Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 December	15 December >

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 redirect to Aaliyah#2012.E2.80.93present:_Second_posthumous_album. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah's second posthumous album

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

Yet another rumour-filled article with a dearth of reliable content. Sources from the same day make contradictory statements (BBC says Missy Elliot knows nothing of the project, MTV quotes Missy Elliot's discussion of the project, no one tells me whether I care about Missy Elliot's participation). Looking over the history of the article, it's just been one rumour after another. Fails based on WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS, and WP:HAMMER. —Kww(talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete or redirect to Aaliyah#2012.E2.80.93present:_Second_posthumous_album - Agreed, it seems this "posthumous album" is something Drake is pursuing himself and it seems her family recently refused to be involved. Google News has not provided any useful sources aside from the rumours. What concerns me is that, although one single was released, there hasn't been any solid information about the album. Naturally, this has happened before with other posthumous work but, at best, this is better mentioned at Aaliyah's article, and it currently is. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aaliyah. WP:HAMMER applies here. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested by SwisterTwister. This source looks to be one of the better ones, but until an actual name is confirmed, any reliably sourced content should sit in the main article for the time being, per WP:HAMMER. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David McCue

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

Vanity page, not notable for BLP with a passing mention and subject's own company website failing to pass GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional and the one third-party source doesn't provide much and some of the sentences in the book read like an advertisement. I found a profile at inc.com here confirming they ranked once but the book claims they ranked twice. Google News found little evidence when I searched "David McCue" but a search for "McCue Corp" provided relevant links (they require payment but two if not all three appear to be press releases). However, the second page provided more relevant evidence for the company, a New York Daily News article (though it would be insufficient), an award here and this which actually mentions David McCue himself. An attempt to find additional evidence about the Inc. ranking was fruitless. If there was an article for the company, I would have suggested redirecting. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I would have expected us to have an article on McCue Corporation if it was notable. Since we do not, I have to assume that its founder is also NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bogus article, fails notability guidelines, references consist of self-published website, article contents autobiography but yet fails to successfully assert notability of individual even based on own sources, no other sources exist. Bogus. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The main issue here is whether the article violates the WP:CRYSTAL policy that prohibits unverifiable speculation on future events and products. I have reviewed the article and the debate and come to that it does. There were a few keep votes after the relisting of the AFD, but the two first don't provide a substantive argument to the main issue (Neither "Looks like an article in its early stage" and "It's a start class article, but that's no reason for it to be deleted." address the issue; the article was not put on AFD because of its lack of development.) The next two keep votes do point to sources that attempt to address the WP:CRYSTAL concerns, but a few lines is not the significant coverage that WP:N asks for. Fleet Command's analysis also shows that much of the sourcing used in the article trying to address some of the concerns is sketchy at best.

Having looked at the article, I also note that some of the inline citations point either directly or indirectly to web forum discussions, something that does not qualify as a reliable source. Kww pointing out "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." from the CRYSTAL policy and Starblind pointing out that "Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job" also carries weight here.

I have considered the redirect and merge options that some suggested as an alternative, but with the target articles would contain little if any coverage of this subject matter, so Codename Lisa's concern about sending readers "on a wild goose chase" has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Blue

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

This OS name and its release date are not confirmed - it's all speculation at this stage. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Hello. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; I do not even need to mention lack of reliable source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Microsoft Windows. Google News has revealed lots of pages about this upcoming edition, and they even say that it will be released in 2013, which we're not too far away from (although it could be pushed back to 2014 if problems occur.) Is it possible that Windows 8 will still be the newest version of Microsoft Windows even as late as 2024?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Redirecting it to Microsoft Windows will only send readers on wild goose chase. Microsoft Windows has nothing on this subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any rumored versions of Windows that have been disproven altogether?? (Please triple-check your memory of Windows history. Back in 2004, Wikipedia talked about something called Windows Longhorn. Was it cancelled?? No, it was renamed Windows Vista.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Blackcomb" was not the final name of Windows 7. Windows Neptune and Cairo were both cancelled.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune is part of what we now know as Windows XP, Cairo was a code name of Windows NT 4.0.--84.194.42.17 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral. Did anyone do a news search on this? I did, so the article is now expanded with several reliable sources so it meets the general notability guidelines. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete there are several sources mentioning this popping up, but at the moment there's nothing to report, just rumour. I doubt MS will talk officially anytime soon either, as that would pretty much kill Win8 sales. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's irrelevant to the status of the article? Even if every reliable source thus reported so far turned out to be complete hogwash, because we go on verifiability, not truth, it doesn't matter. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumour-mongering isn't Wikipedia's job, leave that to the blogs. I think you're misunderstanding "Verifiability, not truth", which is more about taking reliable sources over some random person's word ("I know JFK was killed by aliens, man, they told me so in a dream!"). It's not at all an encouragement of far-flung rumours and idle speculation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So rename the article "Windows Blue rumours" - then everyone's happy. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These rumors are no more notable than any other Microsoft OS rumors. --Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stuff in the article supported by significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources? Yes or no? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only criteria, Ritchie333. If the material comes under WP:NOT, it doesn't matter how well sourced it is, and this comes under WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, that states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable (my emphasis) speculation." --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look down at point 5: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Certainly we can verify that the rumours exist, but the rumours themselves are not suitable content.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's really for just opinion pieces and tabloid journalism, where one person randomly suspects something. In the case of this article, we have multiple sources converging on fairly basic an uncontroversial details. By all means remove any speculative stuff like features, but a top level stub that gives the name, dates of leaks and suspected shipping dates should suffice. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the name itself is only speculation so I don't even think we should keep a redirect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit shows why we can't have an article on this yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL concerns. This is speculative material about a future product.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfD discussion is still ongoing. Someone has turned the redirect with an RFD template into the article. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually fine. In these cases the RFD is closed as moot (I closed the RFD). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator started an AFD without reverting back to a version that contained an RFD template when the RFD discussion was still open. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9 where the result of the debate was to redirect Windows 9 to Microsoft Windows#Future of Windows. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If and when this is confirmed as legitimate, the article can be recreated with reliable sources. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling, based on this, this and this, is that I would suspect if the article was deleted, it would be created in good faith in a week or two by someone who hadn't seen this discussion. For just that reason, I would favour at least a redirect.--Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ritchie. According to WP:R#DELETE, item #10, redirects that point to an article which contains virtually no information on the subject are candidates for deletion. Such redirects are evil. They send readers to s long irrelevant article and waste their time before they realizes the article contains no information on the subject. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a guideline, which can be bent per WP:IAR, which I would do for reasons I have just described. Are you seriously telling me that somebody typing "Windows Blue", and going to a page on Microsoft Windows that has a small section on possible future versions (which is what a redirect will do), won't get what's going on? I reiterate - unless salted, the article has a high chance of simply being created by a random editor again. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Microsoft Windows does not have any info on Windows Blue. Even if it had, there is a clear consensus that is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, IAR says ignore rules to improve Wikipedia, not to irritate its readership. "The first and most important factor in Wikipedia for deciding whether to break or to adhere to a rule is whether or not it makes you more popular". (Fleet Command, 5 December 2012)

And don't worry about salting or re-creation. It is fixed in just a snap. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm ducking out of this conversation as you're not really getting what I'm saying, I'm afraid. My concern is that the article will be recreated by somebody else soon, and we'll be back to AfD round 2, just like Windows 8. How do we avoid that? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I assure you, I do "get" what you say; I just don't share your concern, i.e. neither I am afraid of the article recreation nor I believe a redirect would stop it. (The fact that we are here proves that a redirect has already failed.) WP:CSD#G4 can deal with the case. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Long term I think an article will get established, even if it has to go through a bunch of AfDs or G4s first (such as just about any AfD that gets closed per WP:HAMMER) --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you would have to define a "wild goose chase" to us if you have previously cited the phrase above and elsewhere. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like an article in its early stage. Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Georgia guy. It's a start class article, but that's no reason for it to be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually there are two good reason: (1) Sources do not verify its contents. The article introduces "Windows Blue" as a new version of Windows, while if you read its sources, none of them says so. They think Windows Blue is a rapid-update mechanism, name of a new update, an update roll out a feature pack or new version of Windows. (2) WP:CRYSTAL says rumors are not allowed, even if the article spreading the rumor is FA quality. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, previously Delete. Even though WP:CRYSTAL applies, there is enough coverage of this topic on a number of reliable websites that an article, even at this stage, may be warranted. Windows Vista, which had the longest development period, was first created in September 2003, so getting a year's head start on Windows Blue might not be such a bad idea. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Theverge reached out to Microsoft for comment, however a company spokesperson refused to discuss Windows Blue. And Wes Miller, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "I think we witnessed a new mode of aggressive upgrade pricing this year with Windows 8, and Microsoft could well try that tactic again, really dropping in an incentive for frequent upgraders to do so, If (Windows Blue) is the full-fare cost of Windows, even for Windows 8 users, I can’t imagine that going over too well." IanMurrayWeb (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I had to put a ^{[failed verification]} in front of every statement in the article, all four sourced statements would have received one. Let's have a look:

Article says

Windows Blue is the codename of an upcoming release of Microsoft Windows operating system.

The Verge source says

the company is planning to standardize on an approach, codenamed Blue, across Windows and Windows Phone in an effort to provide more regular updates to consumers

ZDNet source says

Blue is more of a feature pack, which would/could include be a rollup of fixes plus some new features

Softpedia source says

According to Verge blah blah

No offense guys, but I think you should read the source itself instead of just its name!

The rest of the stuff written in there do not have a source at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge for now until more verifiable information comes out - eg when the next version of Windows is in beta. For the redirect I would think something like History of Microsoft Windows #Future releases, which would briefly cover whatever official announcements or anything on the next release published in reliable and noteworthy sources. -Helvetica (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mazars#Management. No evidence of independent notability j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Verity

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

I declined a A7 speedy on this because there is one (barely) reliable source about him, but that's not really enough for him to be notable, and there don't appear to be any other suitable sources that mention him anywhere. We're left with a fairly insignificant CEO of a fairly insignificant company. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete we do have an article on the chairman of the same company, Patrick de Cambourg, who seems notable. I'm not quite sure we need a microstub for the deputy CEO though, considering the sourcing looks poor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mazars#Management - After multiple searches, I have only found three results here (provides a little bit of information about him), here (mentions his new position) and here (brief mentions). Although it seems he has worked with Mazars for several years and has a significant role there, I don't think there is enough for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Mazars appears to be a 13000 member international accountancy firm. As such I would ahve expected its executives ("managing partners") to be at least on the firnges of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mazars#Management. He needs independent notability, it is not transferred from Mazars (although that fact may form part of the justification for an article, it's not nearly sufficient for WP:N). In addition WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a legit argument. -Rushyo ^Talk 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still support Rushyo and others' proposal. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxville Daily Sun

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

Non-notable online news source. Proving notability for a news source is difficult as there's no specific criteria for them and it can be difficult to find news publications about a news publication that are independent. I'll give it a shot anyway. Subject fails WP:GNG with no Google News search or Google News Archive search results (I excluded the website's publications from the search). The subject also fails WP:WEBSITE as I can't find that it has won any awards. I thought perhaps if it had been widely cited by other news sources that it could be considered notable but I can't find a single care where other news sources have cited KDS but I'm not sure that I was able to perform and adequate enough search to say with authority that it's never been cited. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. I live in the Knoxville area, but I had never heard of this "newspaper" until seeing this AfD. From reading the article and looking at the online newspaper website, I determined that this "newspaper" is nothing more than a promotional website operated by a website development and marketing company in the area. (I was familiar with the name of the business, having seen some of their other websites.) On this page, the company appears to describe the site as a "web portal for a geographic area". Between OlYeller's searching and my insights, I think we can conclude that this is non-notable. Note: An earlier version of the article was speedy-deleted two years ago. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per OlYeller and Orlady - Orlady's argument in particular convinces me; some locally known subjects do not meet notability criteria, but a truly notable subject should be known locally, except if relates to a very specific interest. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orlady. I think we should be generous in our consideration of the notability of media outlets, but under the most generous standards I still find no real indicia of notability, and Orlady's research bears that out. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, OlYeller and Orlady. If it had an actual paper edition I would reconsider. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Vision in Progress

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

This page contains a small amount of useful information that could easily be merged with Rimsha Masih blasphemy case. Andrew (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sources that would establish notability for this per WP:ORG so my recommendation would be to delete and merge that single paragraph into the blasphemy case article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere and redirect - Google News found results for another organization with the same name and Christian affiliaton, World Vision, this confirms they are not related, unsurprisingly (this is a rather short and common name for an organization). However, I did find some relevant results for World Vision in Progress here and here (both Italian) and a different search provided additional links relevant to the Rimsha Masih case here and other results here and here (both Pakistan Christian Post). Considering they are based in Lahore, I searched and found this news article from Lahore which mentions a "World Vision" but I don't know if this is relevant. It seems they also gained attention for helping a man, Amanat Masih, who is the father of the girl in the first Pakistan Christian Post article, also accused of blasphemy, with news articles here, here and others. So far, I don't think I have found any evidence when this group was founded or its founder, although I have found an executive director and spokesman but I would assume the foundation is recent (ten years or less). A slightly better article could be written with these cases above but it wouldn't be sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Hardly any content. LK (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, hardly even any mergeable content. Hairhorn (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Close as keep by nominator - AfD self-retracted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Gruzis

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

Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Fails criteria at WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, but he's notable. Coverage in Elle [1] and i-D [2] and other sources. I added third-party links to the article. How exactly do you think it fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Troemel

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

Completing nomination for an anonymous editor. Their rationale, posted on the article's talk page, is below. The IP editor nominating the article also removed a lot of its bulk, including many references (some clearly flawed, others less so) - the version before their edits is here. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References are both Rhizome articles by same author. Multiple secondary sources from separate established publications are required to establish notability as noted in the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.70.52 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I've never said that before. Multiple sources found on google: Oyster Magazine: [3], Huffington Post:[4], Artfagcity: [5], Paper Mag: [6]. I'm suspect of the IP editor's motivations in this case. Deleted a lot of innocuous content for a clearly notable subject.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have reverted all of the recent edits by the IP user as vandalism. Additional such edits will result in semi protection (no IP editors)--Nixie9 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Those IP's edits are certainly strange, and some of the references in the bio seem to be suspect, and maybe I'm not exactly an expert on the topic, but some Google massaging seems to indicate a lot of non-routine, non-trivial coverage of this person. Perhaps it needs the attention of an expert (other than the subject himself) to be better sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Cooper (electronica musician)

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

This article was brought to my attention by a disgruntled new editor whose similar article had been rejected at AfC. Cooper seems to have recently (2010) turned to producing dance mixes and I can't see any reliable coverage about him online (though he's due to appear at a major festival in 2013). There's an Independent blog post, but it is Cooper describing himself. The IDJ magazine (cited in the article) does not seem to have anything about him in its online archive. Seems at the moment to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Note that the article is authored and devloped by Cooper's manager, which raises a major WP:COI problem too. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. A non-notable individual, who hasn't been picked up by any secondary reliable sources. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 13:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO LK (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google News search found recent results here and here while Google News archives also found results here. This and this suggest he performed at the Decibel Festival three months ago in Seattle and performed at the GLADE Festival this past June (it's not easy searching for reliable sources to find the festival date but found a decent one here) at Houghton Hall with a link here and an interview here. This mentions he has collaborated with other electronica acts including Echaskech. I haven't found that much but this tour listing suggests he has not become widely known yet but is starting to gain attention (his website has several tour dates listed for the new year) and is mainly based in the UK. He also recently released an EP, Conditions One, collaborating with Braids, Ghosting Season and D/R/U/G/S (aka Callum Wright). I plan to improve the article later today, SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SwisterTwister has done a sterling job of inserting some reliable, secondary sources into the article, and I think these show that WP:MUSIC is met. Bravo. — sparklism ^hey! 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and barnstar to SwisterTwister for saving this. I didn't check every source he added, but there's enough significant magazine coverage of the article's subject to establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SwisterTwister sums it up pretty well; has nailed it. — Yash ^[talk] 09:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commencement (unofficial)

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

Page has been previously been prodded. An 'unofficial' album, unable to find any coverage, consists of nothing but a track list and infobox. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (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/2012 December 14. Snotbot t • c » 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably some kind of hoax? There is of course Commencement (album), but I can find no sources and no hits whatsoever about this... version? Not sure. Unsourced, no third-party coverage or reviews, fails WP:NALBUMS anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparent early version of an album that was re-worked and released three years later. Background for this "unofficial" album is provided in the Commencement (album) article; this version does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Oppenheimer

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Fails criteria at WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ The article looks fishy - quickly-created promotional article, by a brand new SPA who obviously already knew how to do Wikipedia articles. Actually they quickly created a whole set of crosslinked articles; see DUVE Berlin (also just created by the same SPA) and the list of artists (with even less sourcing than this one) in that article. But it's only one day old. Existence of wp:notability-suitable sources looks possible, if not likely. There should be a chance to see if wp:suitable sources can be added and brought back into article space then. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change / update based on subsequent work by Colapeninsula. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google shows coverage in New York Times[7] and Wall Street Journal[8] as well as other briefer mentions in the NYT, Art Review, Artforum, etc, some of which I've added to the article. This article needs work, but she's a notable artist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm just pointing out here that the article about the DUVE Berlin gallery has just been deleted for the second time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs more clean-up. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Succo

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing issues. Concern was: Only primary sources. Fails to meet criteria at WP:BIO. A list of exhibitions does not assert notability - all artists exhibit. Also fails at WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indication of wp:notability. The article looks fishy - quickly-created promotional article, by a brand new SPA who obviously already knew how to do Wikipedia articles. Actually they quickly created a whole set of cross-linked articles. See DUVE Berlin (also just created by them) and the list of artists (with even less sourcing than this one) in that article.North8000 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While some of the artists Kudpung กุดผึ้ง AFDed were obviously notable with easy-to-Google media coverage, I'm not seeing anything for this artist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just pointing out here that the article about the DUVE Berlin gallery itself has just been deleted for the second time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument was made for keeping the article, the only suggestion that even a redirect was appropriate was withdrawn. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rikochet (video game)

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

The name of the game was changed to Rekoil and we have an article there for it. The name is not a useful redirect. Odie5533 (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Rekoil, as Rikochet was the working title for more than two years, and it would be reasonable to expect it to be used as a search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but no one is currently linking to Rikochet (video game) and having a hat note or disambiguation page for Rikochet seems more useful. I don't think many people will be entering in Rikochet (video game) into the search bar or into articles any more. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to reply to this earlier. That's good reasoning, and I agree. Changing to delete. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Odie says, "Rikochet" is a plausible search term, but "Rikochet (video game)" isn't. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic rocks

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

Not notable. Unreferenced. Just one example of many manufactures who sold crystal gardens which were in wide use before their alleged invention in 1940. This is simply an an advertisement with no notability. The process is much better described at Chemical garden which is just partially duplicated here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merely a commercial landgrab but as nom says already far better handled at Chemical garden. This could actually have been speedied A10 (duplicates existing article) but I guess we are where we are now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean, it's a product with significant real world distribution and a long history. Surely sources could be found. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one of the "101 Greatest Baby Boomer Toys", according to a 2005 book. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, but that would apply far more to the generic Crystal Garden/Chemical Garden toys of which this is just one poorly-referenced brand: the long history is not this brand's at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability independent of other chemical gardens. If this article is not deleted, it should be merged into Chemical garden. Peacock (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I agree with Peacock. Miniapolis (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 22:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Younghusband (Le Croissette)

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

Second World War WAAF officer with no claim of any real notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of press coverage of her and her books.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Most of the coverage is regional or local media, but it's from throughout England and Wales (Cardiff, Milton Keynes, Loughborough, London...), showing she's of more than just regional interest. While she was reportedly a hotelier in later life, I'm unsure if she's the same Eileen Younghusband from Cardiff mentioned in the LA Times.[22][23][24] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Colapeninsula. The article needs a major rewrite, but that's not an AfD issue. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. My Google-fu must be on the blink. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Headcount strongly favours keeping, New York City Subway is already 124k, so merger is impossible Wily D 12:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Subway in popular culture

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

The whole article is WP:TRIVIA. Any notable popular culture references could easily be incorporated as a section in New York City Subway 1292simon (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Oppose.~~ The article is too long to be incorporated as a section. There are several articles related to the NYC Subway existing as separate articles due to being too long. Vcohen (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD !votes usually take the form of keep/delete, rather than support/oppose, for the sake of clarity. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vcohen (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was split from New York City Subway in January 2007, and has grown since then, so it wouldn't make sense to merge it back in. And this list isn't WP:TRIVIA; that guideline is about "trivia sections" full of unintegrated miscellaneous facts, whereas this is a perfectly legitimate "in popular culture" article. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, "in popular culture" is an essay. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." 1292simon (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think a relevant essay trumps a completely irrelevant guideline. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While comprehensive, it's not a good article in other ways: it's very badly sourced (of the 3 refs, one is a forum, one is a business website, and only one is a real published reliable source), and it's a list whereas Wikipedia style generally prefers paragraphs of prose. But even the proposer suggests a partial merge rather than outright deletion, and I think leaving it here is better than merging for reasons of length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination misunderstands WP:TRIVIA which does not seem to have been read. The nomination seems to be suggesting merger into another article and that would not require deletion. Warden (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DoctorKubla and Warden, although the classifications should be changed from Start to List. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fine "in popular culture" article. No reason to delete. If you want to improve it, fine. But there are much more important things to do. Borock (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the policy, and too lazy to look up right now, but it seems to me that if the "popular culture" work is notable there does not really need to be a secondary source saying that the subway is featured in it. It can be the source itself. Borock (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information is not trivial. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure if WP:TRIVIA applies considering the organization and clear focus of the article as a 'popular culture' directly and not an indiscriminate list of facts. Mkdw ^talk 23:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violates WP:V, in that the article is not based on independent, third-party sources. Basing the article on independent, third-party sources is what helps ensure that we do not stray into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. If the article were indeed compliant with WP:V, we would be easily able to demonstrate that reliable sources had found at least the majority of these facts to be relevant and important when considering the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture. Instead, the article is a simple laundry-list of facts. Each individual fact may be verifiable (as WP:V does permit verification of individual facts through primary sources), but the collection of those facts into a representation of "this is what it's important to know about the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture" cannot be verified.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article topic only "violates" WP:V if the entire content is unverifiable, ie "Martian literature makes multiple references to the New York City Subway", not current unverified in the article. Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. If the article says "The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World", the Bee Gees song "Subway" suffices as evidence. To demand the New York Times or something also state ""The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World" is just silly game playing. --Oakshade (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my argument (and WP:V) again. I agree that individual facts can be verified to primary sources. No problem there. WP:V also states that articles need to be based on independent, third-party sources, though. An article which consists of nothing but facts verified by primary sources is not based on independent, third-party sources. There's a level of primary sourcing that's acceptable and even necessary. Entire articles that consist of a list of disjoint facts sourced to primary sources are way beyond that acceptable level.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New York City Subway. I agree with some editors above that this content is notable. However, it seems that in practice we add this sort of information as an "In Popular Culture" section to the main article. Now, Kww brings up some important concerns. There's very few references to most of the information in the existing article; I think that, should this information be kept in one form or another, it certainly needs to be worked on and improved. --Lord Roem (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York City Subway. Even though many of the entries here are true, they are unverifiable and pure WP:FANCRUFT. We can easily create a new section on the main article called "In Popular Culture" where we list only well-known featuring of the subway (i.e. the entire film, show, or song is centered around the system). This includes The Taking of Pelham 123, The French Connection, and Take the A Train. All the other entries referring to music videos, TV shows, and others that only show quick passing subway scenes should be removed (e.g. Macy Gray's I Try video, World Trade Center (film), Saving Face, and Futurama's The Luck of Fryrish) because the system is not the primary focus and thus, no one cares about them. Almost every movie, show, and video shot in NYC will feature the subway. Does that make them notable to mention here? No! The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The existing article for the New York City Subway is far too large as it is. Only a separate "In popular culture list would suffice. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think any article could withstand the impact of the sourced items. That a section became an overwhelmingly bloated list of trivial material sourced only to the material itself isn't an argument for splitting it out, it's an argument to start removing material.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Due to the premature closer & resulting reopening, this deletion discussion was archived by AnomieBOT, I've reverted those 8 edits restoring this deletion discussion to the relevant delsort pages & removed from archives. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Converted to prose this would make for a fairly comprehensive article, certainly containing too much information to live as a mere section on the main subway page. --Grahamdubya (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though comment, I've noticed some "in popular culture" sections on individual service pages (e.g., the 6 train); perhaps standardizing those and extending the same to station pages makes more sense? --Grahamdubya (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls... now, which subway d'ya think??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is too substantial for a useful merge, and will be easier to develop separately. I think almost everyone here except possibly the nom is convinced that the material is appropriate. and kww's argument can be met by better sourcing.The content of an article does not have to meet the requirements fro mblp or WP:GNG; verifiability is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern can not be met by "better sourcing". It's been built on an improper foundation, in that the article is not based on material found in independent sources, it has been based on material found in primary sources. Even if someone managed to find a review of "American Dragon" that mentioned that "Jake" sometimes "rides in the subway to get around", that wouldn't be a source that indicated that Jake riding the subway is in any way relevant to the concept of the NYC subway's impact on popular culture. There's nothing here that is worth saving, much less "substantial". "Substantial" and "bloated" are distinct concepts, and this thing is just bloated.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I disagree that you have discounted GNG. For an article to exist, it needs to be notable, not just verifiable. Otherwise we would have articles like Wooden telegraph poles in popular culture, which would list every show ever made because they all feature telegraph poles at some stage. The Legendary Ranger's suggestion above seems like a sensible solution IMHO. 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legitimate as a breakout article. Frankly, I feel that "in popular culture" sections are the devil, and if a breakout is what it takes to keep such fluff out of the main article, that's good enough for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A legitimate split per WP:SUMMARY. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless better sources are added. Miniapolis (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chelmsford#Business and commerce. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meadows Shopping Centre

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

From what I can tell, a non-notable shopping centre. We usually delete those as a speedy, but this one was declined. I searched on gnews and gbooks and ghits, and while it certainly does exist I could not find coverage or size sufficient to suggest this deserves an article. Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Chelmsford already mentions the shopping centre, so a merger isn't necessary. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. Already mentioned in Chelmsford article. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Chelmsford#Business_and_commerce - Although the Chelmsford article mentions it as "The Meadows", I think a redirect may be appropriate. Google News archives found several results, from a body that was found near the shopping centre to usual fundraisers and other events including this fashion show. I also found a result here that mentions the centre's owner as of 2002 and this which supports the 1992 establishment. There isn't much for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as SwisterTwister. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Shemek, PhD

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

Unremarkable author of weight-loss book. The sources are weak, at best, for "an internationally known health and weight loss expert". Appears to fail WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on this and adjustments are already in process. I've added another media source and will locate others. Bobchoat (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better if any of these media appearances were reliable sources for anything other than the fact that she appeared on them. The best claim at notability - that she is a best-selling author - is still unsourced. A source confirming sales figures and which best-seller lists it was on would count for more than another entry in a list of media outlets that realized they could save money if they laid off their expensive news staff and ran infomercials on their morning shows. Kilopi (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't get where you believe she was doing infomercials. These are talk shows, not infomercials. And the same with the recommendation from The Huffington Post using her as a source. How about her being quoted in regarding her expertise, would that count? Bobchoat (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bob, do you mind if I ask if you are connected to the subject of this biography in some way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know they're not called infomercials, but I'm alleging that they might not be much more better than infomercials in terms of reliability. She may have been invited to do interviews on the basis of her media-friendliness, accepted on the condition that the hosts plug her book, without much effort invested in fact-checking the biography her publicist sent over. That's not a huge problem right now since they're only being used as primary sources for the uncontroversial fact that she was there. I was just worried and wanted to warn you in advance that the other media sources you alluded to might not cut it if used as a secondary source for something more meaningful and notability-inducing like the fact that she is a best-selling author. Kilopi (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being quoted is a source by the person, not a source about the person. What are needed for a biographical article on Wikipedia are multiple published works, by independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that document the subject's life and works in depth. You can make a good argument for keeping by simply pointing to some. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, have to go with the nom here. I'm afraid a single self-published book doesn't cut it. I encourage a resubmission once the bibliography is better established. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:BLP, WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:MILL. This is a very ordinary person -- there are myriads of PhDs, and thousands of health books published every year. Posting the degree in the title is a clear sign the article is likely to be crap. 19:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sevi

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

Non-notable biography. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search or Google News Archive search hits that constitute significant and independent coverage from a reliable source. In my opinion, the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN but depending on your interpretation, may satisfy point one. The point is vague regarding a "statewide office" and where in hierarchy the line is drawn. I feel that it's referring to an elected official and would not reach the "director of cabinet affairs". OlYeller21^Talktome 05:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appointed office. I think one could make a WP:POLITICIAN case for a governor's chief of staff, but Sevi is under that. Source Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too feel that WP:POLITICIAN is supposed to apply to elected offices except for very high appointed offices. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of North Texas. Courcelles 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fight, North Texas

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

No independent sources, not notable, etc. As per WP:NSONG, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Runfellow (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Runfellow (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This song is discussed in College Fight Songs: An Annotated Anthology, Volume 2 [25] At University of North Texas#Traditions, there's already a brief discussion of the song with some additional sources I haven't checked yet. If we conclude that a separate article isn't justified, rather than deletion it would be better to merge and redirect this to University of North Texas#Traditions --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of North Texas#Traditions. Fails to meet notability criteria as a standalone article. —Theo polisme 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of North Texas#Traditions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geek's Guide to the Galaxy

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary blog sources Hu12 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am seeing some reliable source-ish coverage: [26] [27]. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC) - not reliable source-ish, those magazines belong to the podcasters themselves! Sorry, my error. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This show is, as the article notes, one of the world's most prominent literature podcasts. It's certainly not hard to find coverage of it online. Here are just a few examples: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.166.132 (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just blogs and sites hosting links to Geek's Guide to the Galaxy. None of those demonstrate notability.--Hu12 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, they're not just any old "blogs and sites," they're sites like Boing Boing and Gawker, two of the most popular blogs on the internet. And they're definitely not just "links" -- they're articles and interviews covering the content of the podcast. Do you think any science fiction literature podcast is notable? Similiar science fiction literature podcasts such as Escape Pod and Comic Geek Speak have entries already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.166.132 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage in varied references. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some of them? Mostly seem to be self-published sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the podcast is hosted by Wired (see [33],[34]), a reliable source. Diego (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hosted by a reliable source = notable? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is Not inherited, nor is wired.com independent of the source in this case. Additionally those links are written "BY GEEK'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY". --Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tried really hard to find anything in non-blog sources, but drawn a blank. However, it's written by two notable people, and the advice in WP:NWEB states "In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." I can't decide which of David Barr Kirtley or John Joseph Adams the content should belong to, so for that reason, the article should stay. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a mention in the LA Times ^[1], coverage in BookBanter ^[2], and is a nominee for the 2012 Parsec Awards best science fiction news site ^[3] as well as This is Horror's podcast of the year ^[4].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.106 (talk)

The LA Times article states "Gibson's interview marks the launch of the new Wired podcast, The Geek's Guide to the Galaxy. That's all I know about it". That's not really significant coverage. The other references don't have much in them, either. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BookBanter is definitely more than a passing mention. Also the Parsec Awards is a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization , which could qualify it for the Wikipedia:Notability (web) notability criteria. Let's wait and see until the award is decided. Diego (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted: it was a textbook A7 case. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it with frosting

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

Article is non-notable. May be written by proprietor. wia (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject doesn't appear notable and the username suggests a conflict of interest. -- Patchy1 02:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted: it was a textbook A7 case. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soma (song)

Delete and redirect - Look, "Cherub Rock", "Today", "Rocket", and "Disarm" were all charting singles with music videos, "Geek USA" had critical acclaim for having one of the greatest drum performances of all time and has been covered on a notable artist's album, and "Mayonaise" has not only been covered on a notable artist's album, but also has had frequent airplay and numerous versions all with notable reviews. What does "Soma" have that's notable? I think they only way to get rid of this unimportant song article is AfD since it doesn't qualify for speedy. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Siamese Dream, as a plausible search term. The nominator is right in that this song received no substantial coverage and did not chart, so it does not meet WP:NSONGS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to album article. An important song on a massively successful album, often highlighted in the album reviews. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course the album is massively successful, but if you read the top paragraph I just made an argument on why it wasn't an important song while you did not. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hobbes Goodyear is right. This is a track from a huge album in rock music history, and indeed multiple reviews from that era have commentary about the track. A quick search turns up:
- SMASHING PUMPKINS ENERGIZE HARA: [CITY EDITION] Dave Larsen POP MUSIC CRITIC. Dayton Daily News [Dayton, Ohio] 26 Apr 1994: 3C.
- Smashing Pumpkins Pomp It Up: BY DAVID SPRAGUE. Newsday [Long Island, N.Y] 01 Aug 1993: 19.
- The sound of Smashing: Smashing Pumpkins' unpredictablity helps the band avoid sophmore slump: Kula, Geoffrey. The Province [Vancouver, B.C] 10 Aug 1993: B3.
- SMASHING PUMPKINS, SWERVEDRIVER PLAY TO SELLOUT BOATHOUSE CROWD THE PUMPKINS SHOW THE BEST ELEMENTS OF A ``MOODY SOUND.: Wright, Rickey. Virginian - Pilot [Norfolk, Va] 21 Nov 1993: B3.
- SIGNAL TO NOISE: The Sonic Diary of the Smashing Pumpkins. Thomas, Richard. EQ 19. 10 (Oct 2008): 14-18,20-22,24-26,28.
That's just a small sampling. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly all of the information about "Soma" in this article could easily fit into the Siamese Dream article and would look much better there. Although I'm stilling going with delete and redirect, I wouldn't mind if it were to be merged. The song itself still doesn't deserve its own article. The citation and resource section (which isn't that large) is longer than the article content. With the exception of being #24 out of 25 on a list of "coolest guitar solos" and #41 out of 50 out of "greatest guitar solos" all of the citations are more about ALL of Siamese Dream and do not really focus on "Soma" as an individual song, this is why they citation section is larger than the actual content. This is also points to almost all of this information clearly diserving to be in the Siamese Dream article, but not warranting that "Soma" should have its own article. The worst part is that most of the article is about Billy Corgan's personal life, which is not information that makes a song notable. According to the Siamese Dream article "Today" and "Geek U.S.A." tend to be the songs that get highlighted when talking about the album so I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "Soma" is usually one of the most highlighted songs. So maybe merge the information if you think its really that notable, but surely DO NOT KEEP THIS ARTICLE. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment I just scrolled through all the songs listed as "other" on the Smashing Pumpkins navbox...perhaps it's just that "Soma" as an article is more poorly written and could use a spitshine. I see "Superchrist" is wearing a questionable notability tag from July 2011 and "FOL", although not article tagged, looks the least notable of any to me. I personally elect "FOL" to leave. Gee, "Soma" even has Mike Mills on piano....and it's actually an interestingly written article I would hate to see disappear. I nominate "FOL" instead. Fylbecatulous talk 16:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really concern myself with post-Adore Pumpkins, but "FOL" was at the Superbowl and in a commercial and a highly notable wrestling team's theme song. "Superchrist" was a single so I don't know what its even doing in the "other" section. Yet again "Soma" had no independent release advertisement, or extensive coverage, and asserts little to no notability. Mike Mills being on paino is like Matt Cameron of Soundgarden being on drums for "For Martha", in other words not something that makes a song article worthy. Like i said earlier, merge if you must, but this does not deserve its own article. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the Dark Arts

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

No assertion of significance or evidence of notability per WP:NALBUMS. The article is completely unreferenced. - Mr X 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google News found a detailed article here and another hip hop news article here confirming that the album indeed exists. Additionally, Billboard suggests the album charted after it was released on July 31. I plan to improve the article soon, SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SwisterTwister's improvements. Nice work. Gong show 06:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxxsonics

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

Page describes small, non-notable company, content is a sub-brand list and list of key employees. Most contributions to page by single-purpose account. Company is looking for new editor for this page: [35]. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 00:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company is not seeking a new editor for this page, they are seeking an editor to work on a Coconut Water project that is not related to Maxxsonics. I have this direct from the Marketing Director H. Christopher Parvin. He chose to post without creating a new profile until they decide whether to go forward with that project.

This is not a non-notable company as they are a major brand distributor and manufacturer of audio electronics that sells multiple product lines in multiple countries. The firm is waiting until the annual CES (consumer electronics show) in January to update product lines and website. They have contacted me and asked me to hold off on updating more content until after the launch at CES. If the company is looking for a new editor of this page they will contact me directly as they have done in the past to provide licensed artwork and requested revisions to same. Please do not delete this page as it will be updated as the company increases their internet presence. Thank You. Gmuth71 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia user Gmuth71[reply]

Dude, you really need to have a read of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Being a paid editor for the company or being asked directly by the company to edit their Wikipedia article (and only their article) is an obvious conflict of interest which is always strongly discouraged. You're unlikely to get very far with the argument that editors here should "hold off" on discussing an article's deletion because the company wants you to add more information about its new product lines. Stalwart111 02:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duuude - I am not a paid editor and I am not asking anyone to hold off the discussion, I am responding to the notion that the page isn't well filled in by pointing out that the company and its product line will be changing after CES in January. When did wikipedia change from being a free site for all to post factual information into a judgmental 'my contributions are better than your contributions' club of wiki-snobs? I'd love to contribute more on wiki but right now I hold 3 jobs...in reality......outside the interweb. Thanks. Gmuth71 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia didn't change - Wikipedia has never been the place to promote a business, whether you are being paid to do so or your are being asked to do so as a volunteer. Stalwart111 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Providing factual information is not promotion, there is a vast differentiation between promotional literature and fact. Are you sure you understand wikipedia or are you having a bitter moment because this page is factual. Witch hunt anyone? Gmuth71 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Providing factual information can be promotional and this is a great example. WP:PROMO is as much about context as it is about content and goes hand-in-hand with WP:NOTHERE. Factual is one thing - an encyclopaedic summary of the company's history, product lines, key people, financial history, important breakthroughs, etc. Promotion is another - dot-point lists of company products, logos with direct links to product promotional pages and very little encyclopaedic information. This article represents the latter. I don't doubt the information is factual, in fact I'm sure it is. But it is not presented in an encyclopaedic fashion from a non-promotional neutral point of view. Those are not reasons to delete (and you'll notice I've not actually "voted" for deletion) but if the article is not cleaned up you'll have a tough time convincing other editors that this is a good faith attempt to build Wikipedia. Stalwart111 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a sign of good faith, I've had a crack at editing the article to bring it into line with Wikipedia's manuals of style - removing BOLD headings, direct links to company sites from within the article, bold and italic names of products (just not necessary) and some dot-point style "information" from each of the sub-sections. I've also created a new "history" section. These articles can often be saved and this is a fairly large company that would seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. But pictogramming a company press release and calling it a Wikipedia article will not get you very far. Stalwart111 03:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Stalwart for your editing for WP:MOS and providing some useful feedback. This admitted wiki-noob is happy to take constructive criticism under advisement. Gmuth71 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would again, though, counsel against editing with a conflict of interest. This is strongly discouraged for a range of reasons. Hiring editors or giving instructions to editors or using Wikipedia to promote or raise awareness of a company is always frowned upon. If you really are in contact with the company's marketing director (as you suggest above) then I would strongly counsel you to advise him not to "engage" Wikipedia in that way. It can only end badly for him, the company and probably for you. Stalwart111 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CES is not aware that Maxxsonics will be exhibiting at CES 2013. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 03:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, CES is not a listed exhibitor but will be exhibiting in the area directly surrounding the CES show. I have queried the company for further details. Whaledad, clearly you are not versed in the audio electronics industry. Gmuth71 (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to peruse the information, here are several resources supporting Maxxsonics participation in CES 2013 as well as the upgrading of the company's several products and product lines. Maxxsonics 2013 CES Launch Activities, 12 Volt News Article 'Maxxsonics Welcomes All, CES 2013 Events, CE Outlook Article, Maxxsonics collaborates with West Coast Customs to Provide Amps and Speakers Under the West Coast Customs Brand Name Gmuth71 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take serious offense to your claim that my contributions here show that I'm not versed in the audio electronics industry. More important however is your claim that your links show that Maxxsonics is participating in CES 2013. Your links ONLY show that Maxxsonics is in Las Vegas at the time of CES 2013 and is organizing a few gatherings close to CES 2013, thereby flagrantly abusing the CES trademark and logo. I hope you understand (and make your buddy at Maxxsonics understand) that this is a serious faux pas for which CES could potentially claim a large amount in damages. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google News search[36] reveals the subject could squeak by with a very small article that passes WP:V, but the current article is WP:NOT as a directory of product listings and promotion. It could be a decent 3-paragraph article. In these cases, editors will most likely take the path of least resistance, to delete the article until an impartial editor takes an interest, rather than deal with COI issues on such a small article. Unless of course the AfD process itself makes an editor take an interest in improving it in the interest of saving the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear as though it matters not if I as the original author would make edits to trim the article and make it more conforming to the points made in this discussion, although if a consensus would allow that in order to consider not deleting the article, I will gladly make such efforts in the next week as time allows. IF no, please advise and I will heed the advice and suggestions during future edits of other topics (again as time allows). Thanks Gmuth71 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sourced by independent sources, created by an SPA, and not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'non-notable' comment is a restatement of original author of this deletion discussion article and has been successfully disproved by the same discussion above. All sources are non-SM generated and independent and additional sources have been added to the discussion above. Would disagree with the 'SPA' accusation but have nothing to support that at this time due to the constraints of time and other responsibility this author must tend to. Gmuth71 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where notability has been proven. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search through ProQuest Newsstand revealed the following sources, in addition to the ones already used in the current WP entry:
- Sudick, Jennifer (1 Mar 2006). "Maxxsonics goal: Stay under the radar to do well in market". Daily Herald.
- Pohl, Kimberly (24 Dec 2005). "Mobile sound system company stays on the move". Daily Herald.

Because reliable, independent, secondary sources provide significant coverage (albeit at a local level), the company meets WP:ORG. Even if the article was edited by an SPA with a COI, that's not grounds for deletion. Instead, the article should be tagged for further editing by an unbiased user. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 12:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - COI issues not withstanding, company meets WP:ORG. Additionally, User:Gmuth71 should be topic banned from editing this article. (At least until such time as the editor understands how Wikipedia works) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Sue Rangell there are sufficient secondary sources. That said, the article needs to be attacked with a machete, and I concur with topic banning Gmuth71 from this article. PianoDan (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an absolutely notable company, and in the article tere are reliable sources. Samuel petan (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highest-grossing films in overseas markets

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

Fails general notabilty criteria. Uses the global chart at Box Office Mojo to construct a list of "highest overseas grossers". There is plenty of RS coverage of the US and worldwide charts to establish them individually as notable topics, but the "overseas" chart is just a by-product of these two charts i.e. it is not notable in its own right, since it is contextually dependent on the notablity of the other two charts. It exists solely to offer perspective on the US box office and how much of the global market it accounts for, so it doesn't makes sense to just list it on its own.

There are inherent WP:WORLDVIEW problems with the scope of the article too, since there is an "overseas" chart for every national chart. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But give a proper name to it. The topic is top USA film exports. It seems like a reasonable enough topic, and certainly important within the film industry. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands it is not a list of US film exports, it's a box-office chart derived from subtracting the US box-office from the global box-office. A list of US film exports wouldn't include foreign films, which the BOM chart does do. I wouldn't actually oppose a list of exports, but that would involve a fundamental change to the scope of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking they were all considered American productions. If "Lord of the Rings" is considered a New Zealand movie (not sure if it is) it would be kind of silly to compare its overseas gross to an American movie's. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very confused list, in fact I'm not completely sure what it is doing. If you look at this chart, you will see that the Wikipedia chart doesn't include the Ice Age movies that are completely American produced, even though it includes the American produced Alice in Wonderland which grossed less (8, 9 and 10 on BOM chart). On the other hand, it includes the Harry Potter movies which are classified by the American Film Institute as US/UK co-productions, but not Skyfall which is classified as a US/UK co-production. Much of this could be cleared up though if it were converted to a list of US exports, since there would be a clearly defined scope for the list then. I'd be ok with keeping it as a list of exports, but that decision is down to the AfD process. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a single column of data that could be included in the List of highest-grossing films. Almost all of the cites are to a single source, Box Office Mojo. It's unclear why we should be trying to replicate Box Office Mojo who already does it better. The inclusion criteria is confusing and besides with films produced internationally would limiting it to "USA only" be of any value. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Green Cardamom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't create an article for every box office stat/ Boxofficegeek (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to List of highest-grossing films per cogent argument by User:Green Cardamom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging it into List of highest-grossing films isn't really appropriate because that article focuses exclusively on worldwide figures. Adding a list of figures that are basically the worldwide figures with the American portion subtracted doesn't make any sense, because then it wouldn't be a worldwide chart. Why not add a list of figures with the European market removed? or the Asian markets? I don't see why we should compromise the WP:WORLDVIEW of an FA rated article just to accommodate indiscriminate data. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's probably worth pointing out that the article was created by a sock that has since been blocked: User:Besharamsun. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for sharing that sad news. I see that User:Besharamsun was blocked per WP:DUCK. Still though, and despite its origins, we now have sourcable information that can be placed elsewhere to improve the project. I agree with User:Kitfoxxe that it's a reasonable enough topic. What we can do is determine just where such information best serves Wikipedia. Surely not the trash bin? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some confusion about what this data actually is. This data is basically a calculation by which the US box office grosses at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States are subtracted from the worldwide box office grosses at List of highest-grossing films. That is basically all it is: this chart is just the result of an arithmetic operation on two sets of data that already exist on Wikipedia. The data was obtained from Box Office Mojo (an American box office tracker), where it primarily serves to show how well a film performs in the United States compared to everywhere else. The data in itself is meaningless without the US data for comparison, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. There have been two suggestions made besides deletion:

Remove all the non-American films from the list, effectively turning it into a list of most successful US exports (as per Kitfoxxe).
Merge into List of highest-grossing films.

Out of the two options I think the first is preferable, since you can at least make a case a list of exports is notable, and there is some definite inclusion criteria. As for merging into List of highest-grossing films, I don't think it's a good idea since all the data at that article are global figures, so merging would effectively introduce an American perspective into an article with worldwide scope. The problem though is that the creator of the article has been indefinitely blocked and won't be around to develop the article should the first option be selected. If editors still find the second option preferable, I suggest closing this dicussion as a "keep" and starting a 'merge' discussion at List of highest-grossing films where the editors involved in that article can decide whether to merge or not. While I appreciate it is only a list of numbers to some people, it is an FA rated list and in the top 1000 articles on Wikipedia so any major decisions affecting the scope of the article need to be carefully examined. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any information in the article could be included in List of highest-grossing films, if not there already. The movie business now is totally global so I don't know if the concept of "overseas markets" for films is even notable. Borock (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is meant by "overseas markets" when we should be following WP:WORLDVIEW? This seems to be a list of top grossing films outside of North America or something, which has dubious notability, and difficult to source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overseas from where? As seen from Chiswick, that'd include Hollywood... Fails GNG; hopeless list criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Betty Logan (talk · contribs). - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sea is not relevant to this topic. It's like trying to decide whether Wikipedia is overseas or not. Warden (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Might be notable as a section of List of highest-grossing films, but does not warrant a separate article. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps coming up, but no-one has explained yet why it would be a good idea to merge into the List of highest grossing films. The List of highest grossing films adopts a global view and explicitly just uses worldwide data i.e. that is the criteria for the inclusion of the data on the chart. Why would we stick a chart of non-worldwide data that adopts the view of one particular country, into such an article? The scope of this data is clearly different to the scope of the List of highest grossing films. If you believe the data is actually notable then vote to keep it, but if you want to merge it will please explain why it would be appropriate to merge it into List of highest grossing films? Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Betty. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Betty Logan. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides its usefullness on Wikipedia, the page also leverages the extreme bias toward American articles and points of view on the film related articles. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Bias is resolved by unbiased articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. It is pretty standard in US and Canadian sources to cover box office grosses in terms of US/Canada gross, gross from everywhere except the US and Canada, and worldwide gross. For example, www.boxofficemojo.com and www.the-numbers.com, two box office tracking websites, run weekly columns discussing box office gross from non-US/Canada markets ([37] and [38] appear to be the most recent of those articles at the time I write this). The box office numbers in the article aren't merely created by subtracting the US/Canada gross from the worldwide gross, but are a subject of discussion on there own. Even though the subject is only discussed in US/Canadian sources (as far as I know), I believe it is a notable topic that passes WP:GNG. WP:WORLDVIEW is not a valid reason to delete the article, as that essay is in no way saying that subjects should be deleted due to recieving coverage in only one or two countries. A topic covered by reliable sources is appropirate for inclusion in Wikipedia even if those sources are only from a couple countries. However, WP:WORLDVIEW is a good reason not to merge this list with List of highest-grossing films, as this list is about a topic of interest primarily to the US and Canada and primarily covered in US/Canadian sources, and merging it into an article with worldwide scope would not make sense to me. I would oppose merging the list, and instead think it should be kept as its own article. Also, about the name of the article, it is clearly mischosen. The topic as covered in US/Canadian sources is the gross box office of films originating in any country, but only from movie theaters in countries other than the United States and Canada. The article should be renamed to make that more clear, and an explanation of the exact scope should be added to the lead of the article. A lot of the "delete" !votes seem to be focusing on the confusion arising from the topic's name, but a poor name is an easily fixed problem and not a valid reason for deleting an article (admittedly, the intended scope of the article was probably not clear to anyone who doesn't regularly read US/Canadian box office sources, but hopefully it is clear from the sources I linked to . . . again, this is a pretty standard way of presenting box office number in US/Canadian sources). Calathan (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, if I understand you (only just, I think), this is a technical subdivision of data where the topic from an ordinary human's point of view (say, a WP reader's) is worldwide viewing of films, but for reasons incalculable, perhaps Americentricity, the data are split into odd lumps, and this is about one such lump. If so, the !votes are right but for the wrong reason. However I suspect that any duplication of this lump into a WP article is based on WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL, which WP doesn't buy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of baffled as to why you think WP:ITEXISTS applies here. The whole point of what I wrote is that this is a subject written about in reliable sources (the two weekly articles I mentioned). I'm not saying it should be kept merely because it exists, but because it has significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. Calathan (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably covered by WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. Both BOM and The Numbers follow up their domestic reports with the overseas reports as part of their global box office coverage, but while they have U.S. (nominal and adjusted) and the worldwide charts (see BOM and The Numbers), they don't actually include "overseas" charts; the concept doesn't seem to exist as a data unit in its own right. A chart is basically a list article right? As per WP:LISTN a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. In other words, for this chart to be notable we should be able to track down an analogous version of it somewhere, just like we can do with the worldwide and U.S. charts. If we can't fulfil that criteria it should be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS is applicable here either. These aren't just reports on single events, but regular columns that provide analysis. About actually finding the "overseas" or "international" chart, I tried looking for that and so far couldn't find it. I'm very certain that IMDB had such a chart as of a few years ago (it had three charts, US/Canada grosses, non-US/Canada grosses, and worldwide grosses). However, when I checked yesterday, I couldn't find any charts of top box office grosses on IMDB at all. Either I just couldn't find them, or they got rid of them after they aquired Boxofficemojo. On Boxofficemojo, I could find highest non-US/Canada gross by year, but I didn't find highest non-US/Canada gross of all time. The articles regularly make reference to films being among the highest grossing of all time outside the US, so I feel certain that such a chart must exist somewhere (i.e. the person writing the articles has access to it). I'll try to find it again when I get a chance, since I would be very surprised if it isn't available somewhere. Regardless though, the subject of how much films gross outside the US/Canada seems to be a notable topic in my opinion . . . I'm not sure though that this article would really work well as anything except a list, so having a clear list to directly source it to would certainly help. Calathan (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that IMDB does still have their lists of highest grossing films in the US, non-US, and worldwide (I'm pretty sure when they say US they actually include Canada, as I think that is the normal way of reporting numbers in the US and Canada). The "non-US" list is here [39], and looks to be more up to date than the current Wikipedia article. For Boxofficemojo, I still couldn't find such a list. They report non-US/Canada numbers for each weekend [40], the highest non-US and Canada opening weekends of all time [41], and the highest non-US/Canada grosses for each year [42], but apparently do not have an all time highest grossing non-US/Canada list. I don't know if the IMDB list would be appropriate for sourcing this article . . . I know in general IMDB isn't used as a source, but I don't think that list is user submitted content, so maybe it would be acceptable (it would seem odd to say it isn't acceptable but Boxofficemojo is, when Boxofficemojo is a subsidiary of IMDB). Calathan (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyscreen

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

This band that was conceived in Newport, Wales doesn't appear to pass WP:N or WP:BAND. Source searching in Gbooks and Gnews archives is yielding only very passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Couldn't find a lot online but they were a major label band that released three albums. There's some coverage here. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two existing sources in the article are insufficient. One is a singular mention that fails WP:SIGCOV, the other is part of a database, which fails WP:RS. The link provided in this AFD is fine but local in nature. The other sources found are myspace, etc. Another band that doesn't have a facebook fan page, which of course is fine, but tells me that that more sources in the future are not likely. I couldn't even find anyone that uploaded any of their songs to youtube. Not official metrics, granted, but revealing nonetheless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete misses WP:MUSIC by a hair, just one major-label album. Although we aren't generally supposed to give future possibilities much weight if any, in something this borderline I might be inclined to tip the scales if it looked like more notability were forthcoming (if they'd signed again and had new stuff coming out) but that doesn't appear to be the case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument advanced that the artist meets WP:BASIC or other critieria. (That a reliable source indicated by the nominator is a deadlink is not by itself a concern with regard to policy, but the lack of a second reliable source does speak to WP:GNG.) j⚛e decker ^talk 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G o 2

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

A topic about a Christian hip hop performer and psalmist that appears to fail WP:N and WP:BASIC. After several searches in GNews archives and GBooks, not finding any coverage. The only independent reliable source, already in the article, is a dead link. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which dead link is the reliable source? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/good_day_atl/Go2_Puts_Out_Positive_Message_081809 (Fox news). Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability. Statυs (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a pretty hard name to search for using Google, but in the absence of reliable sources and without being able to find them, I think it should be deleted. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flowparty

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

A topic about an unnamed Swedish musical artist who goes by the name "Flowparty" that appears to fail WP:BASIC. Not finding any independent reliable sources to qualify the notability of this person for a standalone article on Wikipedia. This Discogs source in the article is essentially just a directory listing on a commercial website. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I know nothing about the subject, but no manner of Google searching finds anything reliable - mostly Wikipedia mirrors. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite enough of a one hit wonder to attract significant coverage from independent sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 end of year rugby union tests

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

Disputed Prod. Unable to find sources to establish notability. No unique names 15:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Statυs (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why has the article been nominated for deletetion when fixtures are getting announced? Rugby.change (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Naut Humon

The result was Speedy keep as nominator has withdrawn the nomination (Non-admin closure). Forgot to put name (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

article shows no indication of notability, in content or in references provided. the template doesnt add to his notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leading member of a band with two albums on a notable record label (Ralph Records). I added references to further reinforce his notability.--Soul Crusher (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i am leaning towards keep at this point, but i wont withdraw my nomination, as i want at least a few other people to weigh in on this so far marginally notable person. i am aware that Ralph Records is a very important, if not huge, indy label, but i didnt see his notability within the label.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject seems to be notable. I found 11 newspaper articles on NewsBank, including this. - Mr X 00:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and speedy keep, thanks to Mr. X, whoever you are (perhaps Speed Mister's brother?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per nom's withdrawal. Against the current (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolutions

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

This topic about a band from Cardiff, Wales appears to fail WP:N and WP:BAND. Several searches are not yielding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating The Tunguska Event (band) (a related topic) for the same reasons as per the nomination for The Revolutions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If notable, it should be renamed to The Revolutions (band) to avoid confusion with Revolution. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability. Statυs (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I am not seeing anything beyond minor, routine local coverage for both of them. Both fail WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Israel Weapon Industries. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho B

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

While this firearm appears to exist, the topic may fail WP:N. Several custom GNews archives and GBooks searches (e.g. [43], [44]) have not provided coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 22:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel Weapon Industries ~~Delete~~ - having had a look, there's not much there by way of coverage in any form. Stalwart111 02:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel Weapon Industries. It doesn't need its own article and can't provide sources to demonstate notability, but if it exists, it is reasonable to assume that someone might look for it, and they would at least find the parent company. Perhaps someone will eventually add something on it there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very sensible solution. Amended my !vote. Stalwart111 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - My searches provided nothing and a redirect would be appropriate but I have one question. Israel Weapon Industries doesn't currently mention this pistol but it mentions the Jericho 941, a different product, so how would we redirect to Israel Weapon Industries? This article claims it was in service from 1970 to 1975 and considering this is an Israeli product, sources are probably not English. A search for "Jericho B" at the company's website provided nothing and the service duration is probably true because this product isn't listed in their current line. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search results suggest the Jericho 941 is the current model, with the F and PL and PSL variants. All are in the "Jericho family". See this brochure. The brochure talks about the long history of the various Jericho models (without mentioning specific historical variants) and in this intro the company claims credit for the whole "Jericho family", so I think it is safe to accept that current Jerichos and previous Jerichos are all IWI products and can be redirected there. This is just a blog but it gives some more info for the sake of general interest. Stalwart111 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Gottschalk Ascher

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. The single working reference shows that he was among many members of committees who founded a neighborhood temple and a young men's society. Google search returns nothing but links back to WP content. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this counts for notability, but he was important enough to be mentioned in at least three different books on the history of the Jews in Canada (two admittedly by the same author). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and does not qualify for any true notability. IZAK (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even an allegation of notability. --Phazakerley (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have double-checked the references I mentioned above; nothing more than passing mentions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacky

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

This topic about an Estonian musical group appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Custom searches in Google Books and News archives has only yielded this single passing mention: [45]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm from Estonia and I can confirm the band is well-known. As the article notes, the lead singer has won a notable music award in Estonia. User332572385 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please show where this knowledge has been recorded. Point to where the history, composition, and work of this group has been written up and published by independent people with identifiable good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are literally no sources found to demonstrate notability. I didn't even find a facebook fan page, which isn't good for notability, but tells me that future sourcing is also highly unlikely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability. Statυs (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps it's the language barrier, but I am not seeing anything that could get this past WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Planning & Analysis

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

Not notable, single reference - seems to be an advertisement for a consultant. Each section is in another article somewhere, or not encyclopedic at all. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert. Thinly disguised article to hang an external link on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn

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

Does not meet GNG. His bio data is sourced to his own website. The triangle he created has no RS to support its notability. Everything blue-linked in the article is not notable either. I assume his claim to fame was that he "co-developed" something with a founder of PGP, but in fact, he is part of a much larger development team, not a one-man show, and the source never claimed that. In short, he's another software guy amongst a lot of other software guys. MSJapan (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete proof of notability (ie sources) falls short of our requirements. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability of Tahoe-LAFS and Zooko's triangle. ciphergoth (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re the above, notability is not inherited. MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the "not inherited" argument could be applied to his ZRTP participation, but he is the leader of the Tahoe-LAFS project, and Zooko's triangle is named after him. Nikita Borisov (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED. If you look at the examples of fallacious notability arguments there, none are of the form "X has done notable work Y, which supports X being notable", because there's nothing fallacious about that. They are all about inheritance of notability by much more tenuous connections. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Agreed that notability for the projects listed so far is not inherited, but his contributions to (and notability in) computer networking are well supported by hits from Google Books and Google Scholar (try searching for "Bryce Wilcox" as well as the name in the article's title). Needs expansion and referencing. Altered Walter (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is someone who is fairly well known in networking and security circles. JASpencer (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you want to argue that Tahoe-LAFS and the triangle are not notable, I think it would make more sense to nominate those articles for deletion first. Nikita Borisov (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Zooko's triangle certainly is notable and its referencing can be improved. As far as I understand, Zooko did co-design the ZRTP protocol (with PRZ and Colin Plumb), contrary to the statement that he is "only" one of a large development team. He is also is one of the two original developers of Tahoe-LAFS, and still one of four core developers (defined as having direct commit authority). --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided someone is willing to improve it significantly. The article as presented does not present impact worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Some serious references would help, like papers referencing his work. -- Taral (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, conditional on better sources. I'm ignoring the false nomination logic of (lack of) inheritance from existing articles. Just taking this bio - sources do not meet WP:BASIC, but meets WP:ANYBIO 2. for Zooko's triangle etc. Widefox; talk 23:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cisco Systems. Deletion was requested because the article fails WP:N, a complaint no one refuted. Any substantive merger would be a horrible UNDUE problem there (as noted). The creation of a "product line" article might be possible, but really shouldn't be done unless it can attirbuted substantially to secondary sources. While it's true that daughter articles can get a bit of a break on WP:N with respect to the subject being the focus of the article, and how in depth the coverage is, the principle of not just parroting Cisco wholesale cannot be abandoned. Wily D 12:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 7600

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

Contested prod of an article written like a spec sheet or ad with no reliable sources. Having difficulty finding support for GNG claim No unique names 04:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many other articles about Cisco products appear to have similar issues. -—Kvng 16:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & merge to an article about this product line, but keep the basic . Anyone urging an outright delete, should explain why a merge isn't suitable, because according to WP:Deletion Policy, merges are preferred to deletions. In any case, WP should contain an article about every major product line from a major company, though not a full article about every individual project. Some earlier merges of similar products reduced the content to a single line giving the name of the product in the main article. Those are destructive merge, and all such sections need to be expanded. A single article about such a company and all its products is absurd undercoverage DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources don't exist, deletion, not merging, would be the most logical outcome. "Destructive merging" would be the next logical step. --No unique names 11:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company's own source is reliable for routine description of uncontroversial features of a product. Usually, in fact, it's the best source for standards features. Obviously a third party source is needed for judgements, such as "this is a major development in the field", but the article has none of these. But for description, this is especially true for a company producing materials for a technical market--they normally have no need to hype their products, for their potential customers know enough to tell. Therefore in general the specification sheets and similar technical information is reliable, not just for the product, but sometimes for the industry in general. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's routine and uncontroversial, why would it be notable for an article? What would the claim to notability be for a list of such products? Passing mention (a "destructive merge," that is) might perhaps be arguable. --No unique names 00:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proposed merge destination? -—Kvng 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into parent article and merge any unique content. As someone may use the search term an the parent is obviously notable and has a great variety of products, this is the logical solution. Redirects are also cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the parent article? -—Kvng 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I assume this is a rhetorical question? Either the parent company or per DGG's idea of creating an article to house all the products, as it is arguable that the product line is notable even if each individual product isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not rhetorical. Perhaps I did not read the discussion here carefully enough but when someone proposes a merge I expect to see a wikilink. Cisco 7600 describes a product line so a proposal to merge it into an article describing a product line does not make sense. A merge into Cisco Systems would create an WP:UNDUE issue. -—Kvng 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear, which would be my fault: either redirect somewhere, or follow DGGs advice, but I wouldn't leave it as a stand alone article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a good case for delete or merge. We need to keep until there is consensus to delete. I know it is bad form not to make a case for keep and I apologize that I don't have time to do that now. -—Kvng 04:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look at Google Scholar reveals many references to this. WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD you should do some thorough research. AfD is not a replacement for editing nor should it be used to force people to improve an article. Mike (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar references lots of things that don't establish notability and are not reliable. The fact that there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES isn't relevant, we need to know what these sources are and why they establish notability reliably. -Rushyo ^Talk 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating, I found only things that don't count as sources. AGF, please. --No unique names 20:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not even assert notability. Hekerui (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 East Oakland, Oakland, California. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elmhurst Community Prep

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

middle school, not connected with any school district. we normally dont have articles on middle schools unless uniquely notable (landmark building, etc). this has nothing like that. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to district article Consensus is that secondary schools are inherently notable, but not elementary and middle schools. There is no claim of notability here, nor is there much content of any enduring worth. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't work, it isn't part of a district. Against the current (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oakland since it isn't part of the local school district, and we usually just redirect to the city when there is no parent to merge to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the locality. That's the usual course when we don't have a school district. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kozhin

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

The subject of this article has no particular notability, certainly not enough by WP standards. Furthermore, the article is even more problematic due to the fact that it was started by the artist himself under the username User:Onzart and he has continued to edit the article under User:SLKozhin and possibly other usernames and IPs, all of which clearly violates WP policy, not to mention basic etiquette and a host of other guidelines. Laval (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete The article is basically a CV, with no evidence of reviews or critical attention. I can't find any good online sources (although I don't understand Russian). The sources in the article are generally self-published (I assume the cited WHO IS WHO takes money from subjects), although the bibliography may contain a reliable source, even though I'm skeptical of a book called One Thousand Russian artists. Looking at Kozhin's art, it seems far from the contemporary art mainstream and therefore I don't imagine him getting coverage in the mainstream western art press. Unless there are Russian sources, I have to conclude he's non notable based on (1) my inability to find sources aside from self-published content on Google, Google Books or Google News (2) the poor existing sources given in the article (3) the unlikeliness of contemporary art publications devoting any space to Kozhin (4) he's apparently done nothing outside art that might be notable. Having works in major international collections is grounds for notability, and the mentioned collections aren't world-famous but maybe they have a degree of prestige in Russia? --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should add more sources in English or Russian rather than delete the article. Sorenaaryamanesh (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if there were more sources. Do you have any? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Literaturnaya Gazeta articles cited appear to be good sources. I'll take another look tomorrow, as my Russian is a bit too rusty for me to be able to exercise it properly at nearly midnight. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the 2007 Literaturnaya Gazeta article is significant detailed coverage in a full article of one of the most prestigious Russian magazines. the 2009 article is an interview with him about other projects, not his art. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per adequate sources demonstrated. There is a lot of cleanup to do, but that is an editorial issue, not a deletion issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bruce Conner. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Bastard Protective Association

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

tongue in cheek "association" that was apparently just a name for a group of artist friends. no work associated with the group specifically. artist is notable, of course. I dont see enough here to even mention it seriously at his article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge the sourced content (the first paragraph) to Bruce Conner. Discussions about the Rat Bastard Protective Association and its historical members do show up frequently in works about Conner (sometimes referring to the "Society" instead of "Association"), and I think this belongs in his article.[46] I haven't found any RS substantiation for the stuff (some of it previously deleted) about LG Williams and the current existence of the "Association". --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That line is both a BLP failure and a verifiability failure in any event and I'm gonna nuke it now. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are some book sources: [47], [48], [49], [50]. These have passing mentions, but perhaps additional sources are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bruce Conner, where the passing mentions will establish it as worthy of a brief paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bruce Conner. Seems to be a GNG fail as a standalone article, but a redirect to Conner with some information there would be quite appropriate. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 does provide some sourcing. I don't think a Delete is viable based on that, nor am I sure that it's sufficient for a Keep of a standalone piece. I still believe this would best be a section in Conner's biography with a redirect. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge/delete - Even charitably reading the sourcing included, at best makes this an informal group of friends/colleages who made a joking name for themselves. It is not an actual organization. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration and more source searching, merge to Bruce Conner. Coverage is a little scant for a standalone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia . MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Mount Druitt

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Both of these guidelines explicitly state that if a shopping centre has not received significant coverage in reliable sources then we should not have an article on that topic. The only coverage I can find is crime-related incidents as well as trivial mentions, which is not per WP:GNG and WP:ORG enough to contain an article on this topic. Any relevant information is adequately covered in the respective article about the area. Till 23:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (striking poor-taste joke) Best. AFD. Ever. - Till, are you Australian? If so, you understand why picking on the people of Mount Druitt is particularly cruel. If not then, my friend, you have just earned yourself honorary Australian citizenship. Without WP:OTHERSTUFF'ing this too severely, all Australian Westfield shopping centres have articles and most have far less coverage that this one (see Westfield Chatswood, where there has never been a brawl the likes of which we've seen at Mount Druitt). If it doesn't meet the criteria then we should talk about getting rid of it, but leaving {{Westfield Australia}} with one red-link seems a bit harsh, especially this one. Thoughts? Stalwart111 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, if these shopping centres that you claim have less coverage than this then feel free to AfD them. I will myself in fact. Till 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I stumbled upon WP:NPLACE at WP:OUTCOMES which would seem to suggest that larger regional shopping centres (like these) tend to be kept at AFD. But I have no issue with you "trying the case" regardless. Stalwart111 05:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping centres are not notable because of their size. Shopping centres are notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Till 05:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that they shouldn't be; that's just the "common outcome". I suppose there might also be an assumption that any large regional shopping centre would have at least received significant coverage when it was being proposed or when it opened, even if that was so far back that the coverage isn't online. Per WP:NOTTEMP, that old coverage would still count toward notability. Stalwart111 05:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but WP:ORG explicitly states that all content must be verifiable, and if no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. In other words, unless reliable sources are brought forward, we should not have an article on this topic. Till 05:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which makes me wonder where such a definitive "common outcomes" statement came from, given it would seem to contradict other guidelines/policies. Not sure. Stalwart111 08:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only independent sources relate to some crime that happened there but don't actually have in depth coverage of the mall. Merge to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia also an option. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found some articles on a gang fight, and a machete attack, and an article on it being sold? (WRAP - Westfield Trust & SAS buy Westfield Mt Druitt for $236m. 18 October 2000 Australian Associated Press)..not really indepth coverage of it, in any insightful fashion. Couldn't see any articles on it being built Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. It is still a reasonable search term and at least a redirect will get the reader to the proper area with some information about the center. Since we serve the reader, a redirect serves them best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia is a bad target because that article merely lists the existing Westfield shopping centres as opposed to actually covering them. There is also barely any relevant information to merge, and the topic is adequately covered on the article about the area. Page statistics show that this article gets as little as one view in a day, therefore a redirect is not crucial. WP:N recommends deletion of topics that fail notability. Till 03:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty much on the fence about whether this is notable or not, but I do think that Till's recent deletion of relevant and sourced material that might tend to show notability was inappropriate, especially in the middle of the AfD, and I have restored it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your addition and restoration of material that violates Wikipedia's WP:NOTNEWS policy was inappropriate. Read WP:ORG and WP:NOT next time. Till 04:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Till, when you are nominating an article, it is important that you err on the conservative side when it comes to editing the article. That means leaving in things that might violate NOTNEWS and trusting that we aren't fools and can separate the wheat from the chaff without help. AFD isn't about winning, it is about discussing the best outcome. The list may be a less than prime target, but it is still the best place because the reader would be taken to a page that has at least some basic and accurate information. And let us not forget that the only reason we are here at all is for the benefit of the reader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) thinks that the information violating WP:NOTNEWS shows notability which is completely wrong. He obviously doesn't know anything about WP:ORG and WP:NOT which he should have read before coming here. If anything, the article's best redirect target is the Mount Druitt article because that's where the shopping centre is actually discussed. But like said before, a redirect serves no purpose as the page gets one view in a day. There are no readers that would be benefited because there aren't any. Till 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sometimes, you just have to leave it to the closer and the community and accept what they conclude. Bludgeoning the point doesn't help. It isn't necessary that everyone be convinced of your point of view. It isn't a debate, it isn't about winning or losing, it's a discussion. And we don't know how many readers will look for it next year anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I initiated this discussion and I have a right to respond to people's comments. It is unfair for the editors' hard work of building strong arguments for deletion to be flushed down the drain. Till 03:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because, as Stalwart111 points out, this is part of well-organized existing comprehensive coverage of Westfield's clearly notable activities in Australia. Who is it helping to generate new redlinks in these circumstances? Alternatively, redirect as suggested by Dennis Brown. Till's arguments against that redirect are unpersuasive. The list can (and probably should) be expanded with information. And, if the article gets one view a day, so what? The point of an encyclopedia is to accumulate information so it's there when someone needs it; it's not all going to be popular. --Arxiloxos (talk)
- Unfortunately for you, Stalwart111's rationale relies heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a poor argument to keep an article. As a keep !voter you have an obligation to demonstrate how this topic meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG by providing evidence. So far, none of the keep !voters have actually brought sources forward that would indicate that this topic meets notability guidelines. Unless multiple, reliable sources are brought forward, this article should be deleted. Till 10:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia per Dennis Brown, and re-work that target article. Here's what I have in mind:

As has been pointed out above, that's a list article, and as such not the best target for a merge.
There's already a larger list article, List of Westfield Group shopping centres with the Australian list broken out to a separate list article.
As has also been pointed out above, there are several other articles in the Australia list that really ought also to be merged.
A list article (as has also been pointed out above), tends to nudge editors toward creating articles to "fix" the redlinks.
Westfield Group will undoubtedly keep on building more malls, with many of them non-notable for years or indefinitely.

So one solution to all this would be to convert List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia from a list article to Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia. Merge in any other articles on non-notable Australian malls to that new "container" article. For the articles on really notable malls, we simply link with a {{main}} tag as appropriate. We'd then have an article in which to write about new Westfield malls in Australia, without adding yet another redlink to a list, or creating yet another article about yet another low-notability mall.

Getting consensus for merge and then merging the low-notability articles will take a bit of work, but not too much. I'd be happy to help with all that, if anyone thinks this proposal is a good idea. Altered Walter (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Westfield Group shopping centres in Australia, then redirect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the probable and typical event of this Afd being closed as "merge", and then months passing by without any sort of action taking place (like every other merge close), I have followed WP:BOLD and merged the information into the suggested article myself. Therefore I would suggest that the closing administrator ignores the merge suggestion and simply deletes or redirects (even though it gets no views!) this article. Till 13:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adams dry fly

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

DIY article with inadequate references and no context, not to mention bad formatting FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain - It seems this may be commonly used for fly fishing as Google News provided several results but they wouldn't be much help. However, Google Books also found several results, particuarly this detailed book. I'm not an expert of fly fishing but if these results aren't sufficient, a selective merge to another article may be better (the Parachute Adams is currently briefly mentioned in Fly fishing. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I went ahead and added the single reference from SwisterTwister, which seems valid from a basic 'exists' standpoint, and removed the preparation section, per WP:NOT. I have absolutely no idea what this thing is, other than it's something used for fishing, but there you go. Perhaps a redirect would be more appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A look at google books finds a wealth of references on this specific dry fly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CleanMyMac. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MacPaw

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

Non-notable company and adding small incrementto WP:CSB. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company and article makes no claim to notability. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2012 (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) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain I've used this product regularly for some years (and no other) and if I bought an extra computer would happily pay for another copy. It certainly stands out from the crowd of similar apps for Mac and is notable for that reason alone. Is this just another instance of anti-Mac prejudice? Fighting words? I've been watching this proposal since it was put and had been pleased to see it lacked support. Eddaido (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to CleanMyMac The company presently has one notable product, with a few variations. Two articles is excessive coverage. As the product is bette known than the company, that's where I 's suggest for the merged contents. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CleanMyMac. The product has receive a lot of media attention, the parent company, not so much. Merge a little on the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stars Go Dim#History. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Go Dim (EP)

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

No significant coverage of this EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Stars Go Dim. The EP doesn't merit an article. --Michig (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stars Go Dim#History - I would perform the redirect myself as I think this is the best option but I'll allow additional consensus. Now, as for my vote, Google News archives found three results and a different search provided another here. It appears the EP never received much attention after the release and was not used for any commercial purposes. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per ST. Honestly, it isn't a highly likely search term, but redirects are cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect to Stars Go Dim#Discography - This, along with their 2011 EP should be redirected to the band discography page or kept. That being said, do we really want the track listings for all three albums in the main Stars Go Dim article? Per WP:NALBUMS, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting".--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the concern is clutter rather than article size (the band article is pretty small at the moment), the tracklistings could always be put in collapsible tables. In this case, I don't think that including the track lists in the band article would be a real problem. --Michig (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stars Go Dim. Not notable and plenty of space in the article for any useful info with or without the track list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Brunt

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Single reference is to the website of the orchestra itself. Requires 3rd party citations to establish notability. The article basically states that this is a man with a job. Sorry. MJH (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've extended the article with various references, Guardian reviews, etc. Whether these are enough to meet the notability guidelines at this time, I'm not sure: possibly WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources are promising and seems to help him slide just past the fine line. Being youngish, future sourcing is also likely. Being the principal conductor for a notable orchestra doesn't hurt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I was able to find about a dozen reviews that mention him briefly, things such as this. I added some sources that provided more than a brief mention. I'd say at this point the subject at least squeaks by our WP:N notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Reverted to transwiki. Note that an article on Iouea the fossil sponge genus would be an entirely valid topic. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iouea

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

Unsourced article with no evidence of notability Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to latest edit provided by PWilkinson~~Delete~~ - Google News provides irrelevant results and it seems this is entirely supported by that book. Nothing to establish notability from a third-party perspective. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the latest edit before what had previously been a soft redirect to Wiktionary was hijacked by an IP whose sole aim seems to have been to get the current content onto Wikipedia. Absolutely no objection to revision deletion of subsequent edits and/or semi-protection of the page. PWilkinson (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that would be the best outcome, so no objection to that. Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the transwiki per above. This was allegedly created on "December 21, 2011". Bearian (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to soft redirect per PWilkinson. Page was hijacked to promote a non-notable organization. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the transwiki per above and semi-protect the page if needed. - Mr X 00:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reverted some iouea.org spam (by the same IPv6 user) at List of modern channelled texts. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 12:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Fringe nouvelle. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads more like an advertisement -RoseL2P (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to soft redirect: all the above "delete" arguments are valid, but ignore the fact that this was once a legitimate page, as discussed above. Perhaps some level of edit-protection is necessary per MrX. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor Emmerdale characters (2009)#Angelica King per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Tragic as her death is, as as much as we might feel sympathy for her family, her very brief career fails WP:ENT. And despite claims below, with her now deceased, this is not a BLP1E... but coverage being only for her death makes this a WP:SINGLEEVENT. If anyone wishes this userfied for incoporation elsewhere, ping me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Firth

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user 86.158.250.133 (talk). Reason given on talk page is: "I have nominated this article for deletion since I doubt it is notable." I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2009)#Angelica_King - Indeed this is a tragic death but there isn't much to establish notability as she only had brief and minor work for Emmerdale. She received the most attention for her death than her career but this is understandable as her work was minor and soap opera baby actors rarely receive attention as it is. I would suggest mentioning her death at the character's page but I believe it may go astray from the purpose of the character's page. However, this is an interesting death so it may be worth noting. Either way, she was not a notable actress. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SwisterTwister's rationale. Might could merge a line or two, but a stand alone article isn't really justified and sadly, there is little hope for expansion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The poor girl has just died! How can people be so heartless? You're not human. --86.40.99.24 (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way but Wikipedia must take things into consideration past personal feelings. I think all of the voters here acknowledge the girl's tragic death but that is not an excuse for notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is about the person, not the character she played, so a redirect to the character is not really logical. As there's no other real content, I'd say WP:NOTMEMORIAL or WP:BIO1E also apply. MSJapan (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable, it's meant for people without reliable coverage of their deaths such as deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet [notability] requirements.. Diego (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL or WP:BIO1E. Simply not notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The girl was not significant only for her death, but because she played a role in a notable series. This information should be kept, not deleted, just not necessarily as a stand-alone article. Also WP:BIO1E would be an argument to keep or redirect the article about the notable death (The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person); it's not a reason for deletion. Diego (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2009)#Angelica_King - as per user SwisterTwister. No further addition to the user's rationale. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's attracted a lot of coverage in the UK - as shown by the references here. JASpencer (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Huffington Post could be considered a RS from those I've seen in the article - the One News Page is just a link to the Daily Mail article, and the others are clearly not RS. As to what I can find, [51] is a short article, as is [52]. I can't see her Emmerdale appearance being truly notable as she was just a baby, so this is really just a WP:BIO1E failure. I say Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have an article for every tragic death there is. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above - failing WP:BIO1E is a reason to redirect or merge the content, not to delete it. Diego (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The attention that such a tragedy would cause has made it quite notable to be honest. Cexycy (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content per SwisterTwister. The death is covered as a one time event, so it's verifiable but not notable. This information is more likely to be found by people looking for the character rather than the actress. Just create a link from Emmerdale#Disasters to Angel King and put this coverage there. Diego (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2009)#Angelica_King, the death of this child is very tragic but doesn't warrant a separate page. (A. Carty (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO1E. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This MUST be notable. Sophie has made alot of British news headlines on Television and Newspapers and of-course she was an actress on Emmerdale which has won over 65 awards. Might I add to these IP adder's that (you) have added Sophie as a child actor which she is not as she isn't a male and also you added in Sophie's career section that her parent's are member's of Doncaster council, when I added a personal life section which you deleted. ActorBoss (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SisterTwister's argument. Firth not especially notable in her own right; anyone seeking information on her is likely to do so in the context of Emmerdale, so information should be collected there. Ammodramus (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2009)#Angelica_King. I was the anonymous user who originally nominated this article for deletion. I do not know much about the deletion process, but it seems completely absurd to give this child an article. She was hardly notable enough whilst she was alive to have her own article: she played an extremely minor role in the soap. This would explain why the article was only created after her death. Unfortunately, incidents like this are all too common and it would be ridiculous to create an article every time this happens. A quick internet search sadly gives many similar cases (although, it is probably interesting to note that, at least from my quick searches, I can find absolutely nothing about this case on the websites of BBC News, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian). I cannot see why an article should be made for this girl simply because of her small role in Emmerdale. Instead, I believe a few sentences should be added to the linked article. I certainly disagree with including something in Emmerdale#Disasters because this seems to involve fictional incidents within the soap. 86.158.250.133 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point 86.158.250.133. I actually agree with you now on this matter. We can't create another article like Sophie if another very minor character passes away. Speaking off-topic for a minute, RIP to the little girl. ActorBoss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as suggested. A three-year old is unlikely to have played much of a part. She was a NN minor actress. Perhaps plain Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The little girl's death, while undeniably tragic, is not singularly noteworthy enough to warrant an article, and the fact that she had no article prior to her death indicates a lack of notability during the short time she was alive. Even a redirect seems like too much, but a standalone article is certainly going overboard. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for same reasons noted above. At the risk of sounding 'heartless', I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a news source...Trex21 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2009)#Angel_King per WP:BIO1E. Not notable for a stand alone article, however there is no convincing argument to avoid the redirect. Cavarrone (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; tragic but unfortunately not notable. Giant Snowman 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We do not seem to have consensus and there's no point in a 4th relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Valley Park

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

This topic about a business park may be failing WP:N. Google Books only provides passing mentions ([53]), and Google News archive is providing similar results. There are some sources from PropertyWeek.com, (such as [54], [55], [56]), which requires registration to view, but it's unclear if this can be considered as a truly reliable source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, the PropertyWeek articles that the nom linked previews to (here's another - [57]) do seem in themselves to establish notability. It would be a stretch to assume that this development received only a "passing mention" in them. WP:N makes it clear sources are not required to be available online. Also additional sources have given significant coverage to this development, even a foreign one.[58][59] --Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Oakshade. I stated that GBooks and GNews archives only provided passing mentions, sans/separate from the PropertyWeek.com articles, which I don't have access to. Again, it's unclear if PropertyWeek.com is a truly reliable source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I appreciate your provision of the two new sources in your !vote above, and I am considering possible withdrawal of the nomination. However, I'd prefer to wait for other editors to opine for now. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Yorkshire Post has a few articles, mostly passing mentions, but about what you'd expect for a fairly large business park. The Steve 12:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Unless this can be expanded to provide significnat coverage that shows notability, it looks to me like a NN industrial estate, perhaps commercial. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD only requires the existence of significant coverage, not that they must be in the article. WP:AFD states, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Viruez

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, only Miss Universe gets an article historically, so WP:TOOSOON MJH (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -What does the nominator mean with only miss universe gets an article historically? Just look at Miss Universe 2012 article and most Miss Universe pageant main articles over the last few years, every single participant has an article. Because winning a national beauty pageant title is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Bolivia, and do the same for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate additional notability. Mabalu (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Bolivia per Mabalu. Until secondary sources show up, if ever, it is still a logical search term and we can at least direct the reader to the most logical place to find information about her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Winner of a major national competition here. We keep bios of obscure state winners from the Miss America pageant, so why not this? Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 07:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But we keep them in a list until we have a source or two, so I agree we want to maintain the information but we require sources if it is to be maintained in its own article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as a winner of a major national modelling competition she should be notable enough. I've found a couple of articles (one in some depth) in Bolivia's La Prensa. However, the competition seems to be split into 'Miss Universe Bolivia' (which Viruez won) and 'Miss World Bolivia' (which she didn't), so did she win half a competition?! The remainig sources in the article are very poor, either broken url's or photos only. Sionk (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Case law on this one tells me that people who have won a recognized national pageant and go on to represent their country in a competition like Miss World or Miss Universe meet WP:GNG by a mile. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Free Range Frog - if there is a case law and precedent then that is good enough for me. Mabalu (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She won the national pageant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - extrapolating from WP:BIO and WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, a winner of a national beauty pageant has made a top achievement in their field at a national level. An international win would make her even more notable, but a national win is sufficient. More secondary sources are needed, but one of the references cited is a profile in the national newspaper Prensa. Altered Walter (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Honestly this probably has a WP:SNOW chance of being deleted considering she won a national contest that would easily fall under 1. of WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES and enough sources if you widen the search for "Miss Bolivia 2012" for WP:BIO. Mkdw ^talk 08:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "LA Times".

[2] "BookBanter".

[3] "Parsec Awards".

[4] "This Is Horror".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]