be released in December 2013. As for Muni 4: Ganga there are vague suggestions in Bollywood, Tollywood, the a to z of Filmi-woods that it is tentatively slated to be released in 2016. Maybe. Stop (ie: by analogy, delete): Hammer Time. Shirt58 (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per TOO SOON to Muni (film)#Sequels until such time as the film meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dust if you must

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

I found no coverage for this poem. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. We have two issues here: one is that there is nothing reliable out there that confirms that Rose Mulligan is the author. Of the sites and places this poem is listed, many list the poem as being written by an anonymous author. Of the ones that do list Mulligan, quite a few attribute the factoid to Wikipedia. If by some chance this is kept, the poem should be listed as being an anonymous one rather than by Mulligan, as we have zero proof as to her authorship. Now that aside, there is also the issue with reliable sources. The article and the argument on the talk page tries to argue that this poem has been listed on several pages, but the issue is that being put on various pages doesn't always guarantee notability as far as Wikipedia is considered. A good many of these sites are your run of the mill blogs that wouldn't count towards notability and the rest aren't really the sort that we'd consider to be a RS. If anything, they'd be considered to be a primary source more than anything else. Now part of the issue I've come across with sources is that I can see where this has been printed, but being reprinted isn't always a guarantee of notability. I could find where it was posted in a few papers such as the Victorian Advocate and in a few books, but I can't find any actual analysis of this poem in reliable sources. I'm going to say that this should be deleted because there aren't that many reprintings of this or in any way that would really show that the poem is anything than a cute thing someone found online. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established, and Wikipedia is not just a scrapbook of links to cute poems someone found somewhere. Edison (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Users interested in merging content elsewhere may contact me; I'll restore the article to userspace for you to work with. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future Korean War

AfDs for this article:

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

complete speculation, belongs on a blog, not an encyclopedia. There is already a page for OPLAN 5027, which already contains enough WP:Crystal Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 11:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay and violation of the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL (hopefully and presumably this event never comes to pass). Serious Korean geopolitics is already being written about at North Korea–South Korea relations, for example; there is no need for a compendium of the opinions and "predictions" of publicists and talking heads. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Speculation about a future conflict doesn't constitute an encyclopedia article but an essay....William 20:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some in the previous AfD - WP:CRYSTAL only applies to unverifiable speculation, unlike this article - consider it like World War III. It could use a better title and better writing, but the subject passes WP:N. Ansh666 03:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've notified all participants in the last AfD. Ansh666 03:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with User:Ansh666's above comment, as well as previous AfD remarks.--ɱ (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge I gave some input to the previous attempt to delete this. I originally identified the OPLAN article and advocated that OPLAN take its place in the first nomination. It is also better sourced, in terms of actual plans and doctrines. I would suggest a new title though.Irondome (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, it is still a highly speculative article with no basis in reality. The "predictions" listed are simply SWAG, and poor ones with that. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 05:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "speculation" is not a valid reason to delete something. Speculation by individual editors is not appropriate in articles, of course, but speculation by reliable sources is. CRYSTAL does not prevent us from including verifiable information about (potential) future events. Possibly this could be merged, but such a solution is not compatible with deletion. Hut 8.5 09:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read what WP Crystal actually says, there is very little verified information in this article and its all contained in OPLAN 5027 already Mztourist (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what CRYSTAL says, thank you. It says that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognised entities in a field may be included". The information in this article falls into this category. The article is pretty well sourced, and a number of the sources are clearly in a position to know what they are talking about. Hut 8.5 16:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 sources quoted for the predictions - Wachter, Hitchens, Air University and Country Risk Solutions. Christopher Hitchens was not an expert on Korea or military strategy, I havent been able to find anything about Paul Wachter that establishes him as an expert on Korea or military strategy so that leaves 2 sources which can easily go into the OPLAN page. All the rest of the article is just fluff to justify its existence. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Hitchens isn't really a prediction, rather he's making an observation about the effect of this potential war on US policy towards North Korea. OPLAN 5027 is a specific operational plan, it isn't appropriate to include Korean War predictions in its article unless they are specifically predictions about the likely consequences of OPLAN 5027. You're also ignoring the discussion of US war games in that section, and the (very likely) possibility that there are other sources talking about the subject that aren't included. Hut 8.5 08:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so Hitchens isn't an expert and isn't even speaking about the "future war" so the reference is irrelevant. War games go on all the time on both side of the border as contingency planning and that should be covered on the OPLAN 5027 page. The fact is that OPLAN 5027 is the best guess by the US and South Korea of how a conflict might break out and how to deal with it and as there are no North Korean sources available that is the most appropriate place for the few sources for this "future war" speculation to reside. Mztourist (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OPLAN 5027 article is about OPLAN 5027. Predictions about a future Korean War that do not involve OPLAN 5027 do not belong there, and there is no reason to arbitrarily exclude all other predictions, even if OPLAN 5027 is the best guess. In any case if material from this article is going to be used in some other article then the page cannot be deleted. (If you do want to merge the content somewhere else, which I wouldn't object to, then Division of Korea would be a better target.) Hut 8.5 12:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait and see what the consensus isMztourist (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the best aspects of the existing article with the most relevant sources should be merged with the OPLAN article. As I said last time. Yawn. It would need a major restructuring and rewrite. Would suggest title; Future Korean war plans and forecasts 1953-2013 Irondome (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that sounds like a fanboy blog which is what we're trying to avoid here, OPLAN is real, the two sourced expert references can be put into the OPLAN page as speculation as to how a conflict could ariseMztourist (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pushing for OPLAN since the first time this came up for deletion back in April. As I originally suggested OPLAN as a suitable merge your rudeness is not hugely appreciated mate. I assume you have not read the original nomination for deletion. I am glad you have come on board to my original idea. Not a great title no, but maybe we do need a fresh and more expansive title. In fact it is essential. OPLAN is far too esoteric for a casual search. Irondome (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Only future events that are certain to happen should have Wikipedia entries. This article opens up itself to too much speculation and original research. JOJ ^Hutton 03:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The main information of Futere Korean War is only "Prediction", and also, there are enough information on OPLAN 5027. I cannot agree why this article should exist independently to seperate with OPLAN 5027. -- Jjw (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further Search Marketing

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

Per WP:ORG; no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Keri (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- despite a couple of minor awards, this sounds to me like a NN comnpany. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find a lot of reliable sources online, mostly press releases and local papers. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. You should have purchased your milk and bread by now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

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

A similar article about this as-yet-unborn person was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. As such, this would normally be a speedy deletion candidate under WP:CSD#G4, but I am nominating it at AfD as well to get confirmation that this page should be deleted. We are not going to lose any significant information if we wait an additional week or so to create an article under this person's actual name when he or she is born. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I CSD'd it for the reason that all criteria in the original discussion is valid (and reading the creator's talk page it does seem misguided). Then I removed the speculative content and was left with 6 sentences, which is none too long for the mother's WP page in a subsection. Take out the list of countries and its even shorter. Should be obvious that this is deletable ASAP. I was going to AFD it but took the chance as it met CSD G4Lihaas (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. The child (or soon-to-be-born child) of famous people does not automatically warrant a separate article. The child should be notable in their own right. Any content could be easily merged into both the parents' articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to neutral. Other comments have convinced me that such a separate page on the child will be warranted since he/she will be notable at birth: the next person added to the list of the line of succession to the British throne. However, I am now on the fence beacause I am concerned that for the first few years of the child's life, such a separate article will devolve into a type of WP:BLP1E article, full of gossip, news and WP:CRYSTAL speculation. Wikipedia is not news, and we should not use the page to document every single thing reported by reliable sources that would normally fall under WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E, and WP:EVENT. Again, for the first few years, the child will be only notable for one single fact and event. Most of the contently on the page right now makes it seem like the article's title should instead be Birth of the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. As WP:GNG states, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article" (emphasis added). Another comment below mentioned the Princess Athena of Denmark article, but that is not the same, as members of the Danish monarchy do not nearly get as much worldwide tabloid news coverage and recentism as those of the British monarchy. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this will be too much of a worry. The articles for Prince Christian of Denmark, Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange, Princess Elisabeth, soon-to-be Duchess of Brabant and Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland are all articles about young heirs and heirs-to-heirs that have remained relatively free of gossip. Athena isn't the best example as she has a remote chance of becoming queen of Denmark, but I think provided that experienced editors keep an eye on the article, gossip and useless cruft can be avoided. Morhange (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it worth discussing the deletion of the article when the child could be born any time now? Next week this time the article might be there anyway. Why not just wait and let the matter rest for a while? @ Zzyzx11: I believe your discussion about the child's notability is besides the point. The child will be notable from the time of his or her birth and probably is notable even now befor his or her birth as it will be the heir to the throne of the UK (third in line). --Maxl (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what was said before th epost you made? "NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO#Invalid criteria". Mere fact of being BORN is not notable because notability is not inheritedLihaas (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are exceptions to any rule. I think being third in line to the British throne is a criteria of notability and, therefore, an exception. For example, we've got the two young sons of Henry VIII by Catherine of Aragon who died in early infancy. Had they survived they'd have inherited the throne. --Maxl (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is nonsense. NOTINHERITED has nothing to do with this case as the article does not concentrate on the baby's relatives, nor is the baby notable only because of his or her relatives. The article is about the world's most famous child, about a person whose mere birth is expected to bring hundreds of millions to the world economy. The subject of the article has been more than sufficiently covered by reliable sources. The article itself contains no speculation whatsoever and does not resemble the deleted page at all. The information Lihaas removed without any discussion was properly sourced and confirmed by officials - completely opposite of "speculation" and "tabloids". Surtsicna (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read WP:GNG. And read it again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should like to delete under the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL - it should not be necessary to spell out the reasons why WP should not have articles about the yet unborn. But I agree that it is so near the likely event that there is not a lot to gain provided very tight control is taken of the article by experienced editors. Like others I am in no doubt as the notability of the child when born. Notability guidelines are just that - there are times when common sense and the intention of WP:GNG must prevail and WP must avoid making itself a laughing stock, for precisely the reason given in the Washington Times quote in the lead sentence. Notability is not inherited is often misunderstood by being taken too literally; all notability is derived ultimately from something or someone else (that is one reason for orphan articles being tagged) and any child will be in direct line of descent to the throne. --AJHingston (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same WP:CRYSTAL that clearly states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Or keep, in other words. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I spoke of the spirit, not the letter, of WP:CRYSTAL and it would be better to discuss there whether there should be special reference to pregnancy. There is a big difference between a planned sporting event and a birth, and the things that can go wrong. --AJHingston (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:POLITICIAN; the child will be third in line to the throne of England and the policy allows those elected/appointed but not yet sworn in to have pages (the child will not be officially in line until birth). Seems like a wonky application of the policy, but I feel that in this case it applies as the pre-natal infant clearly passes GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : While I have little interest in royal families, this surely passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. There is plenty of RS that consider the individual in detail. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply: the baby is notable in herself. WP:CRYSTAL also does not apply: the article subject exists and is discussed in sources right now -it is simply still inside the mother's womb. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Move to her actual name when she is born and her name is revealed. Georgia guy (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I think creation of this article is probably a little premature, the child should certainly have an article after its birth. I wonder whether those who have cited WP:NOTINHERITED are actually being serious - this child will one day be head of state of the United Kingdom! Not might be, but, barring accidents, will be. If they are being serious, words fail me... -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The child-to-be is notable in its own right and a lot has happened since the previous article was deleted. Incidentally we will not know the baby's name immediately when it is born (only within a couple of days thereof), so the argument to wait for that doesn't hold much water. Helen (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I should note that I wouldn't object if an article about this child were created immediately after he or she is born and his or her name is announced. I just think that a "placeholder" article like this one is of little use. After the baby is born, nobody is going to look for an article about him or her by searching for "Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a placeholder. This is not a hypothetical entity that could or could not be -in that case, WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Embryos/fetuses/unborn children are real. That child exists right here, right now, and it is already discussed by sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea how WP:NOTINHERITED would apply in this case--this child is the eldest child of the eldest child of the eldest child of the most famous monarch in the world. Regardless of gender, this child will in all likelyhood be the future monarch of the United Kingdom and even if the monarchy fails, a pretender. This is not the child of Tom Cruise, but a member of a royal family. Their notability derives from their birth into that family. We have an article for Princess Athena of Denmark despite the remote chance of her ever ascending the Danish throne, because as a member of royal family, she is inherently notable. I would even go as far to say that this article isn't specifically about the child, but about the circumstances around the pregnancy and the child's impending birth. At any rate, he or she will be born within the next couple weeks, maybe even before this AfD is closed. Morhange (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before I created the article I did the reseach, and as I said on the article's talkpage the day I created the article, it:

- Contains no unverifiable speculation.

- Is not about an anticipated future event, it is about an unborn child.

- Is about a subject which demonstrably already enjoys wide interest.

- Only contains predictions or speculation of future events (which hospital, etc) which is verifiable from reliable expert sources, is notable and is almost certain to take place. Bo.Clive (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slight contradiction here--it is about the unborn child, therefore the birth taking place doesn't even matter. So your argument is stronger than you've laid out.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see the argument that we should wait until the baby's actual born, but there's absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy to support that. What matters is that the topic receives significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and this topic most certainly does. Do we wait for sporting events to begin to create articles on them? Do we wait for albums to be released to create articles on them? While the fact that something hasn't happened yet can be strong evidence in favor of deletion, it isn't in itself enough.

I'm also reminded of Jimbo's comments here, in that topics such as these largely fall under our systemic bias. While my personal interests are about as divergent from tabloid sensationalization as you can get, the objective part of me has long wondered why we don't have articles on, for instance, notable romantic relationships. If Wikipedia were written by a random cross-section of the English-speaking population, this would almost certainly be the case. So, in a broader context, I see this article's existence as a positive step in that direction. But even if you disagree with that, I think WP:42 is fairly clearly passed here. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I love that we have an article about someone who isn't even born yet. Part of me wants to vote keep just because of the absurdity of it all. Honestly, it is already sort of absurd that we have articles about infants who are royalty. This is just delicious. You know what, screw it, Keep per WP:LOLWHATEVER.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The Duchess's pregnancy has been the subject of significant media coverage. Pburka (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N which roughly says "a topic is presumed to be notable is it has been the subject of numerous independent reliable sources" and histmerge the contents of Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge into it.--Laun chba ller 09:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously, and what a colossal waste of time; proposing deletion of an article so it can be recreated, in the nominator's own words, in "a week or so". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course this is one of the sillier articles ever on WP (an article on an unborn child? Really?) Of course the child is only notable because of its parents (who themselves are only notable because she is married to him and he's only notable because of his parents). But as long as we have this medieval institution of royalty around, people will have this (rather unhealthy) fixation with royal families (who nowadays really don't do much of any real importance) and write articles in otherwise respectable newspapers about unborn children, gossip about little kids, etc. And, unfortunately, that makes these fetuses, children, and adults notable under WP:GNG. This need for royal fables apparently is something inherently human (remember that the French Revolution -supposed to make an end to monarchy for once and ever- ended up with putting an emperor on the throne...) --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page will just re-created in a week or two because the child will be born... The page satisfies WP policies WP:GCG. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 14:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: "The page will just re-created in a week or two because the child will be born...". Waltor (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! And then we'll have a baby doing what babies do well (crying, sleeping, filling diapers, being cute, etc) and it will be plenty notable because of its notable parents who are notable because... Etc. Newspapers will all fall over themselves to cover these exciting events and GNG will be met even more than it already is. --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look at fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/5 juillet 2013#Ils sont fous ces anglais ! 129.102.254.253 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. Some very good arguments raised for inclusion there, actually... not that any more were needed. :P I'm happy to translate, though, if anyone's curious. (The French also have something more of an "academic" bias than En.WP... I seem to recall them deleting some page on a rather notable reality star simply because they didn't think reality stars were important. But the great thing about Wikifederalism is that we don't have to worry about all that stuff.) — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. No point in dragging this out further. IgnorantArmies 16:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems reasonable to have this preliminary version of the article in preparation for the event. It will be moved and suitably modified on the day itself, provided all goes well. Mathsci (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before even being born, the child has already inspired changes in law in multiple Commonwealth realms (see Perth Agreement). On that alone, this child is already notable despite still being in the womb; it should be no problem moving this article to the child's proper name once he/she is born AND has a name (that name might NOT be announced immediately). --RBBrittain (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal Bol work. The Banner talk 11:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo House, University of New South Wales

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

Contested PROD. This is a planned residential building at the university for 2014. Sources on the building only appear in primary sources. Residential buildings on campuses are not inherently notable, and the article does not meet notability per the general notability guideline and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best non-notable, at worst a hoax. Not even the cited references mention Colombo House. —teb728 t c 06:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search returns no sources other than Wikipedia and its mirrors on this supposed development. As such, it's likely to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. The lone reference does not support the upcoming existence of a Colombo House making no mention of it whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Redirect option can be discussed on article talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Partnership Initiative on Urban Youth Development in Africa

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

This initiative of the UN does not have any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The only coverage of substance comes from the UN itself which is not independent. Whpq (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention at UN-HABITAT, it is a searchable term - [29]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Butter & Co.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fixing nomination for DGG who would likely suggest this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 23:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable company, with sources being only PR and content being mainly name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The coverage is mostly from 1999, but there has been some coverage since that point such as from the Jerusalem Post in 2007, Baltimore Sun in 2000, and what looks to be an article in Brandweek in 2008. There are also some mentions in some travel books such as Frommer's, but since I don't know what the qualification is to be in those books, I don't entirely know how reliable such a source is. There's just enough to where I think it might squeak by. If it was just the 1999/2000 coverage I'd probably vote otherwise, but the other coverage is enough for me to give it a weak keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the most notable subject in the world but appears to have received some substantial coverage in (relatively) reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nontrivial coverage in multiple independent sources (Tokyogirl79 finds refs spanning 10 years, so not a brief flicker that fizzled or failed to attract attention after initial opening. Previous afd found some in-depth coverage as well (FoodTV highlights, etc.). DMacks (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember (Ember song)

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

I'm not seeing anything that suggests this song is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced fancruft. — Wylie pedia 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reference on this article but I have found two sources for external links but that's not going to be enough to meet Wikipedia's notibility guidelines. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable song. Koala15 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After the article has been on AFD for over a month, there is not a clear consensus. I am not relisting it again; there is clearly no consensus and the article will be kept. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

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

No RS to support this, not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-orelated deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I see is passing mention when the head of the group is quoted. I see no significant coverage of the group itself in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator here. Since the article was listed for deletion I have added a couple references from credible third-party sources and will continue to do so. The text is NPOV. On the subject of notability I don't think there's any shortage of mention of the group online: there are plenty of LegCo documents demonstrating the involvement of the group in community affairs, especially if you search in both Chinese and English, and other event notices published by universities, other professional groups, etc. Additionally there are many other professional organizations in Hong Kong on Wikipedia with similar levels of notability, and I think they belong. Why is the Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong acceptable but HKIUD is not? That group is of a similar age and judging by their website may be less active. Citobun (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the other article you mention seems much better referenced than this one. But we are debating the deletion of this article, not that one. Just because we have adequately referenced articles about notable Hong Kong organizations does not mean that we should keep a poorly referenced article about this particular group. So, please point to the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources discussing this specific topic. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE states that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." User:Tyros1972 has attempted to have the page deleted twice in less than two days since I created the article. This gives me very little time to beef up the article and add reliable sources as I now know is required, and deletion is hardly being used as a "last resort" in this case where the notability is clearly subject to debate. "Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong" and other similar pages demonstrate that. They are very similar precedent cases.

The rationale given for both the deletion attempts is shaky. When it was first listed for speedy deletion it was under the promotional content criterion -- but the article was totally NPOV and the speedy deletion request was delisted. Now the reasoning is that there are "no RS" to demonstrate notability -- not true. It is still poorly sourced because I've been given no time to work on it. Deletion at this time would be inappropriate and even listing it here runs contrary to the guidelines at Wikipedia:NOTABLE. Citobun (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one week process starting on June 19, so you do have time. If you add a few high quality independent sources, I will change my recommendation from "delete" to "keep". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator again. I have spent some time today beefing up the article and adding some more third-party reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - You query why Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong is acceptable for an article and this one is not. That is not the point. It, too, could end up at AfD, for all you know, but, applying your own argument, one could just as well ask why HKIUD should have an article when only one of the six similar bodies given prominence in your fifth source viz. Hong Kong Institute of Architects has a Wiki article, apart from this one, which is being discussed here. I note from the HKIUD website that it has only around 100 members. In any case, this is a fairly young organisation which has only been around for just over two years. I think, since you are connected with this institute, WP:COI is also an issue here..--Zananiri (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through the article and alerting me to WP:COI. Yes, I should have made it clear much earlier that as a student of urban design in Hong Kong I have been a student member of the institute for a couple months. My motivation to create the article came before I joined, however, when I first Googled the institute and found no Wiki page. After skimming WP:COI, I will refrain from editing the HKIUD page, though I also want to add that I have not received any sort of compensation, benefits, nor do I know anyone at the institute particularly well. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - No case to answer. The nominator's reasons are just too thin. The article simply needs improvement, not deletion. STSC (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Chinese name "香港城市設計學會" on Google, I got 116 actual hits. That is substantial. STSC (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only replied to the question if there's substantial coverage. The article still needs improvement on citation. STSC (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little to add really, so not much to improve either, as this is a very young institute - in its infancy actually - with around 100 members and without a proven track record. At present it lacks notability. However, it is understandable that students and others following the subject may find it interesting and think it warrants a stand-alone Wiki article. In fact, the creator of this article has conceded this very point here. A better solution might be be to list all the institutes in the fifth source in one article, mentioning their respective salient features. The fifth source is, in any case, a press release by them about themselves and not an independent, third party assessment of the institutes or HKIUD, so it is a primary source.

The number of Google hits, substantial or not, in whatever language they are present, does not really equate to sources establishing the importance or notability of HKIUD. Google hits in this context may actually mean nothing. I could find hits entering my own name. Does that make me notable or worthy of a Wiki article? I think not. Quantity and quality are separate issues, particularly when it comes to Google hits. My favourite coffee and wine suppliers have umpteen Google hits. So what? However, I think, we should be clearer about the notability of HKIUD in a couple of years' time. Let it mature and prove itself to be a worthy contender for a stand-alone Wiki article. Until then, just one article for all the institutes mentioned in the fifth source may be the answer. After all, the said institutes also issued the press release, cited in that source, collectively - one statement for all of them.--Zananiri (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a young institute with about 100 members can be notable and is not a valid reason for deletion of the article. Notability is established by multiple secondary sources. STSC (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason I gave for deletion. Notability has just not been established per WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is in your comment above, if it is not the reason then how and why the article fails the WP:GNG? STSC (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence following that comment clearly states that this company has no track record. And I did make other comments as well. I note that you have edited the article since my last comment here, but you have not mentioned anywhere that this is a limited company, as its website states from which I quote verbatim:

articles and bye-law
"The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design is a company limited by guarantee which was incorporated under the Companies Ordinance in 2010.
The Institute is governed by a memorandum and by articles of association. Together with a set of bye-laws now approved at the EGM held on 5th May 2011 these instruments cover, amongst other things, the classes and rights of and requirements of entry to membership of the Institute, the composition and powers of the council to manage the Institute and the conduct of general meetings."

The above quote is taken from: http://www.hkiud.org/en/about-us/articles-and-bye-law

Its full name is: The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design Limited. The lead in the article should have mentioned that it is a limited company, when saying it is a professional body for urban designers in Hong Kong. It appears it is just another limited company, whatever it does. The bit about it being supported (no citation, though) by the government, when it was established, was another opportunity to mention its limited company status. It doesn't really matter who was invited to cut the ribbon at the company's inauguration and who was present. That is incidental.

I still think the article should be deleted. Parts of it also look like blatant promotion to me. I also note that the company's entries at the social media website linkedin are promotional, too, being a copy of what the company's website says about itself viz. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Hong-Kong-Institute-Urban-Design-4708154/about - Enough said. I will leave it at that.--Zananiri (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any organization can be set up legally as a limited company. So, you want to delete the article because of that? STSC (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would like it to be deleted, because I believe this company still fails WP:GNG. Even after all your edits. The sources don't vouch for its notabiliy, not the English ones at any rate and I doubt that the Chinese ones are any different, as the company's languages are English and Chinese. Additionally, the lead is, in my view, misleading, overhyped and tendentious. It should state unambiguously that UKIUD is a private limited company and membership entails an annual subscription viz.http://www.hkiud.org/en/membership/fee-a-payment

The bit about the company having received government support is ambiguous as well. There is nothing unusual about new companies inviting government officials or ministers to attend the inauguration ceremony. The guest of honour at such vents is often a high-ranking government servant, particularly in Asian countries. Good publicity. That does not mean active government support or say anything about the notability of the company, but the lead certainly gives me the impression that this is what the reader is expected to surmise! This company merely provides the facilities for fee-paying members to get together, to discuss matters that interest them, make proposals pertaining to their interests and organise events they are interested in. Think of a wine tasting club, society or institute where like-minded members pay an annual fee, attend tastings, pass judgement on wines they taste and write articles about such wines. Every now and then, they award points to wines they taste, after which the organisation is quoted by wine merchants to sell some particular vintage. Good for the organisation and good for the wine merchants. Inviting distinguished guests to their tastings gives the organisation even more publicity, like the events HKIUD organises. Would the wine organisation pass WP:GNG? I doubt it. I think the same applies to HKIUD. Zananiri (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HKIUD is not a business entity as you are playing it out to be, and I don't know any professional association without annual dues. As you quoted from the website, it's a company limited by guarantee, which in Hong Kong means a "company limited by guarantee [which is] set up for purpose of advancement of education, religion, relief of poverty, trust and foundation, etc. Most Institutes formed by this structure are not for profit-marking but they may not be charitable" source. This is not an applicable basis for making a claim of promotional material. The institute is not for profit and many other similar professional associations in HK have the same legal setup. Citobun (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. the gnews hits are very limited and not indepth. number of members is irrelevant to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - There are multiple secondary sources published on the net (mostly in Chinese - Google and some in English) that support the notability of the subject. I have improved the article and it's improvement should continue through regular editing. STSC (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - User STSC is right, weak reasoning for deletion. Already improvements made by user STSC to show further notability. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 12 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After having seen the revision and the new sources, I have come to the same conclusion again i.e. HKIUD does not pass WP:GNG The new sources provided do not vouch for the notability of this institute.

The lead is still misleading, about government support (no citation) and who attended the opening ceremny. In fact, the lead dwells too much on this.

The third source (We Own The City) points to an event organised by the Faculty of Architecture, University of Hong Kong, which HKIUD, among others, supported. It was the initiative of the university.

The fifth source relates to a government initiative in which everyone (public consultation), was invited to submit their views. HKIUD may have taken part but so did many others.

I have previously commented on the sixth source (fifth before revision) and stand by my observations, even if HKIUD is a non-profit establishment.

The seventh source relates to HKIUD entering a competition. Entering a competition relating to urban design is one thing, winning it is another.

The ninth source quotes someone who attended an event in Hong Kong organised by the HKIUD. After saying he enjoyed being there, he concludes: "Hopefully they will be able to progress from a ‘professional’ body to become a wider influence on place and culture." This is, in essence, what I have been saying all along. HKIUD does not yet have a notable track record. Give it time to mature and the chance to become hopefully a notable body eventually. At present, it does not seem to pass the notability test for a stand-alone Wiki article, which this participant at the HKIUD event, in my opinion, confirms in diplomatic language.--Zananiri (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that the article can not exist independently and needs to be either deleted, redirected, or merged into a DAB. There is no consensus on what actually should happen to it, with some prevalence for delete. Since there are doubts that the state ever existed, and there are no sources proving the opposite, deleting is the safest option.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Li (state)

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

This article has no citations, and it is unclear if it is recounting legend or actual fact. Searching for supporting evidence is coming up with nothing (a problem which is compounded by "Li" being a common surname, which may be obscuring legitimate results) BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This needs to be taken to articles for creation, beaten into shape and brought back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no clear scope and there's none to built on or verify. I've tried to search for literature, but I can't confirm the topic (actually topics, since it seems a mix-and-match of two things). The competence of the creator has been raised after the user made a mess at the articles relating to the "Li" surname. --Cold Season (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Li, as there were two states with this name, this title should only ever be a disambiguation page. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is there any evidence that there were any states with this name? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chinese competitor seems to think so — Baike: 黎国 ; 厉国 -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As does our other competitor, Baidu Baike: 黎国 -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:00, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a dab page. We have no content here. Since both states were county sized (or smaller) they can hardly be significant. I suspect that the right place to deal with each of them would be in a history section of an article on the county. A dab-page could direct there. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable because no references. I'd support the dab approach above if reliable sources for the existence of these states exist. Sandstein 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Porter

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

Nominated for deletion under WP:GNG. Individual is not a significant or important figure in any of the fields cited. Article lacks reliable, independent sources. The bulk of the cited references are from the individual's own website or from press releases issued by the individual's company. Throwie1999 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work. But the Macleans source, the Citybeat article, and other sources show that has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources for various aspects of her career. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be by Myself (Asher Roth single)

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

Non-notable rap single. Beerest355 Talk 00:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Asleep in the Bread Aisle, the album from which the song comes. Clearly non-notable, especially because the parent article only signifies its existence on the album, but not, in the main part of the article, being a single. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SONGS. Just because a song gets a music video does not mean it is notable. STATic message me! 02:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable song. Koala15 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Mobb

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

Hip hop album. No sources or reviews, and due to the fact that the album is 18 years old I don't think anything will be popping up. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete—Doesn't expand on the article on it's recording artists, no relevant google hits except for blogs and online music stores. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS as nothing more then an infobox and tracklist basically. I do not think it would fall under any criteria of speedy deletion though. STATic message me! 02:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we delete this? Why not simply redirect to artist? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that can be done if wanted to after deletion. We just need to expunge the history so nobody recreates it. Beerest355 Talk 00:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does "expung(ing) the history so nobody recreates it" serve the encyclopedia? Is this somewhere in policy? Has there been a problem with the article being recreated after being redirected? What if the album gets more coverage in future? It seems to me that it would be helpful to maintain the edit history and simply redirect it or merge what's worth including at the artist page. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires a consensus before removing content. Redirecting is the same as deleting, only now there's a target. Also, what is there to merge? Nothing at all. Beerest355 Talk 02:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is not the same as deleting because when an article is deleted the contents and editing history are lost except to admins. So unless there has been a problem with a subject being recreated inappropriately it is far better to redirect so all editors have access to page's full history and what was there previously. Who's to say something in that something in the history might won't be useful in future? Or that consensus may move toward including fuller discographies for notable artists? Why destroy something unnecessarily. Just redirect. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very likely search term regardless, but if you want to vote for a redirect no one is stopping you. STATic message me! 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist page. Per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Emrich

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

I cannot verify the appearances that would give notability in the WSJ, NPR or other sources DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. I couldn't find any significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. --Edcolins (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I likewise couldn't find any significant evidence of this persons notability. What I did find are an unusual edit history for the page creator Ucla1979 (talk · contribs), and Google searches for both Emrich and his company that look like someone's been doing some search engine optimization. My apologies to Ucla1979 if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be for all intents and purposes a WP:Vanity page which someone was paid to create. -Wine Guy~Talk 22:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm also salting, as the article has been recreated and deleted multiple times. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformation (band)

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

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

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

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

Unsigned band. Was deleted A7 and is now being listed at AFD following A deletion review. As the DRV closer I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete band with no notability presented. In no way even comes close to passing WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is adequate notability asserted. See my main post below and feel free to participate in discussing it. Wikitam331 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It should by all rights be a speedy as there is no assertion of notability in the article, but we have to be here for 7 days now to satisfy the bureaucracy wonks and one very, very determined fan. There are 3 references in the article, one is a 3-sentence review on a page reviewing 4 bands total, in the Pittsburgh City Paper a free alt weekly. 2nd is drawuslines.com, a blog with another brief review, 3rd is cdbaby.com, a music store. Two scant reviews in a local free paper and a local music blog (the lead says this band is in SF but the infobox says their origin is Pittsburgh) does not satisfy WP:N. There is also WP:BAND, with a long list of criteria. This band doesn't come within spitting distance of any of the TWELVE criteria there. If you can't grab that piece of low-lying fruit, there's no hope here. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have since added a fourth source, a biography about the band on ProgArchives, which is also a non-trivial, published, reliable, and independent source that is not self-published. Wikitam331 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article adequately asserts notability: it presents multiple reviews and multiple references from the Pittsburgh City Paper, which is a non-trivial, published, reliable, and independent source that is not self-published. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A trivial mention is defined by WP:BAND as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." Album reviews that address the band directly in detail and describes their songs in detail, no matter how brief, are not "trivial mentions" and qualify as significant coverage. The page clearly satisfies Criteria #1 of WP:BAND as well as all of the criteria listed in WP:N. Wikitam331 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. As you were told repeatedly during the DRV, even by people who voted to overturn the deletion on procedural grounds, it does NOT pass WP:BAND. It does not even come close to passing WP:BAND. The so-called 'review' you're so incredibly proud of is a 3-sentence blurb in the local free newspaper among other self-released stuff. It's incredibly trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not trivial at all, according to the definition of "trivial" in WP:BAND - as I've already demonstrated. The facts contradict your position. Wikitam331 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're (deliberately?) quoting WP:BAND out of context, it says "such as" and gives possible examples. A 3 sentence blurb is going to be trivial no matter what. Even if it were the most glowing review in the world (which it isn't), by the most notable writer in the world (which it isn't), in the most reliable publication in the world (which it isn't), at three sentences it would still be trivial coverage and not something we can build an article with. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you're the one who is quoting it out of context. Nowhere in the definition of "trivial" does it list an album review as an example, nor does it say how long it needs to be in order to be considered non-trivial. You just arbitrarily decided to define the length of this review as trivial, backed up only by your baseless, unfounded opinion. Wikitam331 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One tiny blurb in one city paper and one tiny blurb in a blog aren't enough, it's a simple as that. The example I gave at the DRV discussion, Blood on the Dance Floor, was quite fitting, and perhaps you should read through those links again. Fans recreated it over and over, it was deleted over and over. As soon as they legitimately met one of the criteria for notability, *poof* the article appears. You'll just have to wait. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:CSD#A7, as I argued at the DRV. I do agree that this subject appears to fail WP:BAND and could be deleted under that rationale. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how it fails WP:BAND instead of simply asserting that without explanation? Wikitam331 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only trivial coverage by any reasonable understanding. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying as much does not make it so. Care to explain how it meets either of those criteria? Wikitam331 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the very short review is a bit more than trivial, but well less than in-depth. The publication is fine (free or no isn't important here), and counts toward the GNG, but not enough to support the entire article. One really solid (not favorable, just detailed) review in some other reliable publication would make this a close call. But as it stands, we aren't there. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think the ProgArchives source with the band's biography I just added is enough to change your opinion? Wikitam331 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to their FAQ, Progarchives appears to host "reviews" by regular forum users. It isn't a professional site staffed with actual music journalists, so no. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't cite any review from ProgArchives - that's a red herring. Please show me the rule that says that a site must be "staffed with actual music journalists". Wikitam331 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERG. You called it a "biography", the site itself calls it a "review" - it's their language, not a red herring. Either way, it's user-generated content with little to no editorial oversight. There's nothing stopping me, for example, from editing that entry (just like Wikipedia) to suggest The Reformation is actually a children's choir from Turkmenistan. Stalwart111 01:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The top of the section says "The Reformation biography"; the word "review" appears nowhere to describe the Biography. and there is nowhere for any member to edit the biography. The only people who can do that are website administrators, so your comparison is a false analogy. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they don't make the distinction particularly clear either. The FAQ and the forum itself refer to "reviews" while the only reference to "biographies" is in the About us section. If that's what we're talking about here, it's still user-generated - submitted for consideration by the bands themselves and "voted on" by a group of anonymous users without any particular criteria and a predetermined bias towards "inclusion rather than exclusion". It's basically Wikipedia by committee and that sort of thing isn't considered a reliable source. You can argue semantics but the fact of the matter is that the site we're talking about is built by members, for members and there's very little chance it will be considered a reliable source for our purposes. Stalwart111 23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProgArchives is not "basically Wikipedia by comittee", and I disagree that it's not a reliable source. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that provide ProgArchives as a credible source. Why are you singling out Progarchives only for this page? Wikitam331 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? You asked the question "Do you think the ProgArchives source...", I note it isn't a reliable source but rather a fan forum, and you respond "I didn't cite any review from ProgArchives". If you're nitpicking "review" vs. "biography", that's not even remotely relevant. We're talking about evaluating the source to see if it can be used to establish notability. (It can't). Tarc (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Artist Page itself can only be edited by administrators. The fact that there is a forum and that users can post their own reviews is completely irrelevant to the fact that ProgArchives is NOT a fan forum as you falsely characterized it. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as I suggested at DRV would be the likely outcome were more sources not advanced to substantiate notability. Rather than take the opportunity to establish notability (as was claimed could be done) the original author has simply restated his previously rejected argument that current sources are sufficient. The are not. Still (in the spirit of generosity and good faith) willing to consider anything else that might be available, but I remain in favour of deletion until such sources are put forward. Salt, also, for The Reformation (album) which was recently created and speedy-deleted and has previously been created many times before as the album of another unrelated NN band. Stalwart111 00:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 45-word album review in Pittsburgh City Paper is the closest to significant coverage I can find, and that's just not enough to pass WP:GNG; subject also does not appear to meet the WP:BAND criteria at this time. Gong show 20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where says that 45 words is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No guideline states a required minimum number of words; it's a judgment call. Others may disagree - fair enough. Gong show 21:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the page definitely satisfies WP:BAND and WP:N. The band is notable and the page should not be deleted. 67.159.191.98 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying as much does not make it so. Care to explain how it meets either of those criteria? Stalwart111 23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can't just claim non-notability because you think a review is scant. That's just your opinion and has nothing to do with triviality or significant coverage. 2602:306:3391:A790:6861:24E7:C1B7:9EF (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC) — 2602:306:3391:A790:6861:24E7:C1B7:9EF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 2602:306:3391:A790:6861:24E7:C1B7:9EF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Wikitam331's explanation. 67.165.60.93 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC) — 67.165.60.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What a shocker, an IP address that geolocates to a Pittsburgh suburb. There's obvious off-site rallying going on here by fans, the sooner this open-and-shut discussion closes, the better. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One single IP address that geolocates to a Pittsburgh suburb is not proof of any such thing. You should have proof before making such extreme accusations per WP:AGF. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented nothing but bad faith to the Wikipedia community during this entire ordeal. I have nothing else to comment on in this matter, and will joyfully look forward to its deletion tomorrow. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in false personal attacks. Your opinion of me is irrelevant to the discussion and is extremely unproductive. You must assume good faith when a new editor joins the discussion, instead of assuming bad faith and ridiculing other posters. You are not helping your cause at all. Wikitam331 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's subject meets the standards of neither the GNG nor the topic-specific guidelines for bands. The brief album review in the Pittsburgh City Paper is fairly trivial in nature, and none of the other "sources" provided appear to qualify asreliable sources. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Nehring

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

Article is written like an advertisement, has had significant contributions by its subject, has virtually no sources, and the only sources it does have are 1st party. Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there are problems with the content of the article and the significant contributions by its subject, we usually keep State chairs of the major political parties in the United States. It would be better to completely rewrite the article, but the subject does meet WP:N. Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twice served as chairman of the California Republican Party? Notable. Oodles of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:05, 8 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim massively. As chair of the California Republican Party he does appear to have attracted significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources and thus notability (as was apparently the case for his predecessor and successor). However, the unsourced bragging and boosterism in the article need to go. I'll work on that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there. I added reliable sources, trimmed most of the puffery and added balance. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. An obvious sock of User:Faizanhb2. First edit is an AfD, that's impossible, and it should be. (non-admin closure) Fai zan 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

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

Reason NON-Notable PERSON. Self-Publish article. No reliable source given. It's his own website as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasdadadadad (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 03:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KEEP, absolutely notable, nomination made by a sock of a user banned for spam and promo.[30] kashmiri ^TALK 09:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny the Wonder Dog

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

This article fails WP:NF. The only critical review I was able to find on this film was this one, and there wasn't any in-depth sources about this film I could find either, yet not enough to satisfy NF. EditorE (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep, given the two known actors in the film, and the fact it aired on European television, and given the significant improvement since the AfD nomination. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes notability is inherited. Obviously a dud, but with Craig Ferguson starring and Andy Dick voicing the dog, as well as many other notables involved, I think it needs to be kept. It's part of film history and has significance in relation to the careers of many notable celebs and filmmakers.Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep of a poorly received film that has made the rounds internationally. And to Candleabracadabra: It is actually Andy Richter who provides the dog's voice. And I find it interesting that filmmakers used actors who had already shown how well they work togther in comedy... we might all remember that Craig Ferguson starred as Drew's boss Nigel Wick and that Kathy Kinney starred as Mimi Bobeck, Drew's antagonist on theThe Drew Carey Show. And as it aired in Europe, we might have luck finding it discussed in Hungarian or Finish or German or French. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paint Branch High School

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

I believe this article should be deleted because there are no second or third party sources to declare it a notable subject. I have searched to the best of my ability and cannot find any reliable sources that don't just note it's name, etc. Camerontregan (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 02:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two Washington Post articles (obtained via Highbeam); meets the notability criteria for schools. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are where? Camerontregan (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools of verified existence are inherently notable in the same way that populated places, highways, rivers, elected high level politicians, professional athletes, etc. are inherently presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Cameron, this is a consensus which has emerged here over the course of years. In rough outline, it is a working consensus between those who favor a vast and expansive encyclopedia and those who favor a limited and focused encyclopedia in which secondary schools are presumed notable and primary schools are presumed non-notable barring very large extenuating circumstances. The thinking is that high schools are centers of community life and that they are the subject of repeated and protracted coverage in the local press of their communities — construction, remodeling, speakers, events, sports teams, music performances, state academic reports on achievement, etc. etc. Moreover, a proper biography is very apt to include the name of a high school and these links should be blue, not red. Rather than spend about 75% of our time at AfD fighting over the relative merits or lack thereof of this school or that, dumping hundreds or thousands of hours into digging up sources or recreating deleted articles as sources emerge and new editors come along, the simple rule of thumb has emerged that pieces on secondary schools of confirmed existence are treated as automatically notable, while pieces on primary schools (barring extraordinary circumstances) are converted to redirect to their school board, or failing that their parish or town. This working consensus has never been run through an RFC and made into official notability doctrine (it probably should be at some point, I suppose), but it is very, very widely accepted by AfD participants and closing administrators alike. I hope this makes sense to you. Best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As we do with every other secondary school article for reasons endlessly regurgitated on AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the well established precedent as described and reported in WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaldo Fischer

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

I'd previously speedied this under A7 after DGG tagged it, but the original editor requested that it receive more discussion. While I think this has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD, I recreated it. In any case, the problem here is that this author has received no coverage in reliable sources. He existed and his books exist, but they've received no actual coverage from what I can find. It's been asserted that importance has been asserted because his books were previously published through some non-self-published sources in the past, but I can't see where those publishings have received any coverage either. To be honest, getting published through a non-SP publisher is something that has been greatly, GREATLY depreciated over the years as far as notability goes in general, let alone for speedies. Of the sources on the article, all are primary in one form or another, one being an obituary and the others being Google Book entries. There just isn't a thing out there that shows that this guy was notable enough to merit an entry right now, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had not noticed that Shaman Bulldog was also published by Warner Books, which is a regular publisher of fiction. (Authorship of regularly published books in my opinion defeats an a7, & I would have sent it here.) Even that one book is in only 100 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaman Bulldog was also published in Japan (search in Google シャーマン・ブルドッグ ), in Australia by Pan Macmillan ([31]), and in Italy in several editions by Corbaccio ([32] [33]). --Spinoziano (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author who published books with important publishers (e.g. Warner Books), and one of them in other countries (at least 3, as stated). This means his works are not only local, but also known in other parts of the world. For a writer this is not a little deal. Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 08:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply publishing is not enough for notability, regardless of who publishes them or where they are published. While it might not be a small thing for a writer, it isn't enough for notability purposes on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Lesion (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason A. Prescott

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

References fail to meet reliable references criteria. 6 citations are from dbpedia where the content was extracted from Wikipedia. Iniciativass (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Doesn't even meet WP:GNG--Benfold (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mixture of primary sources, press releases and local awards. No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El señor del cero

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

No evidence of notability for this ~~(self-published?)~~ book; no ghits for author other than her own website, Facebook etc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This book apparently isn't self-published. I was able to find mentions online including this item at Goodreads. No opinion about notability. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I couldn't see the publisher's name on the Amazon page for the book. I've struck out the suggestion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some stuff, but it's pretty slow going. I see where it won an award but I can't verify the actual award because I don't know what the initials spell out. It seems to be a long running one, in any case and recent news hits seem to suggest that it's a somewhat well thought of Spanish language book award. I am finding some sources that suggest that it is used in Spanish language classrooms. ([34]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source seems to confirm that it's something used in classrooms, as it's a journal run through by the ministry of education for Spain. It has a very lengthy article written up on it. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More books citing ESDC as something used in classrooms in various formats, with this one being an actual math textbook that lists it : ([35], [36], This one is another entry from the Ministry of Education of Spain, This one is a blog, but it was set up by a teacher for his secondary school students) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This article indicates the bok is noted, but we are probably looking at coverage in Spanish source which I am not competent at researching. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "CCEI" stands for "Comisión Católica Española de la Infancia"; the award can be verified on their website [37], and from a search online it appears to be a significant, long-running award [38]. I couldn't find a traditional review, but that essay about the award also seems to cover the book (see snippets [39] [40]), and there's a lot of additional evidence that the book is regularly used in education, such as [41] [42] [43] [44], but they're all probably best represented by this, a project by the IES Mar Menor that centered all their subjects (Math, Chemistry, Geography, etc.) around this book, and a similar project (the second link above by Tokyogirl79) that received an honorific mention by the Ministry of Education in the frame of their "Premios nacionales de investigación e innovación educativa" [45]. This is reinforced by the hits from GScholar, where the book is mentioned not only within the subject of teaching Math, for example [46] [47] [48], but also regarding the Medieval Ages and Arabic culture [49] [50]. — Frankie (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In the sense of "not delete". This being a merger proposal, it belongs on the article talk page(s), not at AfD. No consensus to implement merger directly (but no opposition either). Sandstein 10:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters from The Wire

Article	Log	Find sources
Alma Gutierrez (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)
Beadie Russell (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)
Butchie (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)
Cheese Wagstaff (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)
Clarence Royce (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)
Jay Landsman (The Wire) (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)
Johnny Weeks (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)
Kenard (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)
Maurice Levy (The Wire) (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)
Monk Metcalf (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)
Norman Wilson (The Wire) (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)
Randy Wagstaff (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)
Rhonda Pearlman (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)
Scott Templeton (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)
Sergei Malatov (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)
Slim Charles (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)
Stan Valchek (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)

These characters are minor characters from The Wire and are not notable enough for their own articles. 90% of the information in these articles should be removed, and whatever is left should be merged into List of The Wire characters or its sub-lists. Feedback ^☎ 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close and move discussion to article talk pages. Proposal appears to be to merge, not delete. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending merge/ redirectdiscussion / action. I agree with Michig. Isn't the issue here whether these subjects should be merged or redirected? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. Centralized discussion can be useful here. Neutrality^talk 06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Or, more to the point, no consensus to delete. I can say I see a consensus that something be done with the article and would suggest that merging or renaming discussions take place on the relevant talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of places called Venice of the East

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

it is complete POV how cities qualify. I do not think one or 2 articles where a journalist from that city thinks it is Venice of the East is a subjective manner to determine it is Venice of the East. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure The concept seems a little light weight, but at least every item is documented. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List criteria are clear and well-bounded. Entries are well-documented. WP:RS sources referring to a location as "Venice of the East", while in some sense subjective, is no more subjective for our purposes than most of our reliance on reliable sources and it is definitely not POV. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Venice of the East. This is a commonplace phrase that readers will look for in an encyclopedia, as is Venice of the North, so we should help those readers find what they are looking for. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. Calling a city the "Venice of (fill in cardinal direction)" is certainly a cliche, but an article rather than a list may be more appropriate. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Venice of the North or possibly Venice. I see this as valid information, but not a stand-alone article, much less a plain list of cities without description. Reywas92^Talk 06:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. List of places about which journalists have been quoted using one particular hackneyed cliché is more accurate. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. I don't see the value in collecting instances of what really amount to compliments of particular cities. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge insofar as sourced with the "...of the North" page to something like List of places compared to Venice, or just delete as trivia. Sandstein 09:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Venice of the East per Phil Bridger; article meets WP:LSC. Miniapolis 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I agree that it's weird, but sources clearly exist and therefore he passed verifiability. I am not really sure what the writer's motivations were to write this detailed article, but there's enough here to keep it. -- Y not? 02:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pablo Caro

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

Looks to be an article based on incidental mentions, not sources with significant coverage as required by WP:N. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this article does any harm by staying up; it will make use of the same disk space if deleted :D Sources used includes a book which goes in depth into his career (which would qualify for the "Significant coverage" criteria, perhaps), and other reliable sources (most, if not all, are published sources) are used to precise other things. Sources used also are secondary, and independent (except the one which specifies the title of his thesis). Maybe, if this gets consensus to delete, it would be best to create an article for the Caro family and dedicate him a section. But keeping the article would be, in my opinion, optimal. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any books about him, but an entry in what is, essentially, a "dictionary of biography". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's correct, still, it goes in depth into his career. I found another book at the National Library of Chile which goes in depth too, I'll try to add it to the article. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 00:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - An entry in an encyclopedic work, such as a biographical dictionary, is precisely the type of source that demonstrates notability. We certainly don't require a whole book to have been written about a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — not causing harm is not a valid reason to keep an article. The article is actually well-written, but I can't figure out what this guy is notable for...? TheBlueCanoe 03:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. We could try the A7 route, but I doubt many admins would delete it that way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came across this article as part of the DYK process and had the same concern as the nominator. As said by The Blue Canoe the article is well-written about a man with a respectable career, but it is difficult to see any specific notability relevant for Wikipedia. The article's subject appears to have worked as a lawyer and judge on a local level; the article says "communes and departments". Departments in Chile before 1974 appears to have been a second level administrative division after provinces. I can't see this would be positions that typically would indicate notability per WP:BIO. He is included in Biografías de chilenos which seems to be a project to cover those who were members of the three government branches in Chile from 1875 to 1973. I am not quite sure how selective or notable this Biografías is, so there is the one thing that makes me a bit unsure about notability and whether he is notable per WP:GNG; the entries are pretty CV-like. I posted a question regarding the notability of Caro on Wikiproject:Chile a while ago; but it doesn't seem to have given any response. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Before anyone starts complaining that a delete WP:NAC is inappropriate, this close is not actually mine. The deleting admin seems to have simply forgotten to close the discussion after deleting the article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alieu Darbo

AfDs for this article:

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

He is still yet to play in a fully pro league, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT. Speedy deletion was contested on the grounds that he met WP:GNG over his misreported transfer to Wigan. However, transfer announcements, accurate or otherwise, do not amount to significant coverage, and retractions thereof, in my opinion, do not either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sir Sputnik - GNK Dinamo Zagreb has many players listed as bluelinks. Are GNK Dinamo Zagreb players notable? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, yes. The Croatian top flight is fully professional, meaning that a footballer playing in that league meets WP:NSPORT, but he is yet to make his debut for Dinamo. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Reports of joining Wigan would only be WP:ROUTINE even if accurate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Buehler

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

This appears to be an advertisement generated by the subject of the page. Suaspontemark (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 26. Snotbot t • c » 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an advertisement generated by the subject of the page why are there hundreds of unique entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.108.54 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buehler is a pretty well known and respected activist. I feel the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.115.90 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody within the liberty community knows about him. And personally I'm a fan of the work he's done with the 'peaceful streets project'. I'd like to see the article stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.24.37 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 1. factual (I don't see any points which are open to refutaion), 2. covers a notable topic, 3. possesses no indicators of advertisement/solicitation. Why, again are we considering deletion? Ranger325. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.49.71.231 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains large passages lifted directly from websites owned or controlled by Antonio himself. That smells to me like self promotion or advertisement.

It seems like any topic that is centered on pro liberty gets flagged for deletion, regardless of how relevant the topic is. Antonio Buehler received much press when he was falsely accused of assaulting an Austin Police officer, Patrick Oborski. Where video evidence was intentionally repressed by law enforcement showing that those charges were not true and was no-billed by a Travis County Grand Jury. Buehler is a modern day civil rights advocate, much in the same way as Rosa Parks. This article should be kept.

Antonio Buehler is public figure so why delete this? As a public figure he has many enemies. Has this deletion notice been issued because of pressure from his enemies? If so, it is all the more reason to keep this entry. It seems to me that the accusation that it is an advertizement is a phony argument. Cold Rodear (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get some more participation from registered editors. L Faraone 02:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this subject passes WP:BASIC. Buehler is a notable person. He is invited to speak at conferences, protests and festivals around the country. He is known in the anti-war community and supported by people like Cindy Sheehan and Dahlia Wasfi. He is known in libertarian circles as a leading activist and thought leaders, supported by people like Debra Medina and John Bush. In the education circles he is a respected speaker and consultant having collaborated with leaders such as Laurette Lynn and Michael Strong. In the police abuse arena he is perhaps the most well-known national figure and has been covered by Carlos Miller and CopBlock.org among others.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. An obvious sock of User:Faizanhb2. First edit is an AfD, that's impossible, and it should be. (non-admin closure) Fai zan 11:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

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

Reason False and fraud info given in references and in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasdadadadad (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 01:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are adequate. Tendentious nomination by spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The existing sources contain sufficient evidence of notability, for exampl "President Pervez Musharraf has refused to accept the resignation of Javed Ghamadi from the Council of Islamic Ideology" [57]. In addition The Guardian describes the subject as a "reformist scholar and popular television preacher" [58] AllyD (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest a new rule for Wikipedia: prods and AfD nominations should not be accepted from editors with less than (say) 100 edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Strong KEEP and speedy close as this AfD has no substance and was started by a sockpuppet[59] blocked for spam and promo. kashmiri ^TALK 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Shieber

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

~~Fails WP:GNG, warning tag present for over a year with no action. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [60]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Delete The subject can be verified as a working journalist but that is simply man-with-a-job; no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And nominator cannot vote -- removed. Crtew (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The nomination was a banned contribution; however, since another editor has made a good faith comment in support of deletion, this discussion is not speedily closed. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because the article is a stub, and with only one reference, it is not eligible for the notibility guidelines unless the article has improvements and better sourcing. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John Smith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (name)

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

This name may be very common, but there's no reason for it to deserve its own page different from John Smith. The intro, dicussing the "everyman" thing is already there, and the other stuff isn't notable. The "In popular culture" section is again already at John Smith, in the Characters section. Beerest355 Talk 01:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John Smith. The pages are almost duplicates, except for the list of notable people in the other (main) article. BayShrimp (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a fork of John Smith. There is already a nice one line intro to the disambiguation page that covers the essence of this article; and as there are no untapped scholarly sources about this topic, it is unlikely that this will do much over time other than accumulate page links as a de facto disambiguation page. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The info about the commonest names is sourced and would not belong on the disambiguation page John Smith, so I suggest merging that to Joe Bloggs. If John Smith is the redirect target then a link to Joe Bloggs should then be added in the "everyman" line. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy with Camera (GWC)

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

WP:NOTDICT. Non-encyclopedic neologism. Kolbasz (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is This is a standard phrase inside photography circles & has no other referance point — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenthEagle (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 July 2013‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only source is an unreliable blog. WP:NOTDICT has nothing to do with it, though. Angr (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep urban dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenthEagle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 July 2013‎

Delete. Neither Urban Dictionary nor the blog that quotes its definitions are reliable sources. I found only two hits in Google Books, ~~both~~ self-published volumes that do not appear in WorldCat. Notability is not established, nor does it seem likely to be established. Cnilep (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: One of the books was republished by Focal Press and appears in WorldCat. Still, notability is far from established. Cnilep (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ 17 yrs growing up in a African American/Latino community. 31 yrs of teaching class that included students of the latino community.

[1] 17 yrs growing up in a African American/Latino community. 31 yrs of teaching class that included students of the latino community.

[1]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real Mobb}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Emrich}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at Angkor Wat}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at Angkor Wat}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Placebo album) (2nd nomination)}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northsky Air}} -->