Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 January	13 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was : Speedily deleted, blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Wentworth

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

not notable and lacks of source Egeymi (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Deleted by User:Basalisk (non-admin closure) Vacation9 22:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Paranormal Society

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find anything in secondary sources about it. Google search just gives a bunch of Facebook hits. Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 12 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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code Monkeys (2014 film)

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

No sources found. No confirmation for anything in this article. De-prodded so I'm taking it to AfD. Jarkeld (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely a hoax. Cast listed includes actors committed to current productions and have nothing anywhere for the actors stating they are in this project. Also fails WP:NFF as, along with nothing at all that mentions this project, there is, of course, no source that it has commenced principal photography. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Seasider91 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above: most likely a hoax; couldn't find any references, much less reliable. Might be a small production, but I doubt it has those actors who are currently filming already. Vacation9 23:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not, WP:CRYSTAL, and in the United States I think the former G4 show of the same name holds dibs on the title, wouldn't be this. Nate • (chatter) 01:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very likely a hoax, and even if it's not, it's still a crystal ball article. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. I can find nothing to suggest that this is even real, let alone passes WP:NFF. I hate to throw the word "hoax" into this, but considering the amount of hoax film/TV articles that have been added to Wikipedia in the last few months, I think that this is a potential hoax.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If nothing can be verified/sourced, then it lends itself to being a hoax. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now without prejudice for undeletion or recreation once this purported Thomas Romain and Tania Palumbo project can be properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Debug - Unless I see coverage in reliable sources that this will be made, then it smells of crystal and hoaxiness. If it's in development hell, shouldn't there be more coverage about it? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced WP:CRYSTAL speculation. RadioFan (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Clarity (Zedd album). Courcelles 01:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stache (song)

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

Delete and merge to parent album Clarity (Zedd album). There isn't really enough information here that warrants a standalone article. Also per WP:NSONGS it fails notability as it has not charted etc. Though Gaga recording some kind of remix is notable, it is not so that an independent page is warranted. It could easily be mentioned on the album's page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 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 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clarity (Zedd album) - the album article is short and summarising this there would be better for the reader. If you delete it you can't then merge it to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 20:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clarity (Zedd album). I agree that the album article is short and could use some more content. It would be better for the reader if the main content was at the album page. Of course it also is not notable by itself. Vacation9 23:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into album article. —Ed!^(talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spectrum and Shave It Up have the same amount of information as this article and yet they haven't been deleted. 15:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKman74 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hemerocallis 'Duke of Durham'

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for over 5 years. I couldn't confirm notability. Boleyn (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 12. Snotbot t • c » 20:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Plants. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cultivar is mentioned in several books and a Google search that excludes Wikipedia still turns up thousands of hits, including the American Hemerocallis Society, a horticultural sciences department at NC State, and numerous nurseries, indicating this is a popular cultivar. The article could use better sourcing (some of the better ones are probably only available offline), but I'd rather see it improved than deleted. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons mentioned by Rkitko above, together with the cultivar having received two awards from the American Hemerocallis Society.--Melburnian (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn after improvements. Thanks to all who added to the article. Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 16 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 per WP:SNOW. Not quite a speedy keep, since there was a "weak delete" vote, but the nominator's withdrawal justifies an early closure. (non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've Got the Joy Joy Joy Joy

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A Google Books search reveals that the song's lyrics have been printed in a handful of publications. It's at least slightly notable, but publication in a few books issued by niche Christian publishers may not be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. The article notes that the song has "many possible lyrics" and at least one alternate title ("Down In My Heart") so it is possible that alternative search terms could yield better results for establishing notability. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have some coverage, per Google book search, going beyond just printing the lyrics. Some books discuss its importance and place in music of its genre: See [1]m [2], [3], [4]. It also can show a dark side: [5]. .Edison (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Keep Keep. Per Edison. This is a famous old gospel song (and I can't resist noting that Granny Clampett used to sing it on The Beverly Hillbillies); it belongs here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison and every Sunday schooler who has ever had to sing this song, which is plenty of people. Public domain as I can see it and no issues that can't be done through normal source searching. Nate • (chatter) 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, older hymn ([6]) but still worthy of inclusion --No unique names 07:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for looking into this, Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 13 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Magic (album)

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged as of doubtful notability for over 5 years. I couldn't prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an Asia-only release, so it's not surprising that sources have been hard to come by. But I was able to find reviews of the album in the New Straits Times [7] and in The Malay Mail which I have added to the article just now. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks, Paul Erik, for your improvements, Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 16 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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability proved - thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desejo Proibido

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged as of unclear notability for over 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google News search linked by the nomination procedure finds loads of coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Franco Garcia

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

Don't see anything remarkable about this death/disappearance. Student goes missing. Some news coverage. A Facebook campaign. So what? Seems routine news coverage that fails any real notabilty for WP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, run of the mill; also, not a hate crime. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bellowhead. Jujutacular (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mellon

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

A musician known for his membership of the notable folk group, Bellowhead. I can find no evidence of reliable coverage about Mellon and the article makes no claims of notability either. At best this should be redirected to Bellowhead, he does not seem to be independently notable. Unfortunately the authoring IP has reverted the redirect so I've bought this to AfD. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the original members of Bellowhead, composed for the Cultural Olympiad, and is award-nominated for his composing. AfD is the wrong place for this as it would be a redirect to Bellowhead at worst. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? He was one of five people nominated for composing 'Fables', one tenth of Bellowhead and one of 25,000 artists taking part in the Cultural Olympiad. None of these mark him out. Sionk (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #8, which states that a musician is notable if:

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

BASCA is evidently considered a "major music award" for which Mellon was nominated.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main subject of the sources is the band Bellowhead and not Andy Mellon himself. WP:NMUSIC states "that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." BASCA is definitely a notable award to be nominated for, but the song The Hartlepool Monkey is written together with another Bellowhead member, Paul Sartin, and performed with musicians from Bellowhead. So, if we think it counts as an "activity independent of the band", the article should be kept and it also means that the second composer and Bellowhead member Paul Sartin is notable as well, and if not, it should be merged into the band's article. Nimuaq (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a clear argument for redirect ;) Sionk (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nimuaq. Writing a song for the band doesn't seem to me to be "activity independent of the band". Storkk (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fooling April

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 6 years. Unreferenced blp. Can find no evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom., sources establish they exist but no evidence of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have to agree at the moment. Even by their own admission they seem to have had little major success. I can't find anything of significance about them or their music that isn't self-published or blog-ish. Sionk (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:16, 13 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Balance "Ambulance" Tour

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years. I couldn't find evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Van Halen we are talking about of course this is notable, over 131 performances! JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn my mistake. Thanks, JayJay. Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 13 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. (Additional reference: OTRS 2013011710010323) Daniel (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaleh Alamir

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years. Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. Boleyn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a working and exhibiting artist, but no evidence that she meets the WP:ARTIST criteria at this stage in her career. (Were she a Fellow at the Royal British Society of Sculptors that would move towards the criteria but being one of around 500 Associates doesn't.) AllyD (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom , unreliable refrences, notability not established. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above; subject does not (yet!) appear to be notable. That said, the usual caveats apply. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Spisak

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged as of unclear notability for over 5 years. Seems to have won some non-notable competitions. Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I could find no coverage about her at all at Google News Archive, and the competitions she won are minor. Shame on us for letting this stay on the encyclopedia for so long. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the number of redlinks speaks for itself! Clearly a participant only in NN competitions. Indeed, I am doubtful whether beauty queens are notable per se at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. None of the contests cited are notable enough for an article, so even though she won, winning non-notable contests is not sufficient. To Peterkingiron - I agree with you to an extent, although there is a consensus that if the beauty queen has won a notable pageant at national or international level, ie, Miss New York, Miss USA, Miss Turkey, Miss Europe, etc - that qualifies as notability. Indeed, one could say the same about minimalist articles on World War I flying aces or 1910s footballers, so I don't want to get into the whole "are WP:HOTTIEs notable" thing again. Mabalu (talk) 10:56, 14 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan-David Nasio

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability concerns for over 5 years; I wasn't able to establish notability Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references to the article. The subject was a Sorbonne professor for 30 years and has been honoured as a Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur and Officer of the Ordre national du Mérite which seem sufficient for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your additions to the article, AllyD. Boleyn (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political Theology and Churches

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

Blatant case of essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as essay, possibly a Speedy delete as duplicating Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, but also possibly speedy as copyvio ("Nonetheless, for the scope of this journal, the intention is certainly not to pester anyone with the definition of theological politics" doesn't sound like something written for Wikipedia) --No unique names 17:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per WP:NOTESSAY & WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 13 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 procedural close. This is part of the bundled AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre (non-admin closure) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 gigametre

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

Merge into Gigametre and leave a redirection, Professorjohnas (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be part of a bigger series. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is part of a series of dozens of articles illustrating orders of magnitude, so the 1 in the title is significant. The associated gigametre article is about the unit of measure itself, although there is some overlap in examples. Mark viking (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No argument for deletion (merge proposed). Not even an argument as to why it should be merged. It's broken out from Orders of magnitude (length) so it should be kept for that reason because it can't be merged back there owing to length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a policy-based reason: Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. The fact that some things of a similar size does not seem reason enough to list them together. The articles gigametre and orders of magnitude (length) already provide some illustrative examples. We don't need spinout lists of arbitrary examples for each possible length too. Warden (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of arbitrary objects of about this size. In this case, the information is superficially impressive because this is an astronomical distance. But if you compare the equivalent article in a human scale — 1 metre — you can see how arbitrary this is - the height of a doorknob, the size of a hobbit, &c. What we don't seem to have in any of these cases is any sourcing to support the selection. The topic therefore fails WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two articles have different purposes. "Gigametre" provides the definition and comparison to the astronomical unit. "1 gigametre" provides a list of representative distances from 1–10 Gm. Both articles are suitable for Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of what? Not one of the examples listed is actually 1 gigametre. Where are the sources which show the notability of this particular range of distances? The way these articles have been constructed, you could find a place for any distance of any size. As they seem utterly indiscriminate, please explain how entries can or will be controlled to exclude every measurement which might be made or estimated? Warden (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Orders of magnitude (length) has sufficient examples. What purpose is served by adding more picked at random? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with the rest of the series. Orders of magnitude (length) is all that is necessary. These articles are redundant and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The little green pig (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles seem useful for helping with size comparisons, and reference many different fields of study. Alphius (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is not useful for size comparisons. That would be Orders of magnitude (length). This article is about one instance on a scale which does not indicate how this one instance is independently notable as opposed to properly placing it incontext with overall orders of magnitude for lengths. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the rest of the series as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. PianoDan (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the series discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre. -- 202.124.89.45 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot - This article was also bundled into the overall "length articles" deletion discussion here. The discussion should take place there as part of the group, not here - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster sexism

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

The term was coined and defined a couple of months ago in an article by Allissa Quart on New York Magazine's website. It's basically something she just made up one day rather than a notable concept. It hasn't been picked up by scholars or analyzed independently by anyone. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually ran into this and was tempted to PROD it as just another neologism, but if you search for the term you'll see it has relatively widespread coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reliable sources? Can you link to some of your results? What I found were occasional mentions, e.g. this senior thesis, along with the article it came from. If I've missed enough places where actual reliable sources discuss the concept I'd be happy to withdraw.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with Hipster racism, there are enough sources to justify an article in my view, even if they're not scholarly ones. Robofish (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just following the regular google search link I saw articles from Huffington Post, Slate, as well as another on on the Hindu Business Line. CarolMooreDC 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the HuffPo piece is just a reprint of the original NY Mag piece already cited in the article, the Slate piece merely provides a link to the article, and the Hindu Business Line piece uses the term but does not discuss it. Obviously the term is used a lot, but it's not discussed anywhere I can find outside of Quart's original article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage among multiple sorts of references. — Cirt (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrate that this topic meets WP:GNG. A search for "ironic sexism" brings up more sources as well. Christianity Today even picked up on this. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster racism

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

This term was coined by Carmen Van Kerckhove in 2006. Since then it seems not to have been picked up at all by the scholarly community. The sources cited in the article, other than the ones by Van Kerckhove, don't use the term, let alone discuss it. Vivicka Greene is mentioned in one source (not in article) as a scholar studying "hipster racism," but that study doesn't seem to have translated into actual scholarly work on the concept. It's just past something someone made up one day, and there are not sources available to establish its notability. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with Hipster sexism, this neologism seems to have beyond trivial usage. I'd be open to a redirect and/or merge here, but I'm having trouble figuring out to what. Racism? Not sure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not all articles need to have scholarly sources, only sufficiently reliable ones in the context. In this case, I think enough sources exist to justify an article on the topic. This article does have issues with NPOV, which I've tried to correct, but I don't think deletion is the right answer. (As an aside, as one of only a handful of editors to the article, I would have appreciated being notified of this AFD.) Robofish (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matta, Punjab

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

Article has no indication of notability. My initial research has been unable to find anything to establish it as notable either. Andrew³²⁷ 13:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:GEOLAND. Legally recognised geographical locations are generally included in Wikipedia, so you can find quite a few stubs lying around. This one could do with a bit of layout formatting though. 31.220.250.56 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NGEO for populated locations which are legally recognized. Geographical locations are not subject to notability per se; rather it is presumed that they are already notable. All they have to do is meet the criteria in the guideline, which this does. Unless of course it's a hoax and it doesn't exist :\ §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:59, 13 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 WP:SNOW keep. There's clearly no consensus for deletion here. Any potential mergers can be discussed per Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. KTC (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opération Serval

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

Non-notable military action, no indication of any significance, WP:NOT#NEWS, contested prod. The issue is already covered adequately in Mali conflict#French intervention and does not warrant a breakout article. WWGB (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep look here http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/world/africa/mali-islamist-rebels-france.html?hp&_r=1& Christophe Neff (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the article needs certainly some improvements but merits certainly not deletion! Christophe Neff (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article including sourcing, - I think the article merits its place in wiki.en! keepChristophe Neff (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the upcoming full effects and course of the operation as the French intervention unfolds, I would argue that this article is slightly premature (since not enough has happened concerning the operation to warrant a Wikipedia page), but that deleting it would be a pointless exercise since imminent events will bring the operation's notability up dramatically; deleting it now would only mean adding it again later this week (or equivalent) to bring in new information. Benjitheijneb (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actions covered in the article are already covered (in slightly more detail) in Mali conflict. I would suggest a merge to that article, which would keep all operations, including those by Malian forces together and in context of the wider war, with no prejudice against recreation if French operations get larger and more distinct from those of the Malians.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Merge & Redirect to Mali conflict#French intervention. Subject does meet WP:GNG in and of itself. That being said it is part of a larger event. Just as Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to Iraq War, this Operation should redirect as I have proposed. The section, IMHO, could retain its own infobox specific to the French Operation. If the article grows large enough per WP:LENGTH, this can be spun out as its own article again.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The other article has plenty of space. There isn't much material here anyways.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I have tried to improve the article - in a military operational sense. Perhaps someone could correct ortho + grammar. Thanks!Christophe Neff (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this deletion request is ridiculous! The operation has begun less than 2 days ago and already a full battalion of French paratroopers, special forces, Army Aviation units and Air Force fighter jets have been deployed. This will turn into a major military operation lasting months! Senegal and Nigeria are shipping troops to the area to support the French and the US is preparing logistical help. As said: this will be a MAJOR military operation and the only reason that there is not much material at the article yet is, that the operation has begun just two days ago! It doesn't make sense to delete this article and in less then 10 days to create it again when more information and more material is available! Which will happen as with the French troops also the international press is on its way to Mali. Therefore: Speedy Keep this article! noclador (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps speedily. A military intervention like this (by a nuclear power and NATO member) is inherently notable, and is a separate topic from the originating conflict. Mcewan (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for sure, and as more information comes in the article will expand. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rather Remove Deletion Request: 1. The action is a turning point in the war in Mali and therefore is likely to have lasting influence in the region. 2. It is significant in regard to French foreign policy. 3. It is covered by every major news agency on this planet. Therefore the deletion request seems to be unjustified and should be removed. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Although I appreciate the rationale for this being considered worth a separate article as a major turning point in the conflict, having two articles on a largely overlapping subject risks having two articles with different versions of events. The target article can take it, although it needs editing down to condense the inevitable small accretion of detail, and a frighteningly long list of cites that I am sure are often reruns of the same wire story.TheLongTone (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per nom; this is the usual recentism that afflicts Wikipedia - if it's in the news WE GOTTA CREATE AN ARTICLE!!! No prejudice to restoring as a full-fledged article if and when this goes beyond what's already in the news. Those editors !voting keep need to put this in the historical context of the greater conflict instead of gawking at Google News and deciding this is a Very Big Deal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You saying France sending attack aircraft, commando units and 300 marines and paratroopers to intervene in an internal conflict, most likely changing the outcome of that conflict, and potentially exposing France to a terrorist attack (security beefed up already) is not a big deal and not notable?...Recount - 5 keep, 5 merge, 1 delete, 1 undefined. EkoGraf (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the event isn't notable, and even if it wasn't particularly notable out of context it would still merit inclusion in the article about the conflict. What I am questioning is the need for an entire article dedicated to external links (basically) that cover a recent event whose enduring and permanent effects are unknown at this point. Thus, at the moment, it merits a paragraph in Mali conflict#French intervention and nothing more. That's why WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS exist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the argument that the subject is not notable is clearly flawed. This is a military intervention by a major military power in an internal insurgency of a foreign country. The question of whether it should be covered here or elsewhere is not one for AfD to decide, but the amount of material on the French contribution is undoubtedly going to grow, and the article may well end up including domestic effects on France [8] which doesn't sit very well in an article about the conflict. Hut 8.5 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty much certain to be of lasting notability (in case anyone is wondering what happened with this edit to this discussion by me, I decided to close this discussion per WP:SNOW, then decided that was unjustified given the multiple comments that the article should be merged, then decided to weigh in with my view - but accidently included my discarded closure statement; apologies for any confusion!) Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the Operation name (Operation Freedom Falcon) for NATO actions over Libya redirects to 2011 military intervention in Libya, so if there is a common name in news reports of French intervention in Mali, it should redirect there. Otherwise, just as Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to Iraq War, Opération Serval should redirect to the general conflict page for current Mali war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article title should be 2012 French intervention in Mali, or similar - which would parallel 2011 military intervention in Libya. However the intervention is in a pre-existing conflict (Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) just as the Libyan intervention was in the pre-existing Libyan civil war. It makes sense in both cases to have separate articles. The Iraq war is a different matter as it was an invasion, not an intervention in an existing conflict. Mcewan (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Freedom Falcon was the Belgian contribution to the American Operation Odyssey Dawn, which ran parallel to the Canadian Operation Mobile, the French Opération Harmattan and the British Operation Ellamy, which together made up the 2011 military intervention in Libya... Operation Freedom Falcon was not a NATO operation; it was the just the name given by the Belgian Military to the deployment of six F-16 Falcons (hence the name Freedom Falcon) under US command... therefore naturally it does not have its own article! But all the deployments by other nations, who acted under their own national command have their own article! In short: Operation Freedom Falcon is off-topic here. And this discussion is a waste of time as the outcome will be inevitably "Keep" (so: lets snowball close this now!). noclador (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All except for Operation Freedom Falcon, which redirects to 2011 military intervention in Libya; why is it that the United States commanded portion gets the redirect and other nations do not? Given the number of sorties, wouldn't it be independently notable, yet part of the military intervention?

~~If one nation's operation is redirected, it would only be logical that all nations' operations be redirected. And if the primary article becomes too large per WP:TOOLONG, spinouts can occur.~~

That being said, until the parent article Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) becomes too large, the French Operation should get its own section within the main article; and at the point it becomes too large, then it should be spun back out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quick note: The Belgians placed their planes under US-command (as other nations), while the US, France, the UK and Canada kept their assets under their own national commands and coordinated with each other. Only when NATO came in all units came under one single command - therefore until this date there were 4 parallel operations! therefore 4 separate articles. noclador (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Spurious rationale by the nom notwithstanding, this is clearly a notable occurrence. NOTNEWS is intended for things like auto wrecks, murder cases, and other small-scale cases; trying to apply it to an international intervention in an ongoing war is downright stupid. WP:NOTBURO exists for a reason as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clearly notable and international news coverage is expanding by the hour. Little Professor (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominated as: "Non-notable military action, no indication of any significance"... by now France, UK, USA, Denmark, Canada, Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria are involved; so clearly the operation is 1) notable and 2) significant'; therefore I request to end this discussion: Snowball - Keep! noclador (talk) 05:10, 15 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Blame

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for over 5 years. Article has so many issues that notability may be getting lost among it. Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terrible article for sure, but Blame is certainly notable. If nothing else as an MTV VJ (which happened in the 90s so there isn't going to be a lot of web content), I am seeing some recent coverage (although a lot of it is in German) Der Spiegel Die Welt; he has a column in MSN Deutschland [9] and his book has received more than trivial coverage. And I'd point to a Google Books search on 'Steve Blame MTV' for mentions in books and Billboard magazine [10]. I think he passes WP:GNG without issues. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks, you've convinced me. Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 13 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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lilley (soldier)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for a soldier see WP:SOLDIER. He was not awarded his nations highest military award. He did not reach a significant rank or command position. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as a founding member, perhaps he qualifies under the "Played an important role in a significant military event" ie the formation of the British SAS? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think founding member is a bit of a stretch, one of the first men selected, but as an enlisted man had no input on the raising of the regiment.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the extent of his role, wouldn't coverage of his involvement in several books and periodicals mean he passes the coverage requirements of WP:GNG without the need for soldier-specific criteria? Stalwart111 13:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Keep: This soldier had an illustrious career, and so while I would not mind retaining this article, and there are numerous articles on Wikipedia of less worthy individuals, I feel forced to concur with the nominator's assessment, that it technically does not fall within notability guidelines. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with editors below on notability of subject. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Turns out there are a whole ton of media mentions of this man. Here's some interesting reading material:

Sara Malm (2012-12-05). "SAS hero Ernest Thomas Lilley single-handedly fought his way out of German base in middle of desert | Mail Online". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
11:37AM GMT 05 Dec 2012 (2012-12-05). "SAS soldier's daring Second World War escape from German camp". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-12-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
"BBC News - SAS sale: RSM Bob Lilley's medals sell for £78,000". the BBC. 2012-12-13. Retrieved 2012-12-18.

Comment: There is a lot of media attention on this man Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

If Col David Stirling himself personally came down from Scotland to Folkestone to attended this man funeral in 1981 when Stirling was not very well - then this says something about Bob Lilley. At a 6ft 1" he was one of the "Tobruk Four" Coldstream Guards he was selected in Cairo by Stirling himself to be one of the first four members of the SAS. His name appears in many books on the SAS. Not many of the SAS originals was awarded the Military Medal and the British Empire Medal and MID (Mentioned in Despatches) twice.

I am knowledgeable on the subject from an academic point of view having worked for the government and I have correspondence on this man from various sources that is not for publication. I was able in the current article to get a declassified document from Army War Records 1940-1944 written by Col David Stirling (the founder of the SAS) himself regarding Bob Lilley on Bob Lilley protectively marked and labeled at "MOST SECRET" level which has recently been declassified and appears in the current Wikipedia article.

I would be grateful if contributors here and proposers for deletion of this article list here their academic qualifications and why they feel they are Subject Matter Experts on this topic. This would help in making a decision one way or the other.

If you are to delete this then you need to delete all the other articles of a similar nature on the biography of the other SAS founding members like Paddy Mayne etc..Pop goes the we (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~unless sourcing and notability is improved significantly.~~ gwickwire^talk_edits 17:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some further review, it looks like this has a chance of meeting GNG, so let's keep it for now at least.. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your claims/questions/etc.

Your knowledge of the subject has no merit here on Wikipedia. You need to cite where someone else has written their knowledge about him. Pretty much, you will need reliable sources that are subject to editorial oversight, i.e. newspapers, academic journals, etc.

Your comment about 'listing our academic qualifications' is wrong. Even if we were all the most academically qualified people in the world, it would hold no merit in an AfD discussion.

Please see other stuff exists, that's not a good argument. If you'll link to other articles you want deleted, someone can probably take a look. gwickwire^talk_edits 17:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This seems to me a clear keep as the coverage in the Daily Mail and Telegraph (above) seem to me sufficient for general notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Coverage seems to indicate this person meets WP:GNG and I would argue that he meets WP:SOLDIER: One of the first members of a storied unit (SAS), and of the more than 3 million British personnel that served in WWII only a small number were ever mentioned in despatches, not to mention the citations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to see your reference for the MID, which was the fourth level bravery award, behind the VC, DCM and the MM and he's only mentioned in the quoted papers following the sale of his medals. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the MID is successfully sourced or not, after 2 minutes of searching I found six books where is is mentioned: [11][12][13][14][15][16]. That the article(s) from The Mail and BBC were prompted by the occasion of the sale of his medals is irrelevant - being one of the first members of the SAS and appearing in multiple books that cover the unit is enough to get past WP:GNG as far as I'm concerned. Lacking a source for the MDI then, I'd point you to WP:SOLDIER #5: Played an important role in a significant military event. The battles and operations this man and his peers were involved in were significant, as is the fact that he was part of the first operational actions of one of the most important military units in the history of modern warfare. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too think this man deserves mention. I too did a search on Bob Lilley SAS http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=Bob+Lilley+sas and there are even more books on this man then you have mentioned above. i would recommend Keep

Keep For those not knowledgeable on Sgt Bob Lilley he was one of the Commandos selected for the mission to destroy the German heavy water factory in Norway at Telemark and was transported by submarine. He received a Certificate signed personally by the King Olav of Norway thanking him for his contribution to the liberation of Norway. I am permitted to release this Certificate from the King of Norway. Email me for a Confidentiality Agreement. In discussion and interviews with his surviving family Bob Lilley was a private man who did not seek any recognition for his work. From the documents I was permitted to see and which probably will never be published Lilley served his country well above and beyond the call of duty in the Western Desert of North Africa then Italy and Europe and later Malaya.. He shunned the limelight and lived a quiet simple life right to the end. Little has ever been mentioned or spoken about him in the past. From my research Lilley never received the recognition he deserved because according to his family he would not have wanted it as many like him he said "I just did my job". Pop goes the we (talk

Comment Interesting that was Operation Freshman, but they were all killed or executed during the mission.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Operation Freshman all died you are right but it is not all it seems as I mentioned from my academic research Lilley was a very modest man and not all he did will ever be published. But slowly a little is being released. I do not think you know all there is to know about the Operation for Telemark Mr Sweeney ( see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217906/Fearless-World-War-Two-woman-spy-dropped-submarine-occupied-Norway-Bletchley-Park-codebreaker-dies-aged-91.html ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the we (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~ I am permitted to release the Army War Record about Bob Lilley protectively marked as "MOST SECRET" which has been recently declassified in which Col David Stirling himself signed Sgt Bob Lilley is Mentioned in Dispatches as well as the MID Certificate itself.. Email me for a Confidentiality Agreement.Pop goes the we (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pop, please stop heading all your comments as keep, labelling each comment keep is confusing). The MID is easily found in the London Gazette. There is no need for confidentiality agreements, material was has been declassified can be accessed and anyway the MIC certificate and the King Olav certificate can both be seen in this picture. NtheP (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your constructive comment. I know from my academic research that this man deserves and has earned a mention more than say for example Ikechi Anya . Now if we all decide yes we should keep this article as a tribute to a quiet and simple former founder member of the SAS and who never sought publicity. What is to stop someone in two years time deciding to delete him? Pop goes the we (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer your question, Wikipedia does not consider notability to be temporary, and a record of this discussion will remain, which can and will be used as precedent if and when someone decides to propose the article for deletion. While some articles are sometimes proposed for deletion multiple times, those tend to be the more controversial ones, and rarely bios like this one where notability has been established and its merits for inclusion determined based on consensus among editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To Pop: Your reasons for keeping the article are becoming more persuasive, but don't mess it up by mentioning "tribute". Wikipedia is NOT a memorial. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFDs do not actually establish 'precedents'; notability is determined on a case-by-case basis, and pointing to other articles instead of sources which establish notability is typically treated as a case of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type argument and ignored by the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if you're replying to me or Pop, but I refer to 'precedent' only in the sense that AFDs for a specific article obviously always refer to the same basic topic and basic set of information and provide valuable guidance as to why it merits inclusion (or not) - because notability is not temporary. In this case, the person's notability is not going to decline over time, although of course the opposite is common. That said, I do recognize that many editors don't necessarily look at previous AFDs if they exist, and it's always possible that an an article that was kept before will be deleted in a subsequent AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I miss-read your comment to mean that this would set a precedent for other articles rather than just this one - my mistake, and you're entirely correct. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FRF and my initial comment. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having not had my original query answered, I'm inclined to go with my original instinct - that the coverage of his role in various books and periodicals is enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG regardless of soldier-specific criteria. Stalwart111 23:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i'am convinced by pop goes the we's arguments that this is a notable person Seasider91 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The coverage seems good enough for me. MM is less than VC, but it is still a high distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Military Medal, a third-level decoration, is certainly not high enough to keep an article (many thousands have been handed out and one would have to have multiple such decorations for inherent notability). His BEM adds to his notability, but not enough for an article. However, I would consider his status as a founder member of the SAS and one of its early RSMs makes him notable enough for us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lilley was one of the few to get MID (Mentioned In Dispatches) and was also one of the longest serving members of the SAS originals having served in SAS from 1941-1957 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.231.117 (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The few? Come off it. A MiD is an incredibly common award. Many people have been mentioned multiple times for the same campaign. Doesn't give any postnominal letters and doesn't contribute to notability at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the MID doesn't add much - Lilley's is one of 18 pages of names in that edition of the Gazette alone. As Necrothesp says above it's the founder membership of the SAS that is the clincher here, not any of the individual awards. NtheP (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Taken from " SAS: the history of the Special Raiding Squadron 'Paddy's men' " by Stewart McClean -- Page 21 Quote " All the members of C Section finished, although Bob Lilley had the almost back-breaking job of carrying one of his exhausted men draped across his shoulders for the last ten miles. Despite the immense hardships suffered by all concerned ..." - In my eyes this man is a hero to rescue and carry a wounded comrade acrross his shoulder for 10 miles in the desert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.100.167 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be (and personally, I agree) but inclusion in Wikipedia is not based on heroism, bravery or valour and should not be based on a want to memorialise great deeds (see WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Instead we need to establish whether the subject is notable. Great deeds that receive coverage in reliable sources can help. Stalwart111 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading all the above comments here this man as an original founder member of the SAS I think the case has been made for this mans inclusion under and I quote item from above comment ""Played an important role in a significant military event" ie the formation of the British SAS? this being a quote from someone above.. Until very recently most people who are not in the know would never have heard of Sgt Bob Lilley. As has been said above and I quote " In discussion and interviews with his surviving family Bob Lilley was a private man who did not seek any recognition for his work. From the documents I was permitted to see and which probably will never be published Lilley served his country well above and beyond the call of duty in the Western Desert of North Africa then Italy and Europe and later Malaya.. He shunned the limelight and lived a quiet simple life right to the end. Little has ever been mentioned or spoken about him in the past. From my research Lilley never received the recognition he deserved because according to his family he would not have wanted it as many like him he said "I just did my job".

In my eyes I would keep this man he is as notable and deserving as some if not more of those who are already included. Pop goes the we (talk)

I think you've probably made your case several times over and WP:CONSENSUS is clearly with you. No need to WP:BLUDGEON the process. Stalwart111 10:57, 16 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schlock Mercenary

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

Nearly every source is the comic itself. The only good source is an interview with the author. WCCA and Hugo Award are not sufficient to carry a webcomic — several WCCA winners have been deleted anyway. I couldn't find any sources about this that weren't primary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Hugo award nomination is indeed sufficient, and if you follow the links to the Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, you'll find multiple nominations listed there, with inline citations for each. Those multiple major award nominations would be sufficient for a personal article under WP:ANYBIO. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hugo Award nom: [17]. The comic was a finalist in the Washington Post's Best Webcomic poll. [18]. The comic itself has also been quoted by the Nyasa Times. [19]. Even Wikipedia related: [20], [21]. Reviewed by the University Press of North Georgia: [22]. Cited in a book printed by the Institute of International Visual Arts: [23]. Also: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. "Couldn't find any sources that weren't primary" translates to "failure of WP:BEFORE" here. TPH, noms like this are why you keep drawing the ire of the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1: The Hugo Award is not inherently notable. #2: Reader polls are not sufficient. #3: Do you really think being quoted in passing is a reliable non-trivial coverage? #4 and #5 are trivial too. #6 is a college paper. #7 is only a directory listing which says nothing about the strip, just names it. #8 is also a reader poll and therefore not reliable, significant coverage. #9 is a name-drop in reference to something else entirely — all it says is that the writer reads it. #10 and #11 are also name-drops. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line here is that the notability guidelines are badly broken when it comes to webcomics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing "keep" even though you know the notability guidelines are broken? That makes absolutely zero goddamn sense. It's been my experiences that the notability bar is pretty high for webcomics — and that WCCA and Hugo are not sufficient. Nor is being printed. Nor is being name dropped here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm arguing "keep" because the notability guidelines are broken. By a strict interpretation of the guidelines, this is, by your argument, not notable. WP:COMMONSENSE, however, says that it is, and this is hardly the first time that a very "notable" by the standards of being well-known, widely-recognised, and likely-to-be-saught-information-on webcomic has been rung up on deletion charges because of being "not notable". Webcomics get generally ignored by most 'sources' because they're webcomics and, thus, not worthy of mention in their minds. The notability bar is, as you say, high - too high, in my observation. While it's true we can't have a page on every penne-ante comic out there, some of the ones that get nomiated and/or deleted beggar belief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which still makes no bleeding sense to me. You don't have to argue on the side of the rules if you feel the rules are broken. If you think the bar is too high, do you also think that name-dropping it in the context of something else makes other works notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with The Bushranger concerning notability and guidelines here (though I'd say a Hugo nomination can mean more or less depending on the type of work), but even so, we demand reliable third-party sources, because even more important than notability is verifiability. The article has plenty of footnotes but little in the way of reliable sources not connected to the creator. Can that be improved? /Julle (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on WP:COMMONSENSE if nothing else (and I am NOT saying that's the only reason to keep it). I find it interesting that as an online encyclopedia we still basically demand that an article's subject get featured in the (paper) New York Times or similar before some will accept it as a "safe to retain" item. If Schlock Mercenary can be deleted as non-notable on the "letter of the law", then deletionists have won, and we might as well close Wikipedia down and hand it other arbiters than the public and the users (i.e. give it to media corporations like everything else). 125.236.217.145 (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Some more references for you to disagree about [29] [30] and one mentioning the specific type of discussion here [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.217.145 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links; I added the 1st two to the article since their content establishes that the work is notable and their publishers are reliable. rewinn (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable? Is it April Fool's Day? htom (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. 1. If the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to add sources, not to argue non-notability.

2. Notability factors are considered in toto, not in isolation; otherwise you must agree that because each atom of your body is practically nothing at all, you do not exist. The Hugos, length of publication, size of readership ( I'd bet cash money Schlock Mercenary has more readers than stuff like Sinestro Corps War or probably most single Marvel or DC titles), hardcopy compilations, boardgame etc etc .... accepting the argument that any single one of those factors might not make the subject matter notable, the combination of them make it notable by any rational standard. rewinn (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add sources if all the ones I found are shit? Do you suggest I add someone mentioning it on their blogspot? Name-dropping it in the context of something else? HOW are any of the sources that were found reliable, significant third party coverage? Little tiny dribs and drabs here and there don't cut it. It has to be specifically about the strip. Why is this so fucking hard to grasp? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Potty words don't help your case.

2. Please use tabs (colons) so the thread can be easily read

3. I just added a source. It didn't take long to find.

4. It appears that you are confusing sourcing with notability. These are two entirely different things. Sourcing webcomics and other web phenomena can be difficult if one insists upon using only printed media, but that does not mean they are not notable. The notability criteria to which you keep referring address only presumption of notability and not notability itself. As extensively evidenced above, there is able evidence of notability for this article to overcome its putative failure to satisfy the presumption.

5. Your analysis of notability rests entirely upon isolating individual factors, assessing each as insignificant, and concluding that the entire bundle of evidence is insignificant. This is an incorrect procedure; the evidence is to be considered in toto.

6. With your "grasp" remark, you seem to be laboring under the impression that you have "grasp"ed something that everyone else on the planet is too stupid to understand. This is entirely possible, of course, but an alternative explanation is that the rest of us see something that you do not. Why are you bothering? Wiki Is Not Paper and there is no harm to anyone done by this article. rewinn (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:PAPER and WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments. Where is the notability for this strip? That's the issue you keep dodging. How does it meet WP:WEB? Where are the multiple reliable sources? You only found one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}

Asked and answered. Come up with something new or move on. rewinn (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being nominated multiple years in a row for the Hugo Award (which is a major literary award, btw, for science fiction and fantasy, despite what you claim, TPH) is definitely notable. That, combined with winning a WCCA award twice ("The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.") and being nominated two other times and the coverage in Analog, certainly meets the various notability guidelines. The multiple reliable sources not directly connected to the creator of the comic are refs 47-55 and 61 (which while not terribly notable by itself is fine supporting all the others in the notability arena). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Schlock Mercenary was pointed out YEARS ago for numerous Hugo nominations, and a little more importantly, this isn't their first rodeo with Wikipedia, including this WikiNews article. Whoever nominated this for deletion (who has been, by the way, on a webcomics deletion spree for months) is playing with fire. Notable then, notable now. Veled (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, attacking my Twitter account with harassing tweets? Not cool, guys. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Hugo nominations if nothing else. I'm wondering, based on the lack of any rationale for PFD, what the proposer's issue is. chrylis (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fitzgerald (writer)

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged as of unclear notability for over 5 years. I could find nothing to prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The author has produced a series of books on the Ghost towns of Kansas, and apparetnly nothing else. His subject might possibly be notable, though we have no article on it, I very much doubt that he is. If he has done anything else notable, this needs to be added to the article before the AFD ends. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:06, 13 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. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Framlingham

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

Non notable subject lacking secondary sources and fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Secret ^account 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons and because we cannot guarantee that the creator will maintyain the article in perpetuity. ON the other hand we can be fairly sure that the bus operators or the Passenger Transport Executive for the area will do so on their own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a guide book. (Note: Back in 2006 and 2007 there were several AfDs for "list of bus routes in..." articles, most if not all of which were closed as "keep". However, consensus has moved on, and in the last two years such AfDs have usually, and as far as I know always, closed as "delete". e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Stradbroke and Laxfield, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Manea, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Needham Market, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham (2nd nomination)) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list article should generally be a list of links to a collection of individually notable wikipedia articles.—Baldy Bill (talk) 18:36, 18 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin technical closure).Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gyula Juhász (historian)

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

Nominate for deletion Unreferenced article, tagged for notability concerns for over 5 years. I could find nothing to support notability. Boleyn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I am not sure how you searched for notability, but he was the director of the National Library (which is stated in the article), and the Hungarian article cites an entry in the national dictionary. I will try to add references now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added the obituary from The Independent, now speedy keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your help, Ymblanter. Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After 2 relists, significant work, and yet only minor discussion, there's no current consensus to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raider Fighter (Babylon 5)

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

No (3rd party) independent reliable sources for this article. Curb Chain (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ this and several similar articles into a new article List of Babylon 5 spacecraft. While Starfuries and White Stars almost certainly have sources, these and most of the rest of the similar ships do not. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any notability for such a list or the other 2 ships you are stating.Curb Chain (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you haven't read the secondary sources I have--more sources exist than are documented in most of the B5 articles, because they date from the "ancient times" before such sourcing was commonplace for fictional element articles. At any rate, there is a general expectation that notable fictional franchises are entitled to list articles of fictional elements that span more than one primary work--e.g., List of Firefly characters. In science fiction franchises, space vehicles typically have such lists as well. Babylon 5 articles have not generally been upgraded to such current best practices. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional franchises are not exempted from our notability guidelines. Lists of fictional elements have to meet WP:LISTN (the group of elements must be significantly covered in independent sources), and there is no topic, whether it is characters or vehicles, that is automatically notable, or "entitled" to be covered on WP, as you put it. The notability of B5 vehicles remains to be proven, and as Curb Chain, I have serious doubts it exists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. All lists may have an article per WP:N only if the list has been discussed in multiple secondary independent third party source.Curb Chain (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If I can prove you wrong, will you withdraw the nomination? Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing a few of the available primary sources (my library) and doing a Google Books search, I have added content and references such that there are now 4 independent reliable sources, vs. the one which was present (and to which I do not have access myself) when the article was nominated. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG has not been met. None of those sources discuss the topic in depth and independently.Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have all of them? The A-Z book isn't available via Google Books. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Curb Chain, none of the sources provide any significant coverage that goes beyond a "definition of the topic" per WP:WHYN (ie plot summary). GNG is not met. Given how most of them only replace primary sources without any content change, coverage doesn't go beyond reprinted dialogue from the show. One passage added by Jclemens is not even about Raider fighters but a character than has nothing to do with them. If Jclemens intends to convince anyone that these sources contain any significant coverage, we'll wait and see instead of blindly trusting his (as of now) misleading descriptions of sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Your inability to access sources is not my problem. You're entirely free to purchase copies of secondary sources that discuss off-the-air science fiction TV off of Amazon Marketplace, just like I do. I've posted ISBNs for everything. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your inability to extract GNG-compliant content out of them is not mine. WP:SOURCEACCESS is not the issue here, thanks to GBooks we have easy acces to the 3 sources you added, which allowed me to verify that they don't provide significant, in-depth content on the subject, and thus that GNG is not met, contrary to your claims. I'll wait until we're presented with actual significant coverage to change my recommandation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you start by amending your above "none of the sources" statement, to match your revised statement, since we're apparently agreed that the A-Z source cannot be seen via Google Books. Wouldn't want to have a material inaccuracy in your statement, would you? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can view it in Gbooks. I must be God :) Cheers.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary source. Too specific trivia that doesn't fit anywhere. There is no need to mention every little fictional device that ever existed on WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good faith efforts of adding sources by Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources meet the WP:GNG criteria, but the fact of adding them would somehow make the article notable ? Please be serious. Your comment doesn't provide any policy-based reason as to why the article should be kept, so I encourage you to amend it, otherwise it can (and quite frankly should) be ignored by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. And @Jclemens: That A-Z source discusses Babylon 5 indepth, but nothing has yet in this debate, on the talk page or on the article has been ~~show~~shown or provided to prove that Raider Fighters in Babylon 5 are notable.Curb Chain (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Except for the fact that they're covered non-trivially in multiple independent reliable sources, you mean? Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, and these sources have not been provided as of yet nor on the article.Curb Chain (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? They're added to the article already. I added two more RS'es, from books from my library, bringing the total to six, four of which I own, one of which was in the article from the outset, and one of which I found via Google Books. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources discuss Babylon 5 and but not the ship indepth.Curb Chain (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be amazed at how you have immediate access to sources that took me weeks to acquire. I disagree with your characterization, I might add. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is clear on the fact that one-sentence coverage and descriptions are not significant. Half of your sources are not even about the topic. Your disagreement is clearly misguided.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a combination article as suggested earlier--as the reasonable compromise solution. It may technically meet the GNG, but it is more appropriate to the purposes of WP to have a separate article -- and then we have provision for other similar ships. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable. Babylon 5 spacecraft has not bebeen discussed in any independent 3rd party 2ndary sources.Curb Chain (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable? That's an interesting way to put it. And you're asserting that there's no way as a whole that Babylon 5 spacecraft would merit a discussion article? Consider things like this, which while hosted at a Wordpress site is a trivial to find example of comparison of fictional spacecraft across different fictional universes, and even a couple of real world ones. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considered and the link is not a reliable source.Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm copying the content of this page to wikialpha, because it seems like a page that fans could find useful, even if it may not meet the standards of the wikipedia deletion brigade. Mathewignash (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 12:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without evidence that this is important outside the fandom it is inherently nn. Shii (tock) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Six reliable sources "outside the fandom" isn't enough for you? Or are you defining "fandom" to include commercially published works on the fictional universe? Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that there no out-of-universe content whatsoever in this article is a good sign that no one oustide the fandom cares to comment about it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge to some article about spaceships in Babylon 5. These are obviously minor spaceships from the TV show, which can surely be put with all the others that have appeared for a nice article. The Steve 22:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would fail WP:N.Curb Chain (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you know that without having seen such an article or looked for sources. Do you really think that *no* reliable sources exist on the spaceships used in an extremely popular and well-known TV series? Truly, I envy you your prescient and instantaneous research skills... The Steve

... Especially since I've found plenty of reliable sources for this one. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 23 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Fensel

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

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of uncertain notability for over 5 years. I could find nothing to confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while he appears to be a prolific writer of published books I can't find anything about him beyond his university bios. I certainly don't see multiple independent sources. James086 ^Talk 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar gives over 20 papers with over 100 cites, a few with over 1000 cites. I lost count. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment How many of these 20 publications are really his own papers (his name comes on the first position), and how many are just joined work of several researchers or even only edited books, where sometimes tenths of authors could contribute? How many of these papers are papers of PhD students, where traditionally the name of the supervising professor is added to the list of authors? Is this number of citation significant if comparing it to other professors of computer science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.221.170 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 86.32.221.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@anon spa: Perhaps you would like to answer these questions yourself to help other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. Re the insinuations of the anon spa: one of his multiple over-1000-citations publications is a single-authored book, Ontologies, and he is first author of another ("The web service modeling framework WSMF"). As Universitätsprofessor at Innsbruck he most likely also passes criterion #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For comparison: Work of Jim Hendler and Tim Berners Lee (the ones, who established the domain in which Fensel is a researcher) has almost 15K citations (The Semantic Web); The work of Thomas Gruber on ontologies - 10K citations (Ontologies). At the same time, when I look at amazon comments regarding one of the positions mentioned by User:David Eppstein, I see that they are rather moderate ([32] Amazon). The point is, that Fensel tried to be quite active in the Semantic Web domain 10 years ago, while aiming to establish his own field - Semantic Web Services. Here he failed and simply gave up on this work around 2007-2008 (see the latest drafts at - WSMO or check some of Semantic Web conferences - there are no Semantic Web Services tracks already for several years). It has happened not much after that - while he remains a professor at University of Innsbruck, his primary focus is the domain of e-tourism (e.g. SESA, where so far there are no evidences of notability at all). Taking the current state of wikipedia entry, it seems that even the main Subject (or any of his students) was interested in for the last few years to update Fensel bio on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.221.170 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)— 86.32.221.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Fensel is notable as an academic, and is also a public figure by virtue of having been involved in a minor scandal [on by the Irish Independent] -- comment added by Witbrock (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.32.221.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the clear pass of multiple counts of WP:PROF demonstrated above. Why on Earth was this relisted? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News throws up quite a few sources about him and his projects, although most are in German.[33][34][35][36][37] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaisano Center Iloilo

Did a little research and made corrections..hope it helps

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

Delete, non notable building. Being one of the tallest buildings in the Philippines is not the standard for notability, which the building ultimately fails Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources for this building. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Xeltran (talk) 09:07, 18 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. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Negros Occidental

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

Lists should offer information, navigation or development. This list does none of the above due to having no wikilinks, references or ultimately notability. C 679 08:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. The user who made has made a bunch of these, no informative value whatsoever. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see my comments in other related AfDs. Same rational here: no indication of notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the article would just appear as another directory list of shopping malls. GrayFullbuster (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lead paragraph at WP:NOTDIR, "...Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed..." This is basically a directory of shopping malls in Negros Occidental. Some may possibly be notable per WP:N, but individual articles should be created for those if they are, rather than this type of directory. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Xeltran (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There has not been a major shift since the last closure which ended with it being relisted after a DRV discussion. Clearly, the "delete" side has a point when they argue that most of the entries on the list are sourced to novels or gamebooks, something that isn't independent sourcing. The "keep" side of the argument is that the list of items is a reasonable spin-off, and that some of the entries have been covered in independent secondary sourcing. (The latter argument is true for a few of the entries, but not most of them.)

With the community that has participated here equally divided, a "no consensus" is the usual outcome unless there is a violation of a core policy that mandates deletion (issues concerning the notability guidelines are handled on a case-by-case basis). I have looked at the policy, and the main issue is whether we have a violation of the "no original research" policy as most of the article is based on the novels. Yet, the content that is based on that is not analytic or synthesis and can therefore be based on primary sources. The few analytical parts of the article are the ones referenced to e.g. the article by Wolf. The No Original Research policy also forbids basing an article entirely on primary sources, something that this article comes close to doing, but while it is toeing the line, there are some secondary sources in the article as well, so it is probably not across the line. I am therefore closing this with the default outcome of no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance artifacts

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

This article fails Wikipedia's policy on indiscriminate collections of information; we do not list random items that happen to exist in a fictional universe on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the phrase "List of Dragonlance artifacts" is not a useful search term and would cause more harm than good if it were turned into a redirect elsewhere. There is no information on this list that is sourced by reliable, secondary sources that could be merged into another article. The category of "Dragonlance artifacts" is not notable, nor are the individual entries on this list. Neelix (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chop up, merge and transwiki - While they have in-universe notability, I think the work here is best served by merging the individual artifacts to various pages. Transwiki the lot to a Dragonlance fan wiki. I do value the work done here by many of the people that take hours out of their lives to put these articles together and I would rather not see such work go to waste. About the only one that I might find is something on the Dragonlances. I recall a book on modern myths that compared them to Excalibur in terms of their value to the plot. Web Warlock (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

withholding my vote based on the new sources found. I will also look for some. Web Warlock (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are now four independent sources describing different items in the list. This list serves as an appropriate merge target for groups of items, and as such it does no good to delete it. BOZ (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a breakout/daughter article of the parent article Dragonlance, which would be unwieldy to contain them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ and Casliber. The reason we have list articles of fictional elements is to deal with lots of not-individually-notable elements, from a notable fictional franchise. This should not be hard to understand, yet some people clearly don't seem to understand the benefit. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:LISTN, I don't see any significant coverage of artifacts in Dragonlance as a whole, merely plot summaries (which don't qualify as significant coverage per WP:WHYN) for a few entries. Agree with nominator as to why such lists are not needed on WP. To efficiently deal with not-individually-notable fictional elements, we should just not mention them at all beyond what can fit into plot summary sections of notable articles. The need to make WP a directory or memorial to every fictional device (characters/objects/cities/weapons/ships/etc) that ever existed goes against WP:IINFO and particularly WP:NOTPLOT. Fan wikias are better suited to such a task.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN can't be "failed" because it's not exhaustive - it explicitly mentions other ways to achieve list notability that are not being notable as a group. A list that points to the articles of the works where the artifacts appeared is a navigational list valid per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CSC#2 and #3. Diego (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains only plot summary from fiction (WP:NOT#PLOT), no real-world discussion, therefore nothing worthy of inclusion. No reliable independent source is cited that discusses the topic of artifacts in this fictional world, making the topic also fail WP:LISTN. Sandstein 01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources found [38]. Helps understand a notable series that includes hordes of novels List of Dragonlance novels, some of which I know to be bestsellers, and ample role playing games of course, plus video games, and one film which had many famous people for voice actors but didn't turn out too well. Places that reviewed the series of books or games, probably gave additional mention to various items in them. Dream Focus 23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: I have reversed the NAC because of the amount of time spend arguing about the status of the closer rather than the merits of the content. This should not be reclosed by a non-admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore this page to previous close - the DRV was closed on the rationale that some pigs are more equal than others; it was totally inappropriate. It demonstrates that a non-admin can make a perfectly fine close (like the reverted close of this AfD), and that admins can make totally wrongheaded closes (like the DRV). WilyD 08:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify on WilyD's comments, Sue Rangell previously closed this discussion as Keep. BOZ (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I very much concur with WilyD, and I think Sue Rangell's close should not have been overturned absent a consensus that it was wrong. The allotted 168 hours have passed so could one of the anointed few please now close this as "keep"?—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it had a 2-1 ratio to endorse my close...so presumably it will just be brought to DRV again, lol, and we couldn't have THAT :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this as appropriate content fork from the main Dragonlance article. Lists like this are also redirect targets for a lot of likely search terms, and the article has multiple reliable third party sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPINOFF, "Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." There isn't a single source dealing with the artifacts as a group, and no significant content going beyond mere mentions within plot summaries, so WP:LISTN and WP:NOTPLOT still aren't met. You're entitled to advocate your "keep everything D&D" ideology, but at least try to make accurate descriptions of what is in the article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As listcruft, WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of dubious value, no standalone notability for anything there, no encyclopedic need for a 'breakout' article of that magnitude and especially WP:NOT#PLOT. I'm sure there's a Wikia somewhere that would be a better host for this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note It has to be noted that Listcruft is an essay, not policy and not a reason for deletion. WP:LC Web Warlock (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never linked to it, I just like the word. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete patently and irredeemably trivial, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Nothing here has even the slightest whiff of real-world notability, not even the pop-culture recognisability that, say, the Bag of Holding has. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no prospect of these items being the subjects of any independent, out-of-universe coverage. Wikipedia doesn't exist to cover the ins and outs of fictional universes. The Land (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ and sources. Nor is there any policy-based deletion criteria I can see above. WP:INDISCRIMINATE certainly doesn't describe this as it's easy to see what does and does not belong , WP:PLOT, stretched this far would apply to any "list-of-characters" list (Dr. Who etc.). And frankly we already had an AfD... Hobit (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources don't adress the topic as a group and don't provide any content besides plot summary. WP:LISTN is not met. Though there might be a tolerance for characters list, there is none for lists of overly trivial plot elements such as this one, see for example AfD/List of Indiana Jones artifacts, AfD/Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, AfD/List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star, AfD/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 warships and spacecraft, AfD/List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons...WP:NOTPLOT is policy, to ignore it would require way more than a mere AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NOTPLOT is policy, and it doesn't support deleting articles but expanding them. Diego (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not possible here since there is no secondary sources on the group to expand from.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:IMPERFECT, and I quote NOTPLOT: Articles "should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded". It's easy to expand the article with not-in-universe references to the works and years of publication where each artifact appeared, and NOTPLOT instructs us to do exactly that, which couldn't happen if the article is deleted. The article already contains elements that are not plot, such as the books, movies and video games that included. Expand those, and remove what can't be sourced. Even if that results in a stub, WP:STUBBING is a viable alternative and preferred to deleting everything. Diego (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you plan on expanding without sources ? What about WP:LISTN ? "Books, movies and video games" are primary sources and as such are the same as plot. We need secondary and independent sources and real-world coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merge discussions should continue on the article's talk page Courcelles 01:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ziauddin

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

Not notable at all as notability is not inherited. This guy only gets mentioned due to The Economist hacking his skype account. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mohammed Nizamul Huq. This article is just an extension of the story surrounding Huq (an appellate judge in Bangladesh). There's already a bunch of overlap between the content in both these articles, so a merge seems to be the best option. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While he does not seem to passes WP:PROF, there are arguably enough media citations to justify keeping. The subject seems to play an advocacy role of some international notability, and has been doing that for a while.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lord Roem comments. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has good WP:SOURCES to pass WP:V here, here, here, here, here, and herehttp://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2012/12/bangladesh. Seems he is the subject of an ongoing event. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the sources provided by PDX97217 go a long way towards establishing notability; whether this information can be merged into a piece about the Economist case is debatable. I don't think deletion is appropriate, neither am I sold that a full Keep is met here. I suggest that a No Consensus close is appropriate in this instance and that matters can be revisited latter if deemed appropriate. This has been held over three times, so it's time to make a call... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 12 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. (And, no, IMO, the January relistings were both not needed) Courcelles 01:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campbells Automotive

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP - lacking substantial coverage by independent sources. Bear in mind that some ghits are for other unrelated businesses with similar names (ie in North America). bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above and no inherited notability. The agency is not necessarily notable just from the individual notability of somebody associated with it. It also does not give the reader any real information. Blue Riband► 20:46, 22 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 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this firm meets the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this entity is worthy of WP coverage, is is as the publisher of Professional Van and Light Truck Magazine, which has an article. If there is anything worth merging, merge it there. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait, what? By the end of December there was the AfD nomination, plus two delete !votes from other editors, no other dissenting !votes or comments... was relisting twice really necessary? bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage from sources cited is not significant (only consisting of mentions of the company's name) and a search only finds similar mentions, not enough for an article. Peter James (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwakarma Service Society

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

This stub has no references and nothing to indicate the notability of its subject. Andrew (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:57, 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 00:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That article doesn't even make sense, but regardless I can find no indication that it meets even basic WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:53, 22 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) 01:08, 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, Courcelles 03:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see what the subject's claim to notability might possibly be, but it certainly isn't WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart111 09:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources at all have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We're already past the TV time limit at AFD, time to make a call. Utterly unsourced. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 12 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. Courcelles 01:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einayim

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

Non -notable childrens magazine. Essentially a spam article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete: I found this article in Globes which analyzes Einayim, among four other Israeli children's magazines; I am not convinced that this counts as in-depth coverage, and I found nothing more promising. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After Alan's example, I have nominated the related magazine Mishkafayim for deletion as well. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 23 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 00:05, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article seems promotional, which combined with lack of sources showing tips it for me. I'd be happy if an editor fluent in Hebrew would lend an opinion, I don't have the first clue how to properly search the Google for coverage... But this AFD has been held over three times, so it's time for somebody to step up an make a call... Carrite (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Goldfarb

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

Non-notable author. Works consist of 1 edition of a minor novel by Thackeray, which was his doctoral thesis [39] and republished as part of a collected edition, [40], a routine bibliography of Thackeray, and 1 mystery novel, a book in only 10 libraries. No academic positions. This is not enough to make him an expert according to WP:PRO or WP:Author. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be only two citations to the work of this Thackeray scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. His children's mystery novel was shortlisted for an Arthur Ellis Award (juvenile category) [41] but didn't win, and the scholarly books have had no impact in terms of citations or library holdings. Not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. There are local write-ups on him the UBC student newspaper [42] and British Columbia Jewish Independent [43]. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dreadful article - ill-informed, excruciatingly badly written and completely non-notable! WoodstockEarth (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did find some mentions of him in various books on Victorian era stuff. He's name dropped quite a bit, enough to where I'd say that something he wrote would be usable as a reliable source. But does that make him notable? I don't know, to be honest. I did dig up some sources for him. I would also say that the Grumpy Old Bookman blog review might be one of the very rare times when a blog source might be usable as a RS for a book review. I don't know that it's savable, but I did add some stuff to the article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all academics give thanks to everyone they've ever met at any occasion. Authors do similarly, and I suppose other professions also. This means nothing. It's why we require significant references. I take a very broad and flexible view of what counts as significant, but the absolute opposite of significant is "mention" DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. Being an independent scholar, although unusual, does not preclude academic notability, but in this case the citation record does not support WP:PROF#C1, most of the other WP:PROF criteria assume a professional academic career, and we don't have the in-depth coverage of him in independent reliable sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 College Station, Texas shooting

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

I feel like this may have already been nominated for deletion immediately after the fact, but if it was, I'm not finding the AfD. In any case, I'm going to propose this one for deletion now. I understand that this was major news for a day, but there is little lasting impact, and I think that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Go Phightins! 02:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom, I don't see this event as having lasting notability. And yes, I do believe I remember some activity regarding articles about this incident back when it was breaking news. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a previous AFD, but the article had a different title then. The AfD is located here. Go Phightins! 02:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Previous AfD was only 3 months ago and was no consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 12:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Only three deaths. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it matter how many people died? I do not think that there must be a certain amount of deaths or else it is automatically not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Could you explain why NOTNEWS would apply in this case? Super Goku V (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't appear to have had any lasting effect, as per WP:EFFECT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again another notable event. JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:04, 25 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 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see how WP:NOTNEWS applies here. This is not journalism (it is not a first-hand account of the incident). This is not merely routine news coverage -- it is an out-of-the-ordinary event. It is not a "who's who" or diary. The subject satisfies WP:GNG. Jujutacular (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources (national, at that) cover this subject. SarahStierch (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG There has been significant coverage from reliable sources, which fits the general inclusion policy. CrimsonBlue (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP ought not to be an ostrich. Shootings in schools where there are multiple victims are regarded as major public events. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But this shooting wasn't in a school. If it was, I wouldn't have nominated...this was a shooting in a town that has a college. Go Phightins! 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources establish that it was newsworthy at the time, not that it has lasting significance.TheLongTone (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTNEWS is a very strange guideline in my opinion overall as Wikipedia is in fact based on news, anyway WP:GNG covers this.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC*
Keep as per WP:GNG TheMesquito (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No one has addressed the concerns of those who claim that this has no "enduring significance", a prerequisite for articles about events. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rather routine Amurican gun violence. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight (Taylor Swift song)

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes NSONGS No. 2 criterion three-times.HotHat (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. Can be adequately summarized there. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The album article is already to verbose that this is not feasible in the first place because it is in great violation of SIZERULE, so that is the reason these must either be deleted or kept. They meet the criterion of No. 2 and these sources confirm No. 1 The Huffington Post and The Wall Street Journal. So, now it must be kept, or else wikipedia's rules don't matter at all!HotHat (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per HotHat. I distrust any deletion rationale that includes the phrase "notability aside." --Cerebellum (talk) 08:39, 12 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. Courcelles 01:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ground (song)

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes NSONGS No. 2 criterion three-times.HotHat (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough critical attention for the song to support an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:52, 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 ✍ ✉ 05:25, 12 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. Mergers can be discussed outside the AFD process Courcelles 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Time (Taylor Swift song)

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes NSONGS No. 2 criterion twice.HotHat (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Red (Taylor Swift album). This can be summarizes in the album article. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The album article is already to verbose that this is not feasible in the first place because it is in great violation of SIZERULE, so that is the reason these must either be deleted or kept. They meet the criterion of No. 2 and these sources confirm No. 1 The Huffington Post and LA Times. So, now it must be kept, or else wikipedia's rules don't matter at all!HotHat (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator literally admits that the article is notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mergers can be discussed outside the AFD process Courcelles 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Almost Do

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

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes NSONGS No. 2 criterion three-times.HotHat (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The album article is already to verbose that this is not feasible in the first place because it is in great violation of SIZERULE, so that is the reason these must either be deleted or kept. They meet the criterion of No. 2 and these sources confirm No. 1 HAI-Online, which is an indonesian publication, so it has achieved some sort of global coverage for the song. So, now it must be kept, or else wikipedia's rules don't matter at all!

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phase2 International

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

Non-notable company. Promotional, out of 21 refs, all but 2 or 3 are self-published and thus not reliable sources. GHits are predominately social media and advert sites. GNews shows only 2 hits, both already listed as refs. GregJackP Boomer! 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Maybe a bit too many self-published sources, but this company is notable and the article is concise. The Redmondmag, TechCrunch, and CRN are reliable sources that all have oversight and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. 108.21.12.231 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Very few real sources here, and those that are don't go beyond [[[WP:MILL]], "Cloud computing business does some cloud computing" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 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, Courcelles 01:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by significant mention multiple reliable sources cited by article. Specifically: [44], [45] and [46]. -—Kvng 04:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak delete - this article has a bizarre history. It seems to have first been created as a WP:FAKEARTICLE attached to User:Phase. Then a new user appeared and moved it (twice I think?). Now it's here. 13 of the 21 "sources" are actually pages on the company's own site - worthless for GNG and basically link-spam. Some of the others are directory listings, sales pages and the like. There's maybe 2-3 good sources (the ones provided by Kvng above, basically - nice work mate!). That's not really enough for me for a company with no other real claim to notability. Just an ordinary company that happens to have been mentioned in a few industry magazines. Coverage, sure, but nothing that suggests it's not just another tech company looking to use WP for WP:PROMO. But there is some coverage there, so I'm not strongly opposed to keeping it. I just can't see any great encyclopedic value in doing so. Stalwart111 09:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "bizarre history" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The company has multiple instances of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Maybe worthy of a copy edit or advert tag, but not a deletion. 77.223.133.20 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll note I didn't suggest it was. I suggested that the 2-3 half-decent references attached to the article wouldn't, in my opinion, be enough to meet notability guidelines. As Andy Dingley said, this seems to mostly be a run-of-the-mill company, not a specifically notable one. Stalwart111 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirement is multiple qualified sources. I have identified 3 qualified sources. Usually two or more meets the multiple requirement. What is your criterion? -—Kvng 00:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I suppose I've taken WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH into account too. Two of those sources (while obviously independent of each other) cover the same product announcement relating to Lotus on Demand. The third deals with other services. It's obviously a subjective quantification, but I also can't see the "significant or demonstrable effects" the company has had to otherwise get me over the line. But hey, my opinion was weak for a reason because the question, for me, has come down subjective criteria. Not enough for me might be more than enough for someone else. I'm always open to being convinced and, for me, a single extra source would probably do it in this particular case. Stalwart111 01:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - As mentioned, the CRN article is pretty detailed about their services but the other links, techcrunch (talks more about pricing and reads like an advertisement, nothing useful for this article) and redmondmag.com aren't as much. After two different searches, I'm concerned at the amount of press releases, here (search #1) and here (search #2). A third search didn't even provide anything different and useful here (this third search provided all press releases except for the first result) and thefreelibrary.com provided another press release here. Some of these (particularly the first search) are irrelevant because "Phase 2" is commonly used for other things but I'm not seeing much notability. Search #2 provided two local news articles in Hawaii (Pacific Business News and Honolulu Advertiser) along with another CRN article here. Curious about their history, I searched for any useful results but I only found this (another Hawaii news article) and a press release for a new VP in 2008 here. I recognize that some articles from Techcrunch and CRN are reliable and Phase2 has been associated with IBM and Microsoft, and at some point Dell, but I think Phase2 may be under the bar notable (large amounts of press releases are usually a concern). SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 20 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)} 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furby Party Rockers

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

Unreferenced article about an upcoming toy. Fails WP:CRYSTAL - Mr X 19:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed that! LolFurbz, 01:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So now there's one reference, which links directly to a site selling the toy. Does not establish notability at all. Howicus (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Appears to have not received any coverage in reliable news or book sources, per some searches. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:08, 13 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. Courcelles 01:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inlingua

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

Despite the fact that this appears to be a sizable organization, the article cites no sources, and upon a search I cannot find anything to support the idea that this meets WP:N. There seems to be no coverage of this company. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:08, 13 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. Courcelles 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Bulldog

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

Nonotable variety of bulldog. No reliable secondary sources available on the breed. Fails WP:GNG. TKK ^{bark !} 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unregistered breed that's attracted little or no attention and appears just a single/couple of breeders name for a crossbreed. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unregistered breed. Only body giving it any sort of recognition is a unit set up by one of the breeders. Looks like promotional material. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent in-depth coverage. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:08, 13 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. Courcelles 01:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banter Bulldogge

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

Type of bulldog not mentioned anywhere, except on the websites of those breeding the dogs. No mentions in Google Books or on Google Scholar. Fails to meet WP:GNG. TKK ^{bark !} 16:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all the other AfD discussions about self-promotional dog articles. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:15, 13 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) -- Patchy1 23:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Ali

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

Doesn't appear to be individually notable. -- Patchy1 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object removing it. The spokesperson for the Egyptian president is notable enough. --Midrashah (talk) 18:52, 25 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, 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, Hue Sat Lum 15:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a prominent Egyptian public figure we should have an article. There may not be much to say at the moment, but there are plenty of sources that confirm what we have now. --Michig (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One cited source refers to the subject as the "official spokesman of the Freedom and Justice Party," which is the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. As such, this would seem to be an individual of sufficient stature to merit encyclopedic biography. Time to make a call, this has been held over three times. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 12 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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Napier

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

Nothing in this article stands out as making this individual particularly notable. He didn't do anything at the major league level--he spent his entire career, as a player, coach and manager, in the minor leagues. Alex (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy spent almost 30 years in professional baseball, including two years as a Double-A manager and four years as a Triple-A manager. After you just voted to keep Henry Bonilla, why would you feel compelled to nominate this guy for deletion, despite a near certainty that he was the topic of at least a couple stories over the course of his three decades in minor league baseball? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bbbny, while I sympathize with your comments regarding inconsistent treatment/use of the notability standards of AfD discussions, I gently remind you that the burden is on those editors who support the "keep" position to demonstrate sufficient depth of coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. In the mean time, I'll try to keep an open mind in this AfD. Improper application of notability standards in one AfD discussion is not an excuse/reason/jusitification/precedent for misapplying the standards in another. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but these AfDs aren't brought here by random people who don't know any better. 75% of the baseball AfDs are nominated by the same small group of people, who seem to do it more out of boredom or their love of AfD debates instead of a desire to improve Wikipedia. Worse, their standards seem to shift from AfD to AfD. (And yes, I know about assuming good faith, but we've moved way past that in these AfDs. We have people claiming that one game in the Italian League is enough to meet notability and then turning around and nominating Jim Napier, who spent 30 years in professional baseball, for deletion just because his career preceded the Google era. It's a needless waste of everyone's time.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To address your point about sources, clicking on the "News" link above yields dozens of Google News hits for Jim Napier, including this, this, this, this and this. I didn't even bother looking past the second page of hits. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, second and fifth references are reliable, independent sources in which the depth of coverage supports the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. The third reference is routine/transactional coverage, and the fourth falls somewhere between, but both are reliable and independent even if they don't rise to the level of "substantial." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your points, his performance does not qualify under WP:BASE/N. He managed in the minor leagues, but "minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable" per the rule. Coverage from his playing days appears to be routine game recaps and blurbs. I may want to reconsider, however, as his job of "field director of player development"[47] may be considered a major league one, which may be enough to push him over the edge of notability. Alex (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, WP:NBASEBALL is a specific notability guideline (SNG), which is a fast-track determination of notability for specific classes of subjects. However, merely because a subject fails an SNG does not mean that subject cannot still satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, which requires substantial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Based solely on the first, second and fifth references cited above by Bbny, this subject passes the GNG requirements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree. Considering the length of his career, 'notable' coverage seems rather scant. Alex (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex -- perhaps then you should not consider the length of his career. But just the level of coverage. It is odd to adversely impact a person for having a long career, for these purposes -- the suggestion is that if he had the same coverage in a much shorter career he would be notable. In any event, perhaps the views of others here will be helpful in communicating community consensus on the general topic, and be an aid when considering future AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he had a long career may well have increased his notability. I am not sure why that is in any way a problem. In any case, with a career starting about half a century before the internet became popular, some of the apparent "scant"-ness of coverage may well be a function of the fact that most historic newspapers, periodicals and even books are not reflected on Google. Despite that, what is there is more than adequate. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bbny and my comments immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited above, which should be included in the article. Spanneraol (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources satisfy GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Muboshgu.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dive Pretzel Coaster

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

Roller coaster does not yet exist. Unlike other articles for future roller coasters, there is no definitive proof in reliable sources to indicate it ever will exist. The bulk of the sourcing refers to a planned development that never materialized, and the rest uses a known rumor site and an original interpretation of a news article's terminology. As it stands now, this doesn't meet notability standards. McDoob AU 93 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. --McDoob AU 93 03:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is proof, in The Star newspaper mentiones a "Pretzel Coaster", RCDB does as well (it lists The Star article as well). The refs that refer to Orlando Thrill Park should have no influence on weather this article gets deleted because they are newspaper's (reliable) and they include evidence that this type of coaster was supposed to be built (there's a reason why its in the history section).--Dom497 (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted> --Canoe1967 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^What does that have to do with this at all?--Dom497 (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is another build that has yet to start construction, and yet it survives well here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Keep calm and carry on. --McDoob AU 93 03:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Amusement Parks. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 12 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. Courcelles 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ostests

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

Contested PROD. Article about an open source assessment project whose only claim to notability is to exist. I could find no substantive third-party coverage of this, or awards or significant mentions in the tech press. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a number of primary web sites related to the project. ostests appears to be incorporated into the testif assessment software suite, but there was no in depth discussion of ostests on the testif site. There were no secondary references, beyond noting the software, on other websites, in news articles, in books, or in scholarly publications. Without independent reliable secondary sources, this project does not yet meet notability guidelines. Mark viking (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 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, Courcelles 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any suitable sources to demonstrate notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Additionally, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have reviewed the references added by 109.69.14.154 which are intended to demonstrate notability - the first one I couldn't readily find any ref to ostests, the other three are all self-published by a user with a very similar userid to the one used on Wikipedia. IMHO this article borders on meeting criteria for WP:CSD G11, or at the very least WP:COI.—Baldy Bill (talk) 20:46, 14 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. Courcelles 01:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conqueror Browser

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

Obscure, non-notable web browser. Links to downloads, google codes and sourceforge products do not grant notability Skrelk (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to establish notability. Mcewan (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a number of websites mentioning the browser and offering it for download, but unfortunately no descriptions or reviews independent of the description on the sourceforge project page. The one promising independent book reference turned out to be a misspelling of "Konqueror". Without any independent sources yet, this topic falls below threshold for notability. When reliable in-depth secondary sources become available, article re-creation is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any substantial reliable sources that could meet WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refs provided are not reliable sources. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's listed on various software downloading sites, while the homepage is sourceforge and Google code, that's should be understood since it's not a very big project and every everyone can't afford hosting. And it's not any promotional software as it's free and open source, no ads or donations are even asked. The numbers of downloads in various pages are nearing 10,000 combined, also it's mentioned in Google Auto complete suggestions. The might not be very big numbers still promising. Akashtaker001 (talk 12:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of OS X. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gould Bear

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

I'm concerned about his notability (good faith!). Perhaps I'm wrong, but, the majority of the citations here are press releases, or papers written by him, and patent documents - which don't establish notability. Again, I could be wrong. On a slightly related note, we've had some concerns about neutrality, and about a potential COI editing the article. But, it's the GNG that concerns me the most. Hoping others can help either establish it, or help us decide on whether to keep this article or not. Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, basically. Google seems to suggest that what sources there are are already well described by the nominator. Ray^Talk 19:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been edited for neutrality, expanded with more obvious points of significance, and populated with diverse citations. Clearly meets GNG / biography notability guidelines at this time -- multiple reliable secondary sources, multiple well-known awards and nominations, subject is known for originating significant new concepts and techniques, verifiable, etc. In reference to nominator's comments on papers written by the subject, note that the guidelines specifically frown upon self-published materials, but not materials published in peer-reviewed journals as those previously cited.--Znacznik (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The article is not an advertisement for the subject. In its present form, it states facts clearly and straightforwardly, citing public information sources not controlled by the subject. The subject is notable as a technologist, thinker, and legal challenger to major corporations, as supported by independent sources cited by the article.Tdgrnwld (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the KEEP comments above, this and similar articles are essential for software designers as they research technologies, techniques, and derivations. The subject clearly has produced a significant, indeed notable, body of work.ixthnar (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I wrote about Eric Gould Bear's work in my column (The iTV Doctor) in June, 2010. I find his work to be original, compelling and disruptive in the television technology space. http://www.itvt.com/itv_doctor/6889/itv-doctor-monkeymedia-defines-true-telescoping User:rickhowe —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ~~Reluctant keep~~ - I'm seriously unimpressed with the WP:SPA creation and subsequent meat-puppetry here (including from someone who claims to have written about the subject and is cited as a source in the article). I'm also unimpressed by the use of the subject's CV as a "source" (seriously, I kid you not) and the original research that has been used to interpret some of those sources and extract "facts". If I were the subject, I would be very embarassed that someone had attempted this in my name. Nonetheless, there's enough actual coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Someone should take a machete to that "source" list, but the article should probably be kept. A real shame that people thought a genuinely notable subject needed to be spammed into Wikipedia in this manner. Stalwart111 10:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a think about it and having seen more of the same at Talk:Eric Gould Bear, I think I would like to see more significant coverage of the subject that isn't WP:BLP1E in style, with regard to the legal challenges. Either that or one of the subject's many just-add-water supporters could have a crack at a re-write with due regard to WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. Stalwart111 10:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is quite a difficult one. For notability, there are a few hits in Google Books, but without adequate preview to assess. Patents alone are insufficient and some of those mentioned are the subject of litigation (see The Register ref). I can see little press coverage for anything other than patent litigation against Apple, etc. The overall impression is of a career in the IT industry leading to a career in patent enforcement and litigation. And a very professionally promoted image of which this article appears to be part. It is just possible that there is something there for WP:GNG, but ironically may be obfuscated by all the promotional and corporate material. Mcewan (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't seem to have the citation record (under old or new names) to pass WP:PROF#C1, so any notability would have to rest on WP:GNG. I removed some very low-quality sources from the article (search results, primary sources, and sources that didn't mention the subject) in an attempt to sift through what's there to see whether we have any nontrivial coverage of him, but didn't find enough. There are a few reliable sources that mention him trivially [48] [49] [50] in the context of the ongoing patent litigation, but that's all I found, and I don't think it's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quickly went over the article, trimming it down to the parts that are at least fairly well-sourced. There's not much left. It looks like he might be notable. The article looks like it was written to promote him as an extension of his resume and website. I think it needs a complete rewrite, hopefully from better sources that more clearly demonstrate his notability. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the meatpuppetry and poor article quality are disappointing, but not themselves reasons for deletion. However, after looking a bit closer I don't really see anything other than a professional doing work in the industry. The fact that the industry is very much "on line" seems to be skewing Google searches so it looks like there's a lot there, but I don't feel in all honesty that the sources provided show that he meets any notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge the bit about the patent infringement claims to History of OS X, delete the rest per WP:BLP1E. The only reason the available third-party sources are covering this guy is for the patents about summarization, and his company suing Apple. Diego (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Lan

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

Non-notable fictional character in a non-notable TV show. FrankDev (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per FrankDev. United States Man (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show is very famous in China. It's officially broadcasted here Officina (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official site here Officina (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a page on Wikipedia here and several pages regard its characters, so I don't understand why this page need to be deleted.

Officina (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The character does not seem notable, and the article for the show cites no resources. Even if the show is notable, that does not mean that every character in the show is, too. Unles some good sources are found, the article should go. Howicus (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The character is one of the main protagonists of the show, she had a cameo in the last episode of the second season presented as a character with a key role in the story, but she starts to have major screen time in the fourth season (the latest one). My article doesn't have many resource because all the info can be found watching the last two seasons that I have already linked above. A subbed english version can be found on youtube but since is not official I din't give the link. Anyway, on the wiki list character of qin's moon page she's enlisted as a protagonist here so I thought it was good to give her a personal page, but I didn't image it would turn so complicated. This is her Baidu page and it's said "《秦时明月》中的女性角色之一" "One of the female lead". This is her baidu tieba. Officina (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think is a little stupid that the reason of the deletion is the notability of the show and even more of the character.

Firstly I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia not the book of fame.

Secondly I thing I already demostrate the notability of the show, but if it's not enought then on Crunchyroll(A streaming site of japanese anime) there's the first season. Qin's moon is Crunchyroll first and i think only chinese anime.

And the last but not the least, how can I prove the importance of a character? That's impossibile, you need to watch the show to determinate if a character is important or not.

That's all I had nothing to say anymore, If you're not convinced yet then delete it. Salute! Officina (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually, we don't need to have watched the show. We need to have seen reliable sources that verify article contents and notability. We haven't yet, so as far as we can tell, the subject fails our general notability guidelines. Stalwart111 10:42, 12 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. Courcelles 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Lawson

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

Non-notable person per WP:BIO. WP is not a place to file a curriculum vitae. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Enos733 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable BIO --No unique names 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kukerpillid

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

No sources to show how notable as applies to notability for musicians. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep . Nomination witout merit. Plenty of albums, plenty of sources. - Altenmann >t 22:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cn you explain their notability then? One sentence saying they are a folk music ensemble doesn't write anything about the artist, where they signed to a major music label? Did their music net certified gold or any charts those are just a few criteria we require found WP:MUSBIO. If you can help explain that as there is literally nothing in the article that claims notability. Note having albums doesn't mean it's a notable band just that they can make records. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please refresh your knowledge if WP:MUSBIO. Having albums in major label is one of criteria. I can only assume that you are not aware that in 1970s, unlike today, there were no "non-major" labels in Estonia, and "can make records" you could not on a PC in garage. Now a small quiz for you. Can you go and read criterion #1 yourself? And then re-read the article? And then verify reliability/significance of sources cited? - Altenmann >t 03:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the albums since the 1970's particularly the 90;s and 2000's still no major label or making it a chart? and recording your own Vinyls was possible even then using your own gramophone. I still think there is a lack of asserted notability here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The group clearly satifies two criteria. Period. You are entitled to your opinion and I laud your dedication to it, but your conter-arguments do not "counter" mine. - Altenmann >t 04:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources already in the article include substantial articles from Estonia's two highest-circulating newspapers apparently specifically about the group. GNews contains several dozen more hits, almost all in Estonian or (occasionally) Russian - not all will be reliable and substantial (and, not knowing either language, I can't easily search through to find which are) but some are likely to be. GBooks shows references to Kukerpillid as one of Estonia's leading folk-music groups in sources spread over the last thirty years or more (though, as most of these are only visible on snippet view, it is difficult to judge how substantial they are). The article definitely needs to be improved to become more than a short introductory sentence and a list of albums, but the materials needed to do that are fairly clearly there, even if they are mostly in Estonian. PWilkinson (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the two references to central Estonian newspapers are fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh GAA Senior Leagues

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

No details about the competition here just a dump of game information Gnevin (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is an embarrassingly bad GAA article. Armagh GAA coverage in Wikipedia is gradually improving and this article is beyond redemption, someone needs to start afresh. Brocach (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Armagh GAA until sources are found. As it is a successful Gaelic football team and is the home county and league of Crossmaglen Rangers there should be plenty. --86.40.110.93 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In soccer, we only allow articles on clubs down to a certain level. Local leagues in which all the players are amateurs are generally NN. It is for a GAA taskforce to establish a boundary between the notable clubs, probably those playing at a national (here meaning all-Ireland) level and local amateur sport. My preference would be to redirect ot Armagh GAA, but I am not Irish and do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaelic Athletic Association is very much part of the fabric of Irish society, to a much greater degree than most other sports in most other countries. Every parish in Ireland has a club; the clubs compete with each other in each of the 32 counties, and onwards into provincial and national club competitions. The counties, each drawing the best players from its own clubs, compete in a national league and in provincial and national championships. It is a hugely important part of Irish life and the fact that all players are amateurs does not diminish the notability of any club or county. The role that a GAA club has within the parish is not comparable to that of a NN amateur local soccer team in England.

I am not saying that there should not be an article titled Armagh Senior Leagues. (The "GAA" is superfluous, since no-one else runs Armagh Senior Leagues.) But the present effort is just a stale list of match results and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The coverage of Armagh GAA clubs, players and competitions is gradually improving but this article in its present form should be deleted. Brocach (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brocach - this article is totally out of place here. I can accept a list of champions (and perhaps runner-up) but this seems to be just a list of results. Pmunited (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contrary (apparently) to the title, this is just a list of result from one league season, which the creator seemingly got bored of and couldn't be bothered to finish. Nuke from orbit and restart with appropriate scope/content if anyone feels like it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude. C 679 21:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Flag Institute. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ashburner

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

There seem to be major issues with this article and I suspect it may be a self-authored biography (using an alternative account), judging by the duplicate on Ashburner's Wikipedia user profile. This article is almost entirely about the activities of the Flag Institute and Ashburner's company, MrFlag (both which may have a stronger claim to notability). Citations in this article are to copies of letters uploaded to Wikipedia and (strangely) to claims of press coverage with Facebook URL's (already broken). The only online coverage I can find are brief mentions in relation to flag-related topics, but nothing significant about him. IMO this sort of WP:PUFF article is totally unwelcome on Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the article isn't even ABOUT Mr. Ashburner, and what is fails to establish notability. Don't let the large number of references fool you - as the nominator mentioned, they are mostly unreliable, broken, or both. PianoDan (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag Institute. While Mr. Ashburner doesn't appear notable enough for his own article, he is indeed the current head of the FI. Quantumobserver (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flag Institute, no notability other than in connection with this organisation.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag Institute - no obvious notability, and compromised by clear WP:COI editing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ovidiu Brazdău

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

A thoroughly promotional piece on a subject without in-depth coverage in independent sources, as a look at the footnotes will show.

Once we peer beneath the surface, we see that the impressive list of footnotes dissolves under scrutiny, and that Brazdău has scant coverage of the sort required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)I will check again the links and references for Ovidiu Brazdau's page, thanks. I will recheck also the spelling. Some comments on the links below.[reply]

A thoroughly promotional piece on a subject without in-depth coverage in independent sources, as a look at the footnotes will show. LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I will try to update the style and the descriptions, I never thought that this could look like a promotional article. My intention is just to show the facts.[reply]

Consultants' report

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a site of the CQ Institute research partner[reply]

Blog post on a public relations site

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a magazine focused on advertising, is an interview with Ovidiu Brazdau on the newly formed Romanian Indoor Advertising Association (in romanian)[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I don't see the low relevance of the links, please explain why, thank you.[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Why this reference is not relevant for the topic? Thanks.[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is one of the biggest online database with researches where Ovidiu Brazdau is included with a peer-reviewed article (published in Elsevier Social and Behavioral Sciences) on consciousnes quotient.[reply]

Press release from a public relations firm

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a blog of one of the CQ Institute research partner. Why it is not relevant? Thanks.[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This references is supporting the fact described. Why this is not ok? Thanks.[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC) One of his projects is indoor advertising. Why the above links are not relevant for this project? Thanks.[reply]

News article that makes no mention of Brazdău

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC) This is a reference for the pacients satisfaction study and Ovidiu Brazdau was the coordinator of this study. This is an article in a mainstream romanian newspaper on the study. Why it's not relevant? Thank you.[reply]

Conference minutes
Some insider newsletter
Something not mentioning Brazdău and likewise; same with this and this

Once we peer beneath the surface, we see that the impressive list of footnotes dissolves under scrutiny, and that Brazdău has scant coverage of the sort required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Please tell me which phrases are questionable and I will recheck them. Thanks.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's not notable in any way as a scientist: no papers published in any major scientific journals and no one is citing his research. Not to mention that the field which he studies is borderline pseudoscience. bogdan (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I commented on your page about the consciousness science. This is a easily verifiable matter, there a lots of scientific organizations in the field of consciousness. I referenced one article from the ScienceDirect database, the article is published in Elsevier Social and Behavioral Sciences, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. All other articles I found are in romanian.[reply]

Delete Apparently the equivalent of an assistant professor ("Lector"), most of whom are not notable. The article is indeed highly promotional. However: I can not judge the important of Rumanian scientific journals, so I am not prepared to say the ones he publishes in are not major national journals. And whether the field he works is fringe is irrelevant--and I am not persuaded that this is fringe, rather than merely incomprehensible poorly translated jargon. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LeonardoDiMarco77 (talk) I will recheck the spelling again, this is my first article and I am not a native english speaker, so any feedback would be welcomed. Thanks.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With relatively junior status and lack of heavily-cited academic publications, he does not appear to pass WP:PROF, so any notability would have to rest on WP:GNG and on the claims in the article that he is "very active in promoting psychology to the large audience". But the maze of very bad sources (some of the footnotes go to other Wikipedia articles, others to publications that do not mention the subject) make it difficult to determine whether there are any reliably-published sources that are independent of the subject and go into sufficient depth about him to pass GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan "Jetti" Blair

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

no indication of WP:notability. No significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources noq (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails to clarify how his career is significant and is also vague such as the "A-list stars" he has worked with. Honestly, this is nearly entirely promotional from mentioning his comedy talk show to his CEO position to his MTV/2 & Spike TV spots, there isn't one reliable source to support all of this. I'm having a rough time searching for sources as it seems he has different names, "Nathan Jetti Blair", "Jetti Ayo", etc. Considering how promotional this is, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a conflict of interest. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources and correct info coming, This should be under "Jetti (entertainer)" not either of the current headers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.35.171 (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep -Jetti is a well known beatboxer and artist, there are hundreds of other artists who are nowhere near his notability on wikipedia who deserve to be here less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.35.171 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Duplicate vote to above. Please note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason that this article should. noq (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I suggest adding the sources soon because this debate runs for a limited amount of time and please also make sure the sources are reliable and third-party. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability has not been demonstrated/evidenced. PK T(alk) 18:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relies on self-published and primary sources.—Baldy Bill (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found. Nothing else found that would suggest an article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 10:07, 19 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. People seem to have forgotten the spirit, rather than letter, behind the rules and guidelines that we have. The reason we have a general notability guideline in the first place is to adhere to WP:V - the idea that articles should be verifiable. The notability principle exists as a corollary of this to say that to ensure the verifiability of content, the subjects of the articles that contain that content must indicate that they can reasonably satisfy the verifiability standard by having multiple, citeable sources that can be relied on to validate added content. This is why the standard for notability is "sourcing" rather than something like relative importance: it's an objective standard that takes into account the need for verifiability.

The problem with this objective standard is that it sometimes leaves out content that really should be included. For that reason, subject-specific notability guidelines were created like WP:POLITICIAN. They exist to augment the general notability guideline by providing for cases where, while the subject may not pass the GNG at the time of the creation or deletion discussion, they held a position (or hold a position) which has substantial media attention focused on it, resulting in the creation of sources we can use that we just can't find at the time of the deletion discussion/creation (whether this is a valid approach to take, I will not comment on; not my role). But the fact of the matter is that these guidelines exist to augment the general notability guideline for subjects, not to supersede the general notability guideline. In other words, whether someone passes WP:POLITICIAN having passed WP:GNG is moot; they've passed the GNG.

People haven't really discussed the GNG, or the concept of "notability", preferring to focus on the guideline for politicians: this sort of makes it difficult to make a judgment call. We're saved from Yet Another Relist by User:Sjakkalle, who was kind enough to note that "The article is reasonably well sourced and should pass the general notability guideline" in his comments (the italicising is mine). With that argued for, and in the absence of anyone arguing that she is, regardless of secondary guidelines, not notable, it's a fairly obvious keep. In future I'd suggest people start arguing from first rather than second, third or thirty-seventh principles: WP:POLITICIAN and the other secondary guidelines were created for circumstances where people failed the GNG but held an important office. The argument being made around it here is the complete inverse of that. Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Parker

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

After checking references in news archives, does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN ManicSpider (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ManicSpider (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ManicSpider (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Barrie,_Ontario#Recreational_facilities - It seems she must have had a quiet death as this Barrie council letter is the only evidence I have found of her death and although it only briefly talks about her, it does list her terms. It seems she received a fair amount of attention while alderman and mayor with Google News archives results here, here and here (inaugural announcement as mayor). I also found links for the Centre here and here. There is a link here which is not relevant to her political career but rather attending a hockey game in Spokane, Washington. Google Books also found one result here (third from the top). SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I started adding sources to the article, but after looking at all the material I found I thought notability was an issue.- ManicSpider (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although improvement is certainly needed, Barrie is a city large enough that its mayors are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. The relative paucity of web-available sources does not disprove that, either, as Barrie Examiner content from the 1970s isn't all that likely to turn up in computerized international news retrieval databases — rather, its distribution is almost certainly limited to Canada. I'll certainly take a stab at improving this, but WP:POLITICIAN is quite clear that mayors of significantly-sized cities are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree WP:Politician says "significantly-sized cities" - it says "national, state or provincial legislature", which is a very different thing. Other politicians should have "received significant press coverage" or meet the general notability requirements. - ManicSpider (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry I can't always keep straight what's in WP:POLITICIAN vs. what's in WP:POLOUTCOMES instead — but as the latter will clarify better than the former does, AFD most certainly has established a very clear precedent in favour of keeping mayors of cities the size of Barrie. And again, your failure to find coverage of Ms. Parker in an electronic news database doesn't disprove that, as the Barrie Examiner, to name just one paper in which she's likely to have received considerable coverage, is a newspaper that isn't likely to be distributed in any news database that you can access from Australia — if a Canadian, who would obviously have access to a much wider range of Canadian publications than you do, still couldn't find coverage of her, then that might be different, but Paul Erik already found at least one citation in The Globe and Mail, the absolute gold standard newspaper of record for Canadian topics, within just five minutes of my asking for assistance, so there's clearly more coverage out there to be found if and when somebody can devote more than five minutes to the task. Wikipedia does not require its sources to be available electronically — even if someone has to dig into some oldfangled microfilms at their local reference library, that still counts as valid sourcing — and the failure of one news database to contain all possible Canadian newspapers does not mean that no valid sources exist in other locations. And at any rate, the article already contains five distinct sources, which is more than sufficient to demonstrate basic notability even if the prospect of locating additional sources were anywhere near as poor as you seem to think it is. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Barrie is large enough that multiple newspapers would have been writing about its mayor in the 1970s even if those newspapers are difficult to access. But I was able to find an article about her from The Globe and Mail which I have added just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete Barrie is large enough now at 133,000 for its mayor to be notable. In 1970, its population was 26,000; In 1976, it would not have been large enough that the mayor is notable.. Our practical cutoff seems to be at 50,000. It is only rational to go by the historical status at the time . (We will need to make adjustments for overall population growth in the world, or perhaps the country, but I don't have any immediate proposal for quantitating that. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The practice has traditionally been that if a city is large enough now that its mayors qualify as notable, then any historical mayor who can be reasonably sourced can have an article regardless of how big or small the city was at the particular time they were mayor. Even New York City and Los Angeles once had populations below 50,000 too — yet we don't apply a "population in their own era" cutoff to separate notable from non-notable mayors of those cities. Rather, as long as valid sources are present anybody who's ever been mayor of those cities is a valid article topic regardless of the city's population during their mayoral term. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything to suggest Parker was remarkable in any way, unfortunately. The 2007 column in the Barrie Advance says little, other than she was "solid". The contemporary news articles are the briefest mentions only. I appreciate the idea that elected mayors of large connurbations are likely to be notable, but WP:POLITICIAN specifically doesn't say that. Sionk (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP:POLOUTCOMES — which is every bit as binding as WP:POLITICIAN in the absence of a compelling reason to make an exception, because it's a corollary document that's meant to be read in tandem with notability rules — specifically does say exactly that. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Bearcat's analysis. Barrie is a fairly significant population centre, and the mayor of such a city is naturally the focus of some attention. The article is reasonably well sourced and should pass the general notability guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000. Courcelles 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20606 Widemann

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for astronomical objects; there has not been "significant commentary on the object". Other similar AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(20692) 1999 VX73 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18104 Mahalingam. Neelix (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which ended up with redirection and no deletion. So what's different about this "similar" case that means that redirection is not an option and the article has to be outright deleted? Uncle G (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that AfD was the appropriate avenue for recommending deletion/redirection because merger discussions suggest that there is useful content for merger. I would be glad to simply redirect in the future if that is the more appropriate procedure. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is for getting an administrator to use the deletion tool to remove a page and its entire edit history. Redirects, and even mergers (which is probably a good idea in this instance, since the "named for" information isn't in the list), can be just done. If one wants to do a mass of them for a whole load of astronomy stubs, but wants some confirmation of one's approach beforehand, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects or Wikipedia:Village Pump or even Wikipedia:Requested mergers are the places to bring the subject up for comment by other editors. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000, per WP:NASTRO. In general, I think these minor planets should be handled with a redirect FIRST, and then if the redirect is reverted, send to AfD. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For main-belt asteroids numbered above 10000, I would not object to a more generic mass re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense to me. Help on that front would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If the redirect is reverted use a talk page, or request a third opinion at the Astronomy WikiProject. AFD isn't a hammer, and everything isn't a nail. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do these is not quite clear: there seem to be multiple overlapping processes and multiple opinions about when to use them. My own take on this is that the normal editing mechanism should be used for redirects that are not expected to be controversial, but that if it is challenged and cannot be quickly resolved, bringing the article here is the most effective way to get an enforceable resolution to the question. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000 per WP:NASTRO. I mostly agree with AstroCog; we really should just redirect all of these to the lists. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daido Juku Kudo

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

This article has no sources and my search found no significant independent coverage of this martial art. Jakejr (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidlines. also WP:OR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not be in a hurry to remove the article. Before you do anything - think. I suggest first of all read the article available interwiki. What other original research question? Here, for example an article in the Russian Wikipedia -> http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE --Dobryi TiP (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually don't want to vote for deletion considering the JP Wikipedia page is written much better and this is a fast-growing authentic offshoot of Kyokushin, but asides from an RT article here [51] there simply isn't coverage in EN; there is no sourcing from independent news outlets. The RU Wikipedia page has half-dozen dead URLs and the rest redirect to commercial sites. The only reason it should not be deleted in the JP Wikipedia is because of Minoki Ichihara [52] who competed in UFC 2, and what is notable in JP internally is not necessarily notable for EN Wikipedia, so articles like Kenichi Osada [53] stay because tracking Karateka is notable in Japan through print publications and events, even if not covered by Yomiuri, Mainichi, et al. Jun Kayama 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless it has received Japanese coverage, then I don't see how it is notable. It is fast-growing, so I don't have any prejudice for recreation when it gains more coverage. Also, if there's enough independent coverage for Minoki Ichihara, then write an article about him and then Daido Juku Kudo could be a possible redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Verifiability and notability is not established only via English language sources. Please make new comments with that in mind.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search turned up a lack of independent reliable sources covering this art (regardless of language). Everything I found is from associated clubs and organizations, Facebook, youtube, etc. The English version of this article has no sources, while the Russian version lacks independent ones. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitus Tempo

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

This musician does not appear to meet the notability guidelines (see: Wikipedia:CREATIVE).

The article relies on two types of self-published work:

1) the self-published albums and social media pages of the musician (see: Wikipedia:MUSICBIO)

2) mentions of the musician by self-published music blogs (see: Wikipedia:BLOGS)

The content of the article appears to be comprised almost entirely of original research (see: Wikipedia:No_original_research).

I have researched this musician and cannot find any sources that mention this musician, other than self-published music blogs or the musicians own social media profiles (see: Wikipedia:VERIFY).

I have reviewed the article history and can find no revisions that meet the wikipedia guidelines for inclusion or suggest that this musician is notable (see: Wikipedia:GNG).

As a result of the above I suggest this article be deleted.

--64Winters (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm incredibly concerned that this user's very first actions have been solely to do with this AfD... Then again, the article itself was created by an SPA. I've found these links, I'll leave others to debunk them: [54], [55], [56], [57]. Some of these are quite short, but there we go - there are also a heck of a lot of different Blogspot sites that review/comment/announce his work, although these are obviously not reliable. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand your concern. However, a user does have to start somewhere. For me, this is the first time I have seen something that I felt I could help correct. The article in question has existed for over six months, doesn't appear to conform to the guidelines, and yet is not being amended or removed. I would love for others to contribute and look at the links you provide. From my reading of the guidelines (for example: Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, Wikipedia:BLOGS) these sources do not qualify as reliable, nor does the musician qualify as notable. --64Winters (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your point about this being your first contribution, and hope I haven't offended you in any way - but after you've been editing for a while, you get used to that sort of thing happening! I'm not very good at assessing verifiability of sources (apart from obvious ones like the BBC), as I freely admit regularly. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bandcamp artist lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Full of peackoking and name dropping but article fails to demonstrate any real notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:35, 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, KTC (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Though a few rare exceptions exist, unsigned musicians are nearly never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate that an article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initially my comment was not added to this page. Delete Textil Group but Keep Autonet Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Textil Group

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

Absolutely nothing suggests these two entities rise to the level of notability demanded by WP:CORP. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Autonet Group: it is the largest distributor of auto parts in Romania, according to Ziarul Financiar. Razvan Socol (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textil Group (I did not find any reliable independent sources about it). Razvan Socol (talk) 07:12, 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 01:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIf the revenue is only 5 milion euros for years is not a notable company.User:Lucifero4

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textil Group. existence is not the same as notability and nothing indicates that this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Omordia

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

Nothing indicates this individual might pass WP:NMUSIC. This is not in-depth coverage; this is not independent; and the word "fledgling" in this says it all. Maybe in the future, but not now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with much of this. The Birmingham Conservatoire link IS independent - a perfectly reasonable and informative piece on a forthcoming performance which lists several more prizes won by Omordia which are not listed on the Wikipedia page. The criticism of the review link is unjustified because Omordia has achieved much since that review. For example the Delius prize which she won back in 2009 is a nationwide UK competition which attracts a considerable number of entrants. It might also be noted that Omordia is one of the few living classical musicians with African heritage to be included on Wikipedia's pages. Another reason to keep this profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHOUSE68 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A venue where an artist will be performing will have a natural interest in promoting that artist, and cannot really be considered an unbiased source of information.
If the Delius Prize is indeed significant under WP:MUSICBIO point 9, an article on that competition should be written, explaining how it's notable.
Wikipedia reflects reality. If, say, 3% of notable living classical musicians are of African heritage, then approximately 3% of our articles on notable living classical musicians will be on ones with African heritage. We don't artificially inflate that number to serve an agenda. Of course, we shouldn't deflate it either, but I don't think we'd be doing that by deleting this biography. The subject seems to be on the upswing, and will probably be more clearly notable in a few years. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you will find that less than 1% of living classical musicians listed on Wikipedia have African Heritage GHOUSE68 (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the percentage on Wikipedia, and I don't know the percentage of living notable classical musicians in the real world who have African heritage. I have no reason to dispute what you say, and I used 3% as an example. The point is, our goal should be having articles on notable classical musicians regardless of race, not having articles on classical musicians of questionable notability in part because of their race. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the local coverage in the Birmingham Post, can find no toehr significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:32, 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, KTC (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately Omordia is only at the start of her music career and the Wikipedia article may be WP:TOOSOON. As a current performer with a less common name, I'd expect to find more coverage about her if she had made a major impact. I can't. Sionk (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having done my own search, I find myself in agreement with Sionk. Also agree, WP:TOOSOON. Stalwart111 10:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that this page appears to be WP:TOOSOON. The references listed for the artist's achievements are weak and are not high quality secondary sources per WP policy, but rather event and programme listings. I might even venture to say WP:NPF. Laurenlinn (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 04:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Userfy Some recognition originated in Eastern Europe so there may be reliable independent sources to establish notabilityu available in languages other than English. Allow this article to incubate for a few months to see if sources can be located or if reviews of upcoming performances generate notability per WP:MUSICBIO. GHOUSE68, please let me know if this article is sent to your sandbox so I can watch for and add sources to establish notability. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 03:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to VoiceOver. Courcelles 03:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility Inspector

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

This is a very minor piece of software used for a very specific purpose. It has not received "significant coverage" in that it is only mentioned in instruction manuals/guides rather than articles written about the software itself so does not meet the notability guideline. James086 ^Talk 19:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 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, Courcelles 01:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. Delete the article but move its (minimal) content into a related page. Andrew³²⁷ 07:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found one in-depth (about a page of material) secondary reference in the book The iOS 5 Developer's Cookbook, but that was it. Not quite enough notability for a standalone article. The utility has at least two uses: (1) VoiceOver simulation to test program accessibility and (2) to display GUI element info for use in AppleScript programming. There does seem to be enough notability to merge a subset of the article into the VoiceOver article, which is arguably the utility's most important use. Mark viking (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mark viking. This page doesn't need to stand alone. The little green pig (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skoosh

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

Dictionary definition of made-up or obscure word featuring an irrelevant history of Scottish words and some spam-like external links. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I tend to agree that Wiktionary would probably be a better place for such content, I cannot help but regret that the proposer has chosen to be rude about a Scottish linguistic topic. The word is most certainly not "made-up", and while folk outwith the country may find our linguistic patterns "obscure" or "irrelevant", we ourselves do not. Obviously. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did say "made-up" or "obscure", as I did not know which was the case. I apologize if I seemed rude; that was not my intent. However, I cannot be expected to regard the definition contributed here, which is inconsistent with the few dictionaries that actually define it,^{[see Cnilep's comment below]} as anymore creditable than a self-contributed slang word definition on Urban Dictionary. Moreover, it is a word in need of a dictionary definition—not a topic in need of an encyclopedia article. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 10:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitions of Scots words have a place on Wiktionary, but generally speaking not on Wikipedia. I can't recommend transwiki, though, since the definition given here differs from the one in Dictionar o the Scots Leid (which is odd, since it is cited as a source). Cnilep (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition in the article also differs from that on Dictionary.com. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 10:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a (dubious, at best) dictionary definition plus some unrelated padding, and no more. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 19 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. Courcelles 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing Sunday

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

Delete for failing WP:MADEUP and WP:GNG. This appears to be a made-up event without any relevant independent sources. The majority of the article is an original research quote farm about sharing in general. The single reference in the article which actually mentions "Sharing Sunday" is a Facebook page (and that has only 57 likes, for that matter.) On search, I have found no information that this is an actual notable event. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the article is not about Sharing Sunday, neither are the sources, apart from the Facebook page (which clearly isn't a valid source for Wikipedia). Fails WP:GNG through lack of any reliable coverage. Sionk (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could very well be made up, certainly not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with the respective articles on the party. Note that parts of the PAP Secretary-General article seem to be copied directly from the PAP website and probably constitute a copyvio for that reason. Those parts will not be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary-General of the Singapore PAP

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

Redundant content fork as its subject scope is covered under the political party's article. I have not seen any other political parties with such an article as well. Lionratz (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for deletion because it is a similar content fork:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following article should be considered together with the two mentioned above:

— SMUconlaw (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the new articles with the existing articles about the political parties. Also, the creator should provide references for the information in the articles. He or she hasn't provided any references for the names and periods of service of the officeholders of either party. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:15, 25 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, 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time because we are dealing with several articles in this discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the new articles as sections within the existing parties' articles.Baldy Bill (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Power_Rangers_Turbo#Turbo_Rangers. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Lynn Cruz

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

Subject clearly fails after her acting had gone after Power Rangers in Space and does not meet WP:NACTOR. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was recreated after a previous PROD deletion. The subject does not meet WP:ENT nor the more general notability guidelines for inclusion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere, possibly to Power_Rangers_Turbo#Turbo_Rangers - She was known entirely for her Power Rangers work and probably led a private and personal life afterwards. Google News searches only provided two results here and here (first result from the top) and a Google Books search also provided results relevant to the Power Rangers. We could redirect the article to any of the TV shows but Turbo Rangers was the first one. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ponyo. Nymf _{talk to me} 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power_Rangers_Turbo#Turbo_Rangers, as that was her only role of any significance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 19 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 withdrawn by nominator. — foxj 00:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polish people in Italy

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

Extraordinarily short article, A1 does not apply, and no other CSD do - referring for nomination as this is utterly useless in its current form and is not encyclopedic. Fish ^Barking? 00:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, redirect to Demographics of Italy. Fish ^Barking? 00:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Brooke Dunlop

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

Appears to be a non-notable ornithologist. Article does not claim any notability. Only sources are obituaries in The_Auk and Ibis_(journal). I could only access the former, which also showed no indication of notability. When it comes to AfD, this article seems to be a similar case to the recent Rev. Samuel Gilbert Scott article. David_FLXD (Talk) 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obituaries in The Auk and Ibis are evidence of notability and meet WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The obit indicates no notability. The key phrase is: "Another promising young ornithologist has fallen a victim to the war ... Eric Dunlop,... at the age of 30. " The obit goes on to discuss the work he was preparing, and the opportunities he had. The Auk has always included very short articles, and writing a number of them is not necessarily a scientific accomplishment. In short, what we'd call "not yet notable" To judge better, check the obita in the same pdf for the others: (1) Edward Pearson Ramsey, Director of a National Museum, Honorary Ll.D, founder Linnean Society of NSW, described as "The leading ornithologist in Australia." (2) Emil August Goeldi, Directorship of a museum that became so important it was renamed after him, publisher of multiple volumes, discoverer of the mosquito carrier of Yellow Fever, Prof of Zoology at Bern.

Those are notable ornithologists. This is why we differentiate between routine and substantial obits. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG above. This deletion is contentious because it at the surface appears to have a valid notable obit, but upon deeper examination does not reveal any especial notability. -T.I.M^(Contact) 03:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree that the obit looks like it makes him notable at first glance, but when you look deeper at it there's not really that much there from a notability standpoint. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:53, 19 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.