Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 June	3 June >

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Press (magazine)

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

Non-notable magazine. Article does not include multiple, reliable and secondary sources to establish notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An AfD was already proposed by this nominator for the editor, Vinod Jose, of this Malayalam-language magazine. At the time of its publication, he was the youngest founder of such a magazine and it included a widely reprinted 2006 interview with Afzal Guru. That said, the article does need work, but the WP:Heymann effort is currently focused on Jose's main article.Crtew (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a good reason to "keep" this Malayalam-language, investigative journalism publication rather than just "merge" it with Vinod K. Jose. It includes this notability statement, "Free Press was the first publication to have initiated the concept of Citizen Journalism in Kerala." It also has a long list of noteworthy investigations. And the publication figures in the article are large enough to show that it was not a fly by night operation. I'll be adding more sources, but it would help if somebody who knows Malayalam can search as that was the key language of its important work. Like other Malayalam journalists and publications, it's at a disadvantage in AfD as Google (Google advanced search doesn't include Malayalam) and other search tools, don't retrieve articles in that language.Crtew (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following article gives useful leads but if somebody can help locate the original publication source (possibly The Meantime), then it can be properly used: "For A Free Press" Counter Currents (July 20, 2005), which is about Vinod K. Jose's early career while he was with Free Press and before The Caravan.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed with Crtew, pointless nomination. Fai zan 07:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy journalism periodical publication. — Cirt (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 12:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please make policy-based rationales for deleting the article; discussions of actions on other wikis are not very relevant to its existence on the English Wikipedia. This debate was relisted to allow for more policy-based discussion to occur. L Faraone 12:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was a noteworthy publication for its publication of a widely reprinted and translated article, investigative journalism in India, early citizen journalism, and the personnel associated with it, as well as a Malayalam publication. Fresh sources were added. Crtew (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It made a major impact and its censorship came as a result of its citizen journalism success. While it may not have a lot of English sources, I'm sure plenty exist and that those too may be difficult to find as a result, but it is a notable subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maniak (2008)

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

Non-notable short film. Little to no third-party coverage. The director's main article and 2013 short film have already been nominated for deletion. jonkerz ♠talk 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 12:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The film's producer was spamming these films and the director across Wikipedia until they were blocked for a username violation. This article lacks available reliable sources and fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 12:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any notability-establishing media trace, either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is billed as an 18-minute film and next to nothing can be found in an internet search. It takes a lot to make such a short film notable and this film fails to prove any notability. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NF. other articles aside, this film exists, was screened, but in searches for it and its creator I find it has no coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass GNG or N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April and its parent Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography

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

This is not encyclopaedic content, but a bibliography on extremely obscure subject, which seems very much original research. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC) WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE collection of non-information. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles."

Source: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_articles

Inclusion criteria for wp are met.

Resource is migrated from wikisource: Wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Fibrosis_and_related_Concepts_in_Organ_Diseases.2C_Tumor_Biology_and_Regenerative_Medicine_selected_bibliography_2013_April

--Ossip Groth (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact it's not Wikisource content doesn't make it Wikipedia content. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has a strong intrinsic logic, but it is not content-related.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedia material. The scope and the search terms are arbitrary, as is the period. This is useless for WP purposes. I also have to wonder whether the author, who is advocating for keeping own article here, is just fishing for publications by assigning an ISBN number to a database dump. Finally, as a search of a single database this looks scarily like a path to WP:COPYVIO.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and search terms are arbitrary The author's work is to decide what the bibliography should cover, and the search terms are not arbitrary, they are those which the author used to run the search. The period is monthly, if one looks exactly, it is the actual possible month to be published on may 31th. It is not a database dump - the dump has 5200, the personally filtered load is 0965. So, there is no copyright violation; Abstracts are not included - this could be cv.

This category contains for example these items, which have a similarity to this one because they are subjective bibliographies:

Bibliography of ecology

List of important publications in chemistry

List_of_important_publications_in_computer_science

List_of_important_publications_in_medicine - even this survived.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but with regards to this sort of thing, that you mention, "Wikipedia articles on list of important publications in this sort of thing" contain a list of publicatios which themselves have or at least have potential to have Wikipedia articles on them. Also, "chemistry", "computer science" and "medicine" are all very broad subjects. This is just a list of papers that don't have Wikipedia articles or apparently any potential, and on a very obscure subject area, "Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine" which itself is redlinked. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS if this is the output for April 2013, I'm not sure I can wait for the episodes for May and June. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not encyclopedic content. There are criteria for lists and this does not meet them; for example, entries in this list are not important/notable based on secondary sources. -- Scray (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Scary, nice to see you. This is a list of papers which entered pubmed in april 2013, most of which is primary scientific work, of course, scientific work is not important/notable per se. And tell me, how should 6-week-old papers get mentioned in the secondary literature unless someone put them on twitter, or into the news media, cell for example...

personal attack redacted per original editor's intent expressed below

--Ossip Groth (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you redact that personal attack on Barney. -- Scray (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did so but got edit conflict.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done the redaction for you, as you suggest you intended. -- Scray (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So now we have it from Ossip Groth that the pieces on this list are not notable. So what we have is a list of non-notable items whose notability cannot be established by this same logic.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- This is basically the output of a pubmed search, and that doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. I question how useful this would be on Wikipedia. Anyone who might benefit from this article would already know how to perform this search themselves and would not search here for such specialized content anyway, they would go to pubmed surely. I would also comment that comparison with other articles like "list of important publications in so and so" could be argued to be invalid since these articles contain "important publications", and this just seems to be raw output of a search. Lesion (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would add that the layout is poor and makes no attempt to follow MOS guidelines. The wording of the content that isn't the search items themselves is odd..."The search has been run with the author's application at http://www.kidney.de" (self promotion?), "Resource migrated from wikisource, is as encyclopedic as the other lists of the choosen category (see below)" (this comment would have been better placed on the talkpage, it is not encyclopedic). I am left with a strong feeling of possible OR and WP:COI (the content seems to be promotion of "the author" and the program used). Ossip Groth, please have a glance at especially the second policy if you were already not aware of it. Lesion (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) It is 965/5200 of the output. On a 12 months perspective, it shriks-off 50.000 citations. The humanized result is interdisciplinary and contains some ischemia-reperfusion stuff as well, so it gives good ideas form the nephrology point of view. It is no raw output, sure, output is not tagged (no problem by my software which runs other things) to more nephrology, more oncology, more tgf beta, not concept-related but retrieved in search because of the wide overlap.
b) the layout is designed to give a readable list of citations since standard wp style is totally unreadable (it does not differ from standard citation styles but it is unreadable). Any changes wanted make a 20 min edit in my visual basic program (data not shown) and a run of 5 min until upped. Some hint on the methods used (who would run a 5000 item search on ncbi pubmed, and copypaste or by what means ever 1000 citations ??????) is good scientific practice. The stupid line resource migrated from... went into the text after del.
c) since the original version is published in print (so first, anchored to wsource) and this mirrored version is a gift to mankind all data which are in the official book are reflected here.
d) if someone comes to the opinion that i promote own work i could argue that this bibliography promotes the work of 965 groups.
e) it is somewhat more intelligent to write by ip via proxy from somewhat-more abroad than i am located or by a bunch of dissociated personalities than to write under free-name, but there is no regulation that the latter should not be allowed.
f) if anybody is concerned with the question how one could improve things in an environment which is non-supporting at all, he or she too, would spend the 20$€ for the 2.5 GB with full traffic and get things running.
g) I will slightly cut the article to its contents, others dont say from which shoeboxes and usbs they scratched their references.

seconds. --Ossip Groth (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between e.g. List_of_important_publications_in_medicine and this article is that the former is much shorter, and seems to be populated with landmark papers or works by historically important people. By what method has the search been reduced from 5200 to 965? From your explanation above, I think you have hand-searched through the hits that were generated from the initial search to select what you consider important. Is that OR? And these are from April 2013...are you intending to make more of these articles or is this a one-off project? I note that this content was proposed for deletion on wikisource...is this your main motivation for creating this wikipedia article? I also note that you previously created pages on wikipedia about some of the programs or projects you are involved in/created, and that some of these have been deleted (e.g. Metatextbook of medicine). Is this article an attempt for you to advertise your program after those articles were deleted? I ask these Qs because I am honestly confused about why you put this content on wikipedia, what purpose is it supposed to have? Besides a gift to all mankind (call me ungrateful). We are here to write an encyclopedia...and this content just seems out of place, even alongside other pages in Category:Lists_of_publications_in_science. Lesion (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2013 issue is parsed at item 3000/4200 and it will be ready tomorrow. One article says, Cimetidine inhibits Myeloid derived dendritic cells, another, a peptide from Osteopontin shrinks Oxalosis calcifications. It is useless to succumb the stuff on amazing, WP is a resource where people are expected to seek for information contained in bibliographies like that Epithelial–mesenchymal_transition has been viewed 7477 times in the last 30 days.. Theres no problem into upping a set of pdfs or better-operating htmls on external servers. The motivation to make a List article defaulted from wsource. A 1000-items bibliography is not expected to get people googling around what the author generally does. It is a nice thing to get something accepted.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I take Ossip Groth's last point, "It is a nice thing to get something accepted", to confirm that s/he thinks of WP articles as refereed publications for which s/he can gain professional or personal rewards. This is consistent with the assignment of an ISBN number to a WP article, which would also allow commercial gain (though the author does not claim such intent at this time). But perhaps I am being too harsh, and lack of clarity is the issue.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an encyclopedia. There is already a thing called "Google Scholar" to serve the purpose of this article. Solomon7968 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits. Not to suggest that some of these papers might not end up in articles as sources, of course - but we neither need nor want a bibliography to contain them. And, at 965 entries, this list is bloated to the point of uselessness. I concur that it is nice to get something accepted - but that has emphatically not happened here, nor is there any personal glory or credit if it were accepted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the ISBN and the reference to "the author" Ossip Groth has been happy to remove, so this comment is retrospective. If I assume good faith, maybe s/he just pasted the article straight from wikisource, where perhaps reference to an author and an ISBN might have been more appropriate (I don't know, I don't use wikisource much), but in addition to Truth or Consequences' comment above about the ISBN, I am fairly sure we should never refer to the editor who has written the wikipedia article in the article space itself. Wikipedia articles do not conceptually have a single author with copyrights and intellectual rights over the content, even if only one editor has written the page, and then no further editors ever edit after this-- which is an unlikely scenario. As soon as you click "save page" the content is no longer yours- you have waived all rights to it and it is CC-BY-SA or whatever. Read this, it's written right below the save page button for legal reasons. Lesion (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General review of the discussion and proposal of a namespace bib:

- There is essential no-one who supports the basic idea to have some special supplemental oligotopic bibliography which could be related to some 50 wikipedia articles with topic overlap. If we subtract the useless comments concerning self-representative work, cross-site linking, sensitivity-specificity characteristics of the example bibliography, and some emotional expressions which result from other discussions, the following valid arguments could be extracted:

Non-encyclopedic (at least 3 times)
Users would run PubMed searches on-their own
we neither need nor want a bibliography(...)

Correct me if I should lie wrong, but the essence of the critique is very, very weak. A bibliographic supplemental material which is linkable to other wiki articles is per definition non-encyclopedic and, as shown in my first post, WP wants bibliographis: :'A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles. The bibliography contains a description of search terms used and time-range applied so users get inspired to make some use of them. We do not want... The problem in democracy and in the application of democratic methods lies in the fact of representativeness; whereas many discussants are in medical topics, no-one goes into the concrete theme and discusses the roc of the one bibliography. So, the basic field is not represented, most are wp-editors familial with deciding where wp ends and where anarchy starts. (My undedited wp got 1GB spam until I flagged localsettings.php by-invitation only). Standard wikipedia readers would not invest their time into discussions like this because 95% of similar discussions concern single off-topic subjects like 30-bed hospitals on the moon, not landmark topics like this which reflects the technical vs. social property of wikipedia to get enhanced in a way it did not develop by itself until now, and it is the basic question if it is reasonable to stop a landmark complementation by these poor arguments supplied even by the interested community just by counting pros minus cons and dividing by pros which gives not resistive index, not 100% but infinity. There is no one who discusses the implication of enabling bibliographies which are more than 1:1 content matches of a wp article and would find their place in the read.more section- what to do with stubs, with more personal bibliographies (all i needed for my thesis on xyz including Laemmli 1970), how to rate items (selected by title... my loved-one... outstanding reference, cited 2400 times), how to understrike validity and how to decribe lack of coverage. No-one discusses what other people did and where those solutions reach their methodological limits, e.g. example mendely-group, which gives the possibility to construct topical usergroups with a collective on-topic paper collection, which is a nice and compatible idea and the unscientific bias that papers have to be available as pdf documents, and a collection limit of 2gb which means 10k items per user (importing one is at about 2min...), if 28.5MB-long PDFs are excluded, not to say my metatextbook collection of 14k topics which I do not think to list anywhere but on my server: Content-stability is one argument, being too stupid to program a working bot in a language i understand is the other more-appropriate one. And running bulk edits on that scale with monthly updates is somewhat impractical.

Which solutions could be proposed to enhance wp by including multi-topic bibliographies ? As with other ressources (like wikipathways.org), a dedicated site could setup. wikigraphy.org is gone, wikigraphy.de is mine since three days :))) so the brand is secured. Indeed, a dedicated namespace bib:bla_bla_bla would suffice to create things like that. A set of regulations should be applied, e.g. using a companion page of those citations which were disselected by editing users, which would maintain content-stability without disenabling content-restructuring and content-addition. --Ossip Groth (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT#HOST. Groth seems to be using us as if we were one of those websites where you can "publish" anything you want and claim you're a published author, scientist, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - it seems to be snowing here, even in June. Weakness or not in our logical arguments, we have not wanted such stuff here. We almost always delete such lists. Continuing to argue amounts to trolling, and borders on academic dishonesty. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at this point in proceedings I added Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography to this discussion, which is apparently the parent article for this series of articles (looking forward to Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 May...), as the content/aims are basically the same. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no justification whatever for this type of page.Deb (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ossip, respectfully, your arguments might be better understood if you phrased them more plainly with less jargon. Although I questioned before whether this was OR, but now I don't think it is OR in the normal sense of the term. Also, I would add that the quotation from the MOS/lists "A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles" cannot really be used to support your claim that "Wikipedia wants bibliographies". If you look at the context, and the page Wikipedia:Summary_style#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links which is linked from this quote in the source, this refers directly to having a bibliography serve as a further reading section for a large parent article. I.e. a large topic can have nested sub-articles for each section, and a separate bibliography. This helps to reduce the size of the parent article, and people who are after greater detail can get that too by going to the nested articles. Taking into account simple English versions of articles too, in this respect Wikipedia is offering multiple layers of service to its readers. Those after a short basic page, those after a general overview, and those with specific interest a narrow topic and wishes to carry out further reading and research, all these are catered for and the system works well. However, this page is "oligotopical". What pages would link to it for further reading? Maybe it would be better to have separate lists for fibrosis related publications, Tumor biology publications etc. Also, I think it would be good to not restrict these lists to a single month, and try and enter only notable papers, landmark works etc. Hope that is helpful advice. Lesion (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to build the companion/parent page because 2 volumes gave a template-overusage-error. To avoid sla-ing it, I generated a small intro text referenced by some of my on-topic reviews.
The typical argument to circumvent the requirement of such a multitopic bibliography is to slice it down to about its major topics as exemplified in the what-it-is-box and to add it to the respective +-10 wikipedia articles. The things covered (excemption: MDSC, Exosomes, therapeutic collagen-crosslinking) are so interrelated to justify lumping them together. A fine thing from the Mai List I read today says:

1) Pancreatic cancer cells are hypoxic
2) They make HIF1 alpha in reaction to this
3) HIF1 alpha +transcribes sonic hedgehog
4) sonic hedgehog activated patched1 in stromal fibroblasts but not in cancer cells
5) pathched1 +transcribes Snail
6) Snail makes the whole program of EpithelioMT
7) EpithelioMT makes Collagen and Fibrosis
8) Fibrosis makes Vessels go away
9) No vessels make Tumors hypoxic
10) This circle goes around with resulting desmoplasia.
11) The only question is how the metastasis should get out of its cocoon.

Notwithstanding the fact that I forgot to cover shh and I even did not touch the Angiogenesis/Hypoxia-Chapter because it is really a different one (I thought...), the question is, to many topics should this one paper be tagged. Once upon a time, systems Biology was called Physiology, and the fine integrative thinking of complex systems running went into (A) ->makes (b) with -> (C) into some matrix with 20k genes 10epigenetic concepts, 10location concepts and so on.

Of course I have developed the romantic idea to collect the finest - new&old - references from the nephrology textbooks (I have bought MASSES of them) and to make some leading people around contributing their most famous references. This task has to be done systematically elseline until a critical mass has been accumulated to be mirrored-up. One needs a running system to get printed references into tagged pmids (have :)), then, about 1000 wiki-articles could be enhanced by strongly nephrology-related concepts. After apperance of a presentable working system, contributors have to be caught actively.

back-to-the-topic, on the one hands site, items are selected by-title only and location in the list is random. Users are encouraged to scroll-up the most interesting items after having read the papers. By revision to the cite-pmid template, I filled the name parameter with the title of the paper. Searching among the 965 goes by web browser function. Monthly split is justifyable by its streaming genesis (bad idea for a 5 per month bibliography) but it is techn. necessary because of template-usage-overrun-error. This happened as i wanted to merge the may collection into the april one. A companion users-favourites section with the top 50 of 965 could be added to the parent-article. Going through the may-list, I have 120 of 320 as want-haves entered into my system which usb's 1200 items/12hr library time. 400 want-haves per month is hard to cope with, indeed. Sometimes one forgets that a retina is nothing but a bonyfish's eye. And there are some more topics than this one of personal interest. The systematic time-lag to decide on a pdf document base to rate a paper as outstanding is 2 months unless one does nothing else. I do not think that I should shrink the monthly items to the most-appropriate ones and keep the rest away from the community. Both is needed, the top50 and those items with more-specific contents.

It is a possible solution to put the monthly-full-lists into userspace to encourage readers to copypaste selected items into the parent list in wikispace. But this depends on the acceptance of the oligotopic collection - which could have subheadings, of about 500 items/year. This would make a use-able resource with lower sensitivity but lower redundancy.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that multi-topic bibliographies are relevant because many concepts combine multiple areas? So a multi-topic bibliography could be multi-purpose, acting as the further reading nested article form many related articles. The only problem I can see with this is that, as the multiple function capability of the bibliography increases, its direct relevance to any individual wikipedia page decreases. Using your example above, if we had a Wikipedia page devoted to this particular topic, then a bibliography containing relevant material to each of the involved topics might be argued to be appropriate. But, Wikipedia doesn't really have articles like this. Remember there is generally a lag before scientific breakthroughs become "notable" enough for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, mainly due to the restriction on primary sources.
Regarding the monthly thing, is this in fact a new type of bibliography on Wikipedia? All the other science/medicine lists don't seem to do this, but I've only looked at their titles. I doubt there is any policy relating to this issue. On the one hand, there could be a comprehensive bibliography, which 1000s of items, which would be good for researchers (even though as argued above it is likely that they will not think to come to wikipedia for this service) but would put most other people off. They wouldn't know where to start in such a further reading section. On the other hand, we have a much more selective bibliography. I honestly think "less is more" is a good practice when making such a list, and 50 is a good, approachable number. Lesion (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to split the primary list somewhat by topic by copypasting. Works but I can do better. Will drive the dataset through my tagging program to see what it generates tomorrow. Things will be visible in about 12 hrs, its 01:38 met now... 965 is a beauty task to read.through. The idea of running a primary multitopic search is ok, it reduces the task from 15000 items to 5000. This does not mean that it is superb not to tag&split after selection-by-title.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Started tagging at 30/965 items by topic: Actually shown is a proof-of-concept tagged bibliography collection of 30 of 965 items. Rest will follow.Old own-style collection is gone, all 965 are inside wikitext without references template call. Complete task will take some time because i m addicted to read the abstracts. Bigger convolutes will goto the appropriate wp articles. Revisit original page to see changes.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- I think since the number of items in the list is being significantly reduced, the unencyclopedic content (ISBN, references to an author etc) have been removed, and finally if Wikipedia articles can be found for this bibliography to act as a relevant further reading section, then it is OK with me to keep. I would encourage you to drop the monthly thing though, and just have a single list. Considering the amount of work needed, temporary userfy might be appropriate. Lesion (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever this is, it is not currently a viable Wikipedia article. It has annotations of the text within the text and what appears to be coding remnants. This could be userfied if the user wants to work on it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the user doesn't want to userify and address the concerns. It serves no valid purpose as it stands right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational design

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

Poorly sourced, very short article about a (proprietary?) design theory that is currently in development. I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:MADEUP. - Mr X 11:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 11:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, and only seems to be mentioned on the website listed in the article, which is non-notable per WP:WEB. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet N or GNG, stub is too small to be of use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sajid Nadiadwala. SarahStierch (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kick (2014 film)

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

Not slated until 2014 - non-notable as per anything provided in the description. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. The mere existence or future existence of a film does not satisfy WP:NFILM - even if there are "big names" slated to be in it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge to director Sajid Nadiadwala. While WP:NFF tells us it is TOO SOON for this article, policy tell us that when we do have a future film topic written about in multiple independent sources, it is allowable that it can be spoken of somewhere. In this case the best place to write of his plans is in the director's article until it is finally completed and passes WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon indeed, I've seen many a film 'dated' to come out, but never do so. Until it releases or has enough information to ensure it will, this should not be in mainspace. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to director's page per MS. Tolly 4 bolly 08:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:INeverCry under WP:G3, Blatant hoax Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Payamonster

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC). It also seems that JackSteins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), ArturoRomeroCruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) WikiVerifierEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are all singly concerned with removing the AFD template. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly sourced non-notable neologism. - Mr X 11:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 11:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit long for WP:NOTDICTIONARY, but still WP:MADEUPONEDAY. No suitable referencing given or found. Peridon (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: There's no valid, solid reason for deletion. Not much sources to link this to. No reader could give any evidence that the contents on this article don't exist. Tell me which part needs to be improved and I will do it. No one has the right to request for an article to be deleted just based on what they think is right or wrong. If any of the codes that I used is wrong, let me know. This article is not fiction, so unless someone provides a proof that questions the authenticity of this article, this article should not be deleted.

JohnDenverWilson (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's the wrong way round. If you can give evidence in reliable independent sources that it is notable, then we'll reconsider. If you can't, we take it that it is either not notable, or is a hoax. We don't have to prove it doesn't exist. You have to prove that it does. Look at it this way - I say I've got a goat that can do algebra. Do you have to prove I don't? Or should I have to prove I do? Peridon (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OSMI

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

Just a definition. Acronym Finder states it "appears vary rarely". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable definition. No coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a reference. E-pen (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A definition alone is not enough for Wikipedia inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men in This Town

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

Song has not been released as a single and is not an exceptionally prominent song from the album. It is mentioned that the song was a worldwide hit in the article but that is not sourced. Already, Shakira articles are not faring well and more unnecessary articles will not help. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no critical reviews, no charts, it seems to fail notability for songs. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet N, merge what can and combine for better coverage and scope of the existing articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure. There's may be no reviews on the song itself, but there has to be at least some critical responses in reviews of the album. Also, there's no way that the song could have it's own article if only chart information of the song was found. According to WP:NSONG, the song is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." Sure the album reviews will do, and the background and recording sections, and the composition info already here, will do. EditorE (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, then the topic She Wolf Shakira Album would be composed of She Wolf (song), Did it Again (song), Give It Up To Me and Gypsy, all of which are singles, and then suddenly there's Men In This Town, which is just a non-single track. Readers may question the fact that why weren't all the other non singles included there, and just a song which is not even notable and didn't even chart anywhere? The article is unnecessary and is of no need. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the song was going to be a single, and there's a lot of info here why it wasn't. Other non-singles would not have this info, so I don't find it unnecessary this article be here. EditorE (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not delete, then I suggest a merge. The article can easily be merged into She Wolf (Shakira Album) and all the speculation that the song was to be released as a single can be included there.. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could use some more work, but the content already on the article satisfies WP:NSONG to me. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONG. This could be covered in the album's article. — Diva Knockouts 00:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure that's untrue. In fact, look at the article More than This (One Direction song), and notice that the song had no reviews, but still have critical reception in reviews of the album the song was in. Sure the same can be done here. Also, a lot of background info and composition info is pretty good for the article to be on it's own. EditorE (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"More Than This" charted in international countries, "Men In This Town" hasn't. It doesn't have any independent reviews. I see only one reference that is about this song only from Billboard. The rest are about Shakira or the album, thus all this information can be covered in the album's article. — Diva Knockouts 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with what has been said on the deletionist front. At face value, this article looks legit and well sourced, indeed it looks professional to say the least. But the reality is that no other songs from the album get the same attention, except the other four singles obviously. It would appear that this article has been written to reflect ones infatuation for this particular song, however Wikipedia should have a balanced projection and not give undue importance to select songs. Agendapedia (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TobyMac. SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Diverse City Band

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG Koala15 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 26. Snotbot t • c » 02:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tobyMac. The band doesn't appear notable on its own. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TobyMac, not notable on its own. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus here is that this young actor's coverage pushes at WP:GNG, his awards and nominations meet ANYBIO, and his body of work meets WP:ACTOR. My suggestion here is that the article be further improved to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Trischitta

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

Non-notable minor actor lacking Ghtis and GNEWS of substance. Article references resemble PR blurbs, line mentions, or are unrelated to actor. Individual has won and been nominated for a minor award, but not sure if it is substantial enough for recognition. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. reddogsix (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - Slight lean towards keep. Combine these [1][2][3] with the sources in the article and that award he won and it may push Trischitta past the GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won an award, has over a hundred episodes as credit and with sources may meet GNG. Erring on the side of caution in this case for the bar. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per LM2000's findings, meets GNG. 86.153.72.187 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Hobbes

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 26. Snotbot t • c » 02:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient track record for WP:ARTIST. A look at past venues suggests a tavern, a bar, a theater... No substantive online review either. Fails WP:GNG in terms of overall visibility too.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass ARTIST or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No input since the second relist. Michig (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I Can Say

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

Non-notable album from a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 08:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 09:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Crowder Band or create discography as mentioned in the other AFD. Album does not meet standalone requirements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in film

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

It is simply too soon for this article BOVINEBOY2008 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ - yeah... maybe... on the fence a bit with this one. Sure, it's probably too early, but there are a couple of things there and we're going to get more and more announcements of things due for release in 2018. I just wonder if it's worth deleting it now, only to recreate it in a couple of months time. 2-3 more announcements would probably do it. If anyone wants to baby-sit this and keep it updated until it's "ready" for main article space, I wouldn't strongly object to that. Stalwart111 07:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything is untitled, not sure if ComingSoon.net is a reliable source or not either (not familar with the site). 2017 in film isn't much better either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume ComingSoon.net is a reliable source, since it seems to be the most common one used to provide references for films on the years in film articles. Alphius (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is hammer time. WP:Too soon and WP:CRYSTALBALL also apply....William 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I created this article because I saw that the dates had been announced, and because I had seen other "untitled" films listed on years in film articles before. There is some information here that seems like it would be reasonable to keep, since it does say which studios are involved and what the release dates for the films are. I'm not sure on any specific examples, but I'm pretty sure there have been similar entries kept on years in film articles in the past, though there are usually other titled entries as well (as in the 2017 in film article). This article provides a space that could easily be updated when more information has been released (which seems likely to happen at least relatively soon). It seems like only a matter of time before more films will be announced for this year, and these films will be titled. Likewise, the dates can be updated if they happen to change (but for now, they are still official). However, if the information in this article is not considered to be strong enough to warrant its own article, I guess it can be deleted. If the article is deleted, I still think it would be a good idea to save the information in it somewhere. Alphius (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this seems like it could be part of the reason that years this far in the future had used to be contained in one article, such as "2015 and beyond in film" or something. If it still worked that way (which it apparently doesn't, anymore), then this information would probably be able to stay on that article for sure. Alphius (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no real benefit to looking this far ahead on future releases and this page doesn't tell you anything about the films. Praemonitus (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without specifics, it's pretty useless. Although I am looking forward to seeing Untitled Disney Animation 3D and Untitled Disney Animation 3D with my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts. Five years in the future? Come on. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a couple of things I found in seemingly reliable sources. The fact that I could find more was enough to tip me to the other side of the fine line - from weak delete to weak keep - and I've changed my note above. 5 years is a long way into the future, but obviously large film studios plan multi-million-dollar projects that far in advance. Plenty of other industries do. Stalwart111 07:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Vladmir Putin ordering the government to make a film is one thing; whether the government will actually make said film is another. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fair, though I'm sure there's a horrible story about the last guy who refused to make a movie for Putin! No, you're right, of course, but the article is about 2018 in film, not Films guaranteed to be released in 2018. We could likely say the same about many of the entries at 2014 in film, and certainly about some of the other 2018 entries. Stalwart111 06:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, judging from this, the article could be a borderline hoax. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I WP:NAC'd that one. I'm pretty sure it was a list of fake stuff with no references and was created to make a point, as opposed to this which has actual references, though they may not have a lot of detail. Stalwart111 09:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with this? I've never created a hoax article, and I simply wouldn't do so. Just look up "Disney 2018" on Google and you can find a lot more sources if you want. Alphius (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way too soon. Five years is too much time given the average production cycle of works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call out Stanley Burrell for this one (Delete per WP:HAMMER). Eauhomme (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stott Pilates

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

They may actually be notable, but this is essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The advertising mess can be fixed by axing it, but the company itself has many small mentions and interviews which pushes towards GNG. Salvageable articles should not be deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "small mentions" and interviews that amount to PR are the sort of references that do not meet substantial independent coverage. There is a time a few years back when I would have defended articles like these, but I now think that based on keeping true to the purpose of an encyclopedia, the combination of borderline references & promotionalism is a reason for rejection. I no longer thing articles worth rewriting unless the notability is more than borderline--there is simply too much promotionalism being submitted, and rejection, not rewriting, is the way to discourage it. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination provides no specific examples, contrary to WP:VAGUEWAVE, and so there is essentially no case to answer. Without specific criticisms, it would be difficult to rewrite, especially if this draft were no longer available for inspection. The main thing that strikes me when I read the article is that it doesn't explain the origin of the name Stott. Warden (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see Stott Pilates as simply a brand (a notable brand) of the parent corporation, in the same way that, for a few examples inside and outside the fitness industries, Jeep, Lexus, Acura, Sprite, Simply Orange, Fanta, Bally Total Fitness, and Bally Technologies are brands of their respective companies. Yes, the marketing-speak needs to be removed, but, in the Pilates 'industry,' Stott Pilates is one of the "giants," as noted by at least one trade publication: IDEA World Fitness Convention Includes MindBody Crowd, "Industry giant Merrithew Health & Fitness...", Teresa Bergen, Yogi Times, 2012. In the same way as there are the 'big three' auto manufacturers in the U.S., there are only about a single handful of Pilates methods and manufacturers in the world, and Stott Pilates is one of them. I'd be happy to take a stab at reworking the text into a neutral format, but I'd appreciate comments when I try. Trevor Jacques (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Swallow

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

Lacks notability and appears to be an advertisement or resume. References include promotional websites. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still looking ... but ... I found out in an initial search that this guy already would have a good DYK! Apparently, Mark E. Smith of the The Fall (band) included Swallow's name in the lyrics of "A Lot in a Name" appearing on his solo Post Nearly Man album (1998). How's that for AfD trivia? Crtew (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize my earlier search: You CAN find sources about Swallow. However, there are a few caveats to the typical "Google search". He has a common name and so you would need to qualify his name with other relevant search terms, such as "presenter" or "Anglia". He did his TV work in the era of the late 1980s and 1990s, which is largely unrecorded by the Internet, and he was a regional TV presenter from the UK. He has also been involved in several TV production companies, such as East Films and One London Media. So you can find sources about him, but I'm not sure what the statement of notability would be. Has anybody from the UK heard of him? Crtew (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is hard for producers, but I don't see any awards or recognition to meet GNG or N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While adequate sourcing exists on this person, it doesn't add up to meet WP:ANYBIO guidelines. Crtew (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 uni-ball. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gel Mechanical Pencil

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

Article appears to be an advertisement and no notability can be found either in the article or references. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the company, uniball. it's just one of their brands. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uni-ball. Just one of thousands of unremarkable products, which certainly does not have sufficient notability to justify its own article. --DAJF (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems apt in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barnes & Noble#Publishing. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes & Noble Classics Collection

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

Article strikes me as a complete violation of WP:NOTDIR: this is a directory. I see no point to this at all--whatever text there is can't even verifiably establish that the series as a whole has any kind of notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barnes_&_Noble#Publishing. Other than a very brief mention in the main article's publishing section, there's no need for an article detailing each and every book that B&N releases in the Classics Collection. There's no real coverage of this publishing line. Sometimes there are brief mentions, but nothing so-indepth that it would mark it as exceptional. Might be a valid enough redirect, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, does not meet N on its own. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

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

This appears to be more or less an attempt to gain free advertising or publicity. I don't see any notability in the article or the references. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom says that they don't see any notability in the article or the references, but it only took me a few minutes to find these reliable sources:

List of reliable sources

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was kept at AfD a little over a month ago under a slightly different title. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge and redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_parodies#Untitled_Web_Series_About_A_Space_Traveler_Who_Can_Also_Travel_Through_Time_.282012-ongoing.29. I can certainly understand Ad Orientem's concerns, as most of the sources I found mention the series' initial legal issues and its launch. There isn't much coverage in reliable sources as far as reviews go. There are tons of blog hits, but few that could probably begin to be considered a RS. However there is just enough here to where it just scrapes by on notability standards, although I also think that this could be relatively well summed up in the page for the Doctor Who parodies. It does certainly merit a mention somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, considering that this was just up for AfD, this is probably a bit too soon to re-nominate. Since I just edited the article and voted, I'm not sure if I could close this off or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that this had so recently been debated on AfD. Although I still don't like it, I will withdraw my AfD nomination or change my position to a very WEAK KEEP solely out of deference to the recent adjudication while respectfully disagreeing with the decision. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it happens. I've opened up AfDs before where I found that the article was at AfD and kept not a month prior. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn, no other support; non-admin closure). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peretz P. Friedmann

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

Lacks notability and any references. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes at least WP:Prof#1, WP:Prof#5, andWP:Prof#8. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and stubbify. Clear pass of multiple WP:PROF criteria: #C5 (named chair at major research university), #C8 (editor-in-chief of AIAA J. as well as another more specialized journal). The article as nominated is speedy deletable as a copyvio of his web page at UMich but I have stubbed it down to something that doesn't have that problem.
Keep. Per Xxanthippe. Finnegas (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Papers' impact is not impressive, but fulfills leadership and award criteria.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Tyros1972 Talk 10:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per named professorship and editorship. Now who wants to write a real biography? Carrite (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AfD After reading the guidelines more carefully I concur with the above comments and withdraw my AfD nom. Apologies for not looking more closely at this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy and helpfulness. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I will interview the professor and get a team together and try to write a better article.Plcoopr (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but please look for reliable sources (that is, stuff published about him by other people) rather than trying to generate your own sources from an interview. That's not usually considered to be of adequate verifiability, especially given the extra care needed in a biography of a living person. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenddo

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

Lacks notability and appears to be an advertisement. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly factual and not an advertisement. Weak keep only because I am not satisfied that the awards are sufficient for notability, "startup" and "most innovative" can sometimes mean, "promising, but not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's assessment. Many hits at Google [4] for cites. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamino

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

Fails WP:GNG. No out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's obviously plenty of in universe notability - various books, cartoons, comics, etc - but I was also able find quite a few books that aren't part of the Star Wars storyline but instead provide analysis of the various scenes and settings used in the 6 "core" films. This, though DK and LucasArts obviously have a long standing relationship, this, this, this and this. Those are about the universe, rather than in universe, though I'll admit the line is often very thin. At the end of the day, the subject was the setting for a major scene in a notable film - the home planet of the title characters - and several episodes of a notable television series. There are going to be secondary sources that analyse its importance, its place in the films and various other things.

I suppose my other query would be about the nomination of this subject/article and not the several others that fall into the same category - Star Wars planets. Is there a particular reason this one fails our guidelines where the others don't? It's not so much an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as a query of consistency. Should this be bundled with nominations for each of the others? It would seem they would all suffer the same "problems" and be the subject of the same sort of coverage. Stalwart111 07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is promotional material produced in collaboration with LucasFilms, as you noted.

this only mentions Kamino once as part of plot recap.

this is an essay on cloning technology in Star Wars that only makes incidental mentions of Kamino as part of plot recap.

this only mentions Kamino 3 times as part of plot recap.

this could be interesting (can't be accessed on GBooks) but the copyright page that can be previewed on Amazon indicates it's officially-sanctioned promotional material.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your assessment in each case is pretty close to accurate. Lots and lots of passing mentions and plot summaries and a little bit of analysis. Stalwart111 23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF is all about how we tackle consistency, so I'm afraid I'm unconvinced by that as an argument. If there are other Star Wars universe planets that fail to meet WP:N, then they should be deleted too. There's plenty of fan cruft on Wikipedia that could be pruned. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, which is why I specifically didn't include it in my argument but queried the consistency aspect, instead, with the nominator. Stalwart111 09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with no objection to an editorial merge into a List of Star Wars planets, while keeping the specifically notable planets like Tatooine as standalone articles. The material is mostly verifiable to primary sources, with a few other RS mentions, such that while GNG is possibly met, the better option would be to merge similarly-non-notable planets into a list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think a valid argument could be made for deletion, as this article only just borders on the realm of notability. However, I feel that it is only just passable – I would, however, like to see significant improvements to ensure this subject's notability in the future. — Richard BB 07:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Wars planets. A thorough search for sources did not yield anything more than trivial mentions of the planet as part of plot summary, a description that fits the sources proposed in this discussion.WP:GNG requires "significant coverage from independent sources", so I really can't see how this could even "possibly" pass GNG, and since these sources don't allow to write more that a "Summary-only descriptions of works" per WP:NOTPLOT I see no reason for this article to be kept. As for the other Star Wars planets, except maybe one or two, they probably aren't notable either.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems apt in this case. Its not about deleting content, but making sure that the articles have enough information to be useful. Even together as part of other Star Wars planets, this would not be amiss or out of place. It just doesn't meet N or GNG for a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Consensus appears to be that it passes WP:BARE. Fix or not fix? There is yet no consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us try one more week

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep key plot elements or settings in famous series should get separate articles, because--as shown above--there is significant coverage if people look for it properly. The guideline I just said was proposed several years ago as a practical solution, along with everyone the next step down (either minor but non-trivial plot elements or settings in famous works or major settings or plot elements in notable but not famous works) getting a substantial section in a combined article, those in the next step down (relatively trivial elements the most famous works , minor but non-trivial ones in notable but not famous works) getting an entry in a list, and everything below that, not covered. The only reason it was not adopted was the intransigence of a few people who didn't want separate articles on any of this. I would even consider not having separate articles a possibility as long as there were substantial sections, but experience here continues to show that once the article is merged, the coverage diminishes gradually to a mere name on a list--and then the list article gets challenged. If we had a compromise solution, we could cut down substantially the work at afd, and instead work on writing and sourcing the material 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you do realize there is absolutely no significant coverage, as shown above ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to fail GNG at this time. Perhaps in the future! SarahStierch (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Spanos

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

Subject is not notable. WP:NOTE No reliable source WP:RS. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and artist categories. Besides a general search, I searched specifically for sources in Australia and Europe since according to the article that is where his work is best known. Nothing noteworthy came up.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The works directed don't fair much better either, if one could pass, maybe a merge is acceptable. Does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 housekeeping non-admin closure: 06:53, 2 June 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page University of Hell Press (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) czar · · 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Hell Press

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

Article is an advertisement for the company and has no outside sources. Tyros1972 Talk 02:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strongly concur. Article also lacks notability and might qualify for speedy deletion under G-11.Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tagged it as a speedy for promotion, but even if that's cleaned up the bigger issue is that there isn't any notability for this publisher. Merely existing does not give notability, nor would it even if the books were all by big-name authors who all won big-name awards. There is no coverage for this publishing company. Most of the smaller publishing houses almost always fly solidly under the radar- even some of the more well known indie publishing houses have been deleted due to a lack of notability, so this isn't a slight against the house or anything. There just isn't any coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pet Bottle Ningen. SarahStierch (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonoko Yoshida

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

Lacks Notability. References fail to establish notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've added one reliable source citation. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaspectfully Disagree Article and subject still do not come close to meeting notablity standards as per WP:MUSBIO. Being mentioned in a local paper does not establish credibility. My favorite pizza shop has a stronger claim than the article subject.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO. The four sources may look adequate at first glance until once examines them more closely. One is a dead link, one does not mention her name, one just lists her name with no additional comment, and one simply mentions her name in passing. This does not constitute the level of in-depth coverage required to demonstrate basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pet Bottle Ningen, it will help that article as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Rolph (activist)

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. The refs include one interview in the Morning Star (British newspaper), but the rest are blogs, claim of a local TV interview on a blog, a chatboard and and a local freesheet. The sole claim to notability is his hunger strike, but per WP:BLP1E this alone doesn't make him notable enough for a separate article, though I'd say he's notable enough for a mention in Atos, with the Morning Star source. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Captain Conundrum (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two YouTube refs have been added to the article which confirms that Rolph has appeared twice on BBC London News in connection with two different campaigns. I believe more sources will become available shortly and that there is just enough at present to make a claim for notability. NationalTreasure (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Media presence makes this WP:BLP1E at best so far. Can be revisited if the bump leads to substance.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Second campaign now has more media traction, though it's hardly the first hunger strike against Atos. May or may not leave a trace, time will tell.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, this is not WP:BLP1E as the article refers to two quite seperate events, both which have references. Secondly, I disagree with Captain Conundrum that George Rolph's sole claim to notability is his hunger strike. George Rolph has been a notable supporter and initiator of two campaigns. Notable enough to be interviewed on BBC TV on both occasions OSLJA (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough good refs in this article to satisfy requirements for notability.Mehmit (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The level of coverage given to the domestic violence campaign isn't much, but probably enough to invalidate an argument for deletion based on WP:BLP1E. WP:GNG and, by extension, WP:BIO are met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is of considerable interest, as this is the first person to go on hunger strike over DWP policies, or at least the first with coverage in a national newspaper [5]. So far as I can see, even if this were the only event, WP:BLP1E also would not apply because the fact Rolph is seeking publicity, means this is not a low-profile individual as that policy would require. --Cedders^tk 17:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rolph is not the first to go on such a hunger strike and be reported in a national newspaper. The Independent reported on this previous instance, for example. What distinguishes Rolph is doggedness and a knack for getting publicity. I don't get the point about seeking publicity as a positive criterion for WP inclusion.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: Agreed, in fact WP:GNG notes that self-publicity is not independent of the subject. It should also be pointed out to non-UK editors that while the Morning Star (British newspaper) is distributed nationally (you typically see one or two copies stocked in most supermarkets), it doesn't come close to the mass-market level of readership that people normally associate with a "national" newspaper: it's distributed at a loss by a tiny political group who rely on donations to stave off its bankruptcy. That interview is the only newspaper coverage he's had. I see so many AFDs concluding that a person's not notable even though they've been interviewed a few times on television news. So I still don't understand how this man who, while most admirable, meets the notability standards of WP:BIO. It's also taken a fair bit of re-editing to keep the article WP:NPOV, and not turning into his campaign page: I ask all editors involved to have a read of WP:WORTHYCAUSE.

I should also point out my own potential WP:COI: I have a severely disabled immediate family member who had to fight Atos like a wild animal a few months ago to hang onto his (disgracefully low) disability payments. During the first interview the Atos doctor, who has since quit in disgust, began to cry when describing how a few minutes earlier he'd had to insist that a cancer patient in the middle of chemotherapy had to leave his hospital bed to appear at an Atos assessment, or lose his disability payments. So I know better than many editors just how utterly evil Atos is as a company, and applaud when people like Rolph fight them. Nevertheless, we need to stick to Wikipedia policy, and not make exceptions for people we admire, or the whole WP:AFD process becomes a useless, cliquey nonsense. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a useful addition to wiki project. Re notability - the subject has appeared on tv on 5 occasions; on radio once and in a national newspaper. His campaign is still underway and should result in further media coverage within the week.Partitas (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL, but appearing on TV 5 times doesn't necessarily make someone notable. How is he notable per WP:BIO please? Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is he notable per WP:BIO? I see no evidence to suggest that he doesn't satisfy the requirements of WP:BASIC. Partitas (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC, he's had only trivial coverage. The Morning Star, as noted above, is not a reliable source on its own, and that very short article cannot be described as substantial coverage in a "national newspaper", any more than getting a few paragraphs in one of the coffee table magazines that get distributed in hotels would be. I see from your user page that you're based in New York City: the Morning Star is best described as the CPB's version of the National Enquirer, a political supermarket sheet with the Enquirer's standards for fact checking, but without its high level of readership. Neither the Morning Star article nor the very short TV appearances so far are WP:Independent, substantial coverage described in WP:BASIC, and so far the mainstream press have taken no notice of him. If we could find a profile on his career in a mainstream national newspaper or a reliable online publication, which wasn't just him promoting his current campaign, I'd withdraw the nomination. Captain Conundrum (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your info. I understand from looking at Rolph's publicity that a researcher from the 'Independent Newspaper' is preparing a story and that 'The Daily Mirror' are sending someone on Monday 10 June to interview him. The mainstream media have been slow to pick up on his story, it's true. Partitas (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either one of those would be great. I don't use Facebook, so thanks for letting us know. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how the article passes GNG? Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 admin INeverCry. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Zohrebyan

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

Incomplete. Tyros1972 Talk 01:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. All discussion assertions point towards keep outcome. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Swag of Aussie Poetry

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

Subject is not notable Article is a long list of links ~~that are off-topic and puffery. Unsourced and a search shows no independent~~ sources available do not to support notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: given the level of support will result in keep, improvements to referencing, and some good points raised in keep comments below, I am happy to withdraw and have the nomination closed. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have to admit that I'm concerned that the editor that created this page listed himself as a RS, knows the producer, and also created an entry on himself... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is clear COI however the issue is that just because something exists, that doesn't make it notable. Also there is not one independent, verifiable source provided. The article is, essentially, a record of interview that can't be verified, and a long list of wikilinks to famous Australians that may, or may not have, contributed to an album of no notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Originally issued in 1984 or 1985 with 50 tracks by notable Australians performing/reading from works by notable Australian poets. The 21st century version is a historical record of this material. Certainly more work is needed for MoS and other issues but it should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Shaidar in that the work is a significant work, purely based on the fact it is notable Australians performing works by other notable Australians. Dan arndt (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the Australians are notable (and I agree they are), isn't that relevant to an article about that person? Similarly if the works are notable, and again I agree they are, doesn't notability apply to the original poetry? I'm not certain that the Album which is the subject of the article, i.e an aggregation of existing works, is notable. Flat Out let's discuss it

Keep because it is the best option right now, this is not like other albums which can be merged easily to a central discography or their performer pages. This album will either exist or be deleted and is in the National Library, which pushes towards GNG and N. It is unusual, but I'd rather keep something unique unless a proper fitting inclusion for a merge can be found and an appropriate redirect can be made. There also is some possibly it meets GNG on its own as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't agree being catalogued by the National Library makes the album N since I'm also in there and I'm certainly not notable :) I do agree that it is unique and since the article has been improved considerably I am happy to keep and will withdraw my nomination. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration1

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

Lacks Notability. There are sources but the mere fact that an entity exists and that it has been mentioned in one or more reputable sources doesn't equal notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be promotion for a company and lacks any valid RS. I requested a speedy deletion as to WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Tyros1972 Talk 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only link that might be RS material, technorati, leads nowhere. Could not ascertain WP:CORPworthiness from other sources.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability--the sources are just press releases. But otherwise it would not seem to me like an advertisement. It briefly describes the company and the services. The way articles like this are typically promotional is to give a full detailed list of services, and of locations, or use adjectives saying how good they are. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CORP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanilian Classification System

(Find video game sources: "Sanilian Classification System" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This article has no citations and is typed as if created by the creator of the classification system. There is not enough outside information. This is a project by a "student", and is original research. Surfer43 (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 07:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fully WP:OR. No reliable sources. Looks like someone's pet project. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above, plus its only Google hits are Wikipedia. WP:DUCK --Teancum (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no indication of significance. Someone seems to have just thought it up one day. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mayors of Cairns. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Severin

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

No significant information. All information false according to the List of mayors of Cairns page on Wikipedia. Surfer43 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is actually listed on the List of mayors of Cairns, and some googling shows that he was indeed the mayor.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Cairns. Severin is not an international, national, or provincial/statewide political figure, and has not received major coverage, and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. WP:POLITICIAN then states that "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." List of mayors of Cairns is clearly the most appropriate page, as there is no article on the office itself or the election. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 19:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Seems to be the most logical option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is best option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Weinhaus

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

Not notable per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Tassedethe (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's gotten some local coverage from a small town paper stretching back aways.--Chaser (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William 11:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks sufficient notability based on available sources. - Mr X 02:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Merlin (TV series). L Faraone 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Rodor

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

If the titular character of Merlin doesn't have his own Wiki page, then why does a minor character from the final season have one? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the show's article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as it is a non-notable character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Broll

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

Non-notable minor league player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ditto. Ravenswing 11:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I repeat the nomination because it is accurate and comprehensive: Non-notable minor league player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. Donner60 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to meet NHOCKEY. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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