Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 March	31 March >

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. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred De'ath

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

Requested by WP:BLPN. Lacking sources completely (Note Google Search is not a valid reference). BLP issues <redacted>. Seems marginally notable but needs either major expansion and properly writing, or deleting. I would have PRODDED it but I think the author would have removed the template and just ignored it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It falls under WP:BLPPROD. There no sources. He himself is not a notable person just because of his arrest. I would even recommend speedy deletion under A7, non-notable person. ~~JHUbal27 02:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fall under BLPprod for two reasons, there was a very reliable source that has been removed as undue and another link that when you click on it does confirm information in the article. BLPprod is an awkward and unsatisfactory compromise, but if a facebook entry is sufficient to avert it then this link is much better. As for A7, A7 is not for non-notable people. The test for A7 is deliberately much lower, whether there is an assertion of importance or significance. Where notability is in doubt, then as in this case AFD is the correct venue. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a man not a woman. Warden (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN person, whose bio was created solely in response of a news report related to a scandal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article was created as a result of the news reports around the scandal, it's now fairly obvious that the subject is notable and the bio merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had a long career as a journalist and producer and so passes WP:JOURNALIST. Now writes a column in The Oldie and keeps showing up on TV and radio in shows about people like Kenny Everett. The latest scandal is not the first and you can read about another one in Caterer and Hotelkeeper. He is enough of a character that the Times went to interview him in 2003. Obviously, his bio will need watching but we should maintain a stub with the plain facts as otherwise people will keep trying to create an article and will think that there's a cover-up if we have nothing. Warden (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden's argument. This person is not a single-event nobody. Most of his life was pre-internet which will make finding coverage harder, but that's no reason to stop looking.--Auric talk 11:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It now seems to be a substantial article about a substantial person. Jb1944 (talk) (orig.author) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Between what's in the article and my own searches, I couldn't find enough coverage that was squarely about this person to meet either WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. I find mostly passing mention, and there's little to say about the subject's own works, no matter where published, if nothing's been said in other reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 20:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- my initial reaction was NN, but I am persuaded by those who have voted to keep. This is the second columnist recently. I wonder if we need to amend WP:JOURNALIST to make it clear that named columnists for national newspapers; journalsists frequently given a by-line for their reports in national newspapers; and commentators frequently used by media other than their employer qualify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh source I was just reading a large two-page spread in the Evening Standard which you can read online too. This is full of biographical detail and so amply passes WP:SIGCOV. Warden (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added fresh sources, the best one being this The Times, and edited the copy. It still needs more attention by others. It is now clear that De'ath has WP:SIGCOV as he is the subject of at least two profiles in reputable, major news sources and he appears in others. What the additional sources also show is that he is known for more than one event or scandal as coverage spans a long period of time.Crtew (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first page of Google news lists 750 articles including from Sydney Morning Herald, with all of the 10 visible sources appearing to be good hits. The first page of Google books shows that this person is the author of multiple books, and includes a 2011 book with in-depth analysis of a De'ath writing assignment in 1970.

Howard Malchow (18 Feb 2011). Special Relations: The Americanization of Britain?. Stanford University Press. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-0-8047-7783-4. Retrieved 2013-04-04. In the summer of 1970 the BBC turned to Wilfred De'Ath to "explain" the countercultural phenomenon in England. De'Ath—whose eclectic interests were those of a freelance opportunist—had no particular connection with the...

Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspars Ikstens

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seed AI

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

Creating new terms for existing ideas Xkcdreader (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize how much I could put for reasons. So .. Seed AI seems to be a person describing Evolutionary_computation Evolutionary_algorithm Genetic_algorithm Reflection_(computer_science) Self-modifying_code and inventing their own name for the concept. The only source for calling this Seed AI over a genetic algorithm is the "inventors" own company. It appears the person who "invented" Seed AI is repackaging others ideas with new names and taking credit for the concept. It is not a notable idea outside of the authors own projects, and the other articles I provided offer a much more comprehensive examination of an algorithm that can modify itself. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any decent citation mentioning this even amongst the externals and there has been a tag requesting citations since 2010. The idea sounds okay to me but Wikipedia is suppose to reflect what is out there not our own ideas. Possibly someone can find a decent citation or something talking about the idea properly and rename it before this AfD closes - that is what would be required to change my decision about it. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename I would prefer the article to use the more common term Recursive Self Improvement, but the issue is important and deserves and article. It is certainly not about either Evolutionary_computation Evolutionary_algorithm Genetic_algorithm Reflection_(computer_science) or Self-modifying_code. It describes the well understood and commonly referenced idea that if computers ever became intelligent enough to program themselves then their intelligence would improve exponentially.

In contrast, Evolutionary_computation and Evolutionary_algorithm describes software that evolves randomly based on selection pressure, usually using Genetic_algorithm. Reflection_(computer_science) is a technical term to be able to access programming meta data. Likewise Self-modifying_code is a low level technical term, not implying intelligence.

Rename to Recursive Self Improvement is actually my preferred choice, and there is a link from that term to Seed AI. Tuntable (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reslist rationale: for those suggesting a rename, please describe how 'Recursive Self Improvement' is notable.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For notability there are dozens if not hundreds of references to the term (excluding an annoying song). Bellow are a few, some with peer review. It is also just an obviously important concept. The article itself is weak, and I would rather spend time improving it than arguing here. So I'll give it a week, then do the rename and close this unless there is any serious dissent.

Tuntable (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPONGE (activist group)

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

No reliable sources that this organization even exists, let alone that it is "prominent". I believe it to be a hoax, but my speedy deletion request was removed. The article was created by an indefinitely banned editor. RNealK (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A Google search will reveal a number of sources such as this one [1], as implausible as it may seem that such a group exists. - Mr X 23:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As distasteful as this group and its name was, it did exist in New York City in the mid 1960s, and achieved notoriety, which is a form of notability. The online book source identified by MrX is in the article, though not linked to Google Books. A Google News Archive search using the full name with "Negroes" instead of the more objectionable "N" word yields widespread newspaper coverage from 35 to 40 years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a notable organization as THIS COVERAGE from the Jewish Daily Forward of the 1966 SPONGE-organized fatal riot 45 years after the fact amply demonstrates. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A MENTION in Jet magazine from 1967. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS BOOK REVIEW from The American Prospect of Fred Siegel's The Future Once Happened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America's Big Cities (Free Press, 1997) intimates that SPONGE is covered extensively in that work. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why does the nominator say that no reliable sources exist when the article itself lists two recent books as sources? Muskie72 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel Ruffinelli

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

Woman who has weight problems and as a result has been featured in that ever reliable publication The Daily Mail. Also badly written. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly written and non-notable. Jus da fax 23:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant no of people search internet about her. You can edit this page and make more useful to users. Poorly written because of language and technical barrier. Editing Wikipedia is technically difficult for me (I don't know coding and there is no easy tools like gmail ..--Heaviest567 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - News coverage outside the DM and a cleanup establish minimal notability.--Auric talk 01:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Auric. Note that Ruffinelli's notability lies not in her weight, but the fact that she is reported to hold the world record for the largest hips. Unfortunately, I could not find anything in the Guinness World Records, and I don't know how reliable my source is. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not exactly some kind of record to be proud of. Additionally, it could well be a violation of the policies of WP:BLP. Jus da fax 03:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a BLP concern, as Ruffinelli states in multiple interviews that she is rather proud of her figure. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not we think this is a notable distinction, the amount of recognition she has gotten amounts to notability. The announcement of her "world record" got coverage in mainstream publications like Huffington Post. She even rated a mention at Emirates 24/7. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Key (film)

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

This film quite simply doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. In particular, the film was never widely distributed and I can't find in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Only three of the references provided can reasonably considered independent of the subject. The first is an anonymous review on www.videoviews.org which, as far as I know, is a pretty obscure website. The second is a list of nominees and prize winners at the World Music and Independent Film Festival. This is a very small festival and although Key won best horror film, it is worth pointing out that none of the films in that competition were ever distributed in theaters (and two of them were short films). The last is from a more credible website but it's a six sentence blurb and certainly doesn't qualify as "in-depth" coverage. I also don't see any signs that the director or other people involved (lead actor, co-scriptwriter/producer, cinematographer, music composer) are notable for other projects. Much of the content is unsourced but that is made possible by the fact that the film's director is also the author of the article. Pichpich (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but "in-depth" is not the same as "significant". Just so long as a source contains more-than-trivial information, it can be considered under WP:SIGCOV. We do need more to meet WP:NF though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. A further search brings up nothing other than the above mentioned sources. The award isn't really anything that would show notability enough to merit a keep on that alone. Most awards aren't at that level of notability. The review isn't really usable either, as it's your run of the mill non-notable blog review. I have no issue with it being userfied, but I am slightly concerned as to how this article made it through AfC in its previous state. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Like many independent films Key did not receive theatrical distribution. It is however available at blockbuster, netflix, and many other major retailers. Within the month it will be available on VOD and ON DEMAND through major careers such as Verizon Fios, AT&T Uverse, Itunes, and Amazon.

The film's cinematographer David Newbert recently shot Larry Clark's latest feature "Marfa Girl". Larry Clark is an A list independent filmmaker with titles such as 'Kids' and 'Bully'. The film won the Rome International Film Festival in November 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhamiltoniv (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I got confused by the expanding credit lists of IMDb. The cinematographer David Newbert has been the DP on two feature films: Key and Larry Clark's Marfa Girl. But my basic point stands: Newbert may very well become a notable cinematographer but he currently isn't and he's certainly not at the stage where he's famous enough that he generates coverage for all projects he takes part in. Pichpich (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the director potentially being notable is that notability is not inherited by the director being notable or by him having any association with notable persons or projects. Less than 1% of any person that ever lived is so notable that all of their works become notable by association, and that's in general rather than specifically film oriented. Having an association with a notable person merely makes it more likely that something would receive coverage, but it's never a guarantee. I was unable to tell if you meant that Key won at the Rome International Film Festival or if one of Clark's other works won there. I was unable to find Key at the official website, so I'm assuming it's a separate work that won. Even if it had been Key, we would need a little more than this to show notability for the film. As I said above, most aren't notable enough to keep on that basis alone. But as far as Clark being part of an award winning film and working on something else, that falls under "not inherited". Basically, Clark would have to be along the lines of Steven Spielberg or Andy Warhol to have that level of notoriety and I'm not even sure that they're at the level of notability where all of their works become notable by association. In a nutshell, what the "so historically significant that any of his or her works may be considered notable" bit means is that because the person is so notable, the likelihood of the entirety of their works not receiving any in-depth scrutiny is very, very slim. (IE, Shakespeare is one of the very few examples of this level of notoriety.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the commoness of the word "key" in film titles, the "find sources" assigned by the AFD template gives a lot of false positives. To address this problem, editors must refine their searches. I offer a few of the possible more specific searches below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this film is nota notable. David Newbert may be notable, but few films are notable just because the cinmatographer was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Bordeaux

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

Two or three matches. No notable yet. No feuds, storylines or years in the business HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources showing notability. The only independent one in the article merely shows she exists and has wrestled. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sources should never be an argument in AFD. Articles have potential for expansion and construction. That being said...

Delete, I've done my own researching and no reliable sources can establish notability for the subject. Her existence is documented, but nothing else is. Feedback ^☎ 06:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As HHH said, no notable yet. Maybe someday, but there's a notability problem as it stands now.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davina Rose

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

Again? A WWE Contract doesn't make a wrestler notable. Too soon to create an article, she doesn't make any notable at the moment. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This so stupid. If you're going by that rule then you need to delete more than have of the NXT rosters wikipedia page & some people on the main roster. & Who are you to deceide if a person is notable enough. If you are signed by WWE & have actually appeared on one of their shows that should be enough notice. DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand me. What's the notability in the article? Sign a contrcact with WWE and send to the farm territory. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Tyson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Walker isn't notable because she hasn't do nothing yet. Who I am? An user with more of 5 years in Wikipedia. Davina Rose is training and appears in a show of a Indy promotion, nor even WWE because NXT it's a different promotion. If we stand Chris Hero, PAC, Brodie Lee or El generico in NXT it's because they are notbales (years in the business, a lot of matches, travel around the world) others like The Usos, Ted DiBiase or Brodus Clay are notbales because they spent years of his live in WWE main roster, no two moths in WWE farm territory. If you want to defend de article, show sources saying that Davine Rose is notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.profightdb.com/wrestlers/davina-rose-8206.html Check that out. Not only has she competed for the top independent womens wrestling promotion she has faced some of the top indy female wrestlers. --DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She wrestled a few matches, but no notable. In Cagematch and Profight, we can find a lot of wrestlers that had a match in indy promotions, but they haven't an article. Look at 11th Anniversary Show, no one of the first match have an article and they wrestled in a ROH iPPV. One match don't make you notable. Even Madison Eagles, Shimmer Champion, hasn't an article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being listed on a site that aims to list every wrestler who has stepped in the ring doesn't establish notability. Notability also doesn't come from being in the ring with a notable wrestler. If that were true, we'd have articles for every jobber ever squashed. Check out Rick Renslow's opponents. Biggest stars in the world, broadcast globally to millions. Where's his article? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles like this make me mad we can't just speedy them. . Feedback ^☎ 06:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrestling notable people does not make you notable.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dude Busters

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puerto Rican Nightmares. Like in the aforementioned AFDs, this article is about a tag team that had minor success in a developmental territory for WWE and did not translate to a significant run on programming. They teamed together for over a year, but they didn't accomplish anything of note during their time on the main roster. No feuds. No exposure. No accomplishments. No brainer. Feedback ^☎ 21:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Feedback. No notability in WWE, a major promotion. Only in the minor promotion FCW and some weekly matches in WWE roster.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Feedback ^☎ 22:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ecuador in Ottawa

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. No evidence for this either. Those wanting to keep must show evidence if third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I couldn't find any references which demonstrate the notability of this office through a Google search, so WP:ORG doesn't seem likely to be met. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 21:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I vote, could anyone explain what's the difference between this article and Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C.? Neither seems notable 'to ME, but I don't want to support the deletion of one while the community decides to keep the other. It feels like I would be supporting more of the US-centric bias that Wikipedia is always accused of. Feedback ^☎ 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a consideration here. Some embassies are notable some are not. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple question. Is that one notable or not? Because if it is, we should totally bundle it to this deletion discussion. It's ridiculously biased for us to keep the American one and not the Canadian one when they have pretty much the same claim to notability. Feedback ^☎ 18:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that neither is notable. The US one (due only to the fact that it is in a building that has hosted several different embassies over the years) may have a slightly better chance at having sources existing, but a quick internet search and what is there doesn't convince me it is notable either. I don't think there is any bias on the nominator's part though, as s/he, based on their other nominations, simply went through embassies in Canada and nominated those that they beleived were not notable. I would completely support you if you were to nominate the US one for deletion. I would, however, caution against bundling embassies from the same country together as their individual situations, due to differing political relations, are often very different and should be examined independently. And as to bias, I think supporting deletion here, and not on the US in its present state, would be very difficult to do, as, as you rightly point out, both their claims is simply that they exist as an embassy. Ravendrop 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair argument. In that case, I say Delete, but I encourage people to also participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ecuador in Washington, D.C.. Whether or not the bias is intentional, deleting one without deleting the other just seems wrong to me. Feedback ^☎ 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage exists to demonstrate why this specific embassy is notable. Just a run of the mill embassy doing what it does, which is not inherently notable. Ravendrop 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep geo-location, not org. see gps. will you now merge the content on the foreign relations page? or merely delete. what is the notability criteria for embassy buildings, some of which are on the NRHP? there are 100 "diplomatic missions of canada" slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 20:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As embassies themselves are not considered inherently notable, the notability criteria is WP:GNG, which means multiple, in-depth, third party sources. These don't appear to exist for this embassy and simple existence is not enough. Considering a Ecuador-Canada Relations page doesn't exist, there is no target to merge to, and nothing to merge anyway, as address and current ambassador are easily found elsewhere on the web. You may make an argument that those could be included on an expanded table on the List of diplomatic missions of Ecuador page, but that would be an issue you would have to raise on the talk their first.

As for embassies that are located in listed buildings, there isn't a hard and fast rule. Listed buildings that are on city heritage lists are not always deemed notable for stand alone articles, whereas provincial and federally listed buildings usually are. My preference in that case would be to have the page named after the building (if it wasn't always an embassy) and have the X Embassy in Ottawa page redirect to it. But those pages should be dealt with on a case by case basis because no larger consensus, that I am aware of at least, covers them. For what its worth though, Ecuador's Embassy is a couple of offices in a non-listed office building. It is not an entire building itself. Ravendrop 20:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa, since by now it will probably remain a stub. However, it should be noted that the recent wave of embassy-related AfDs would have the effect of reducing the notability of diplomatic missions themselves. That sort of dynamic isn't a particularly encouraging trend for the development of WP content. Dl2000 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa info already there, no sign of stand alone notability. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Buchanan (computer scientist)

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

Article does not show notability of subject, and as it stands seems to be purely promotional. Nageh (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a possible WP:COI concern considering an account called "Billatnapier" edited the article. Also, I want to give a heads up that searching for "Bill Buchanan" will result in a string of results for a "24" character. Searching for "Bill Buchanan" + "Napier" -24 results in a few thousand hits, but they all seem like replicates of the other. Click to see for yourself. Feedback ^☎ 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search in GS for "W J Buchanan" gives an h-index of 9 (please correct if wrong). In a highly cited field this is far too low to pass WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I get the same numbers, showing that the case for WP:PROF#C1 isn't there. The article mentions some awards, but without sources, leaving me at a loss for whether they're of any significance; even if they are, the awards are not to the subject, but to something else called "Cloudhealth", and I was not able to find through Google any connection between Cloudhealth and Buchanan. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- a long list of professional publications suggests notability. Nevertheless it is a horrid article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Practically every university science professor has multiple publications in journals. The only reason all these are listed here is because the subject in question added them himself to the article. Utilizing the number of publications as an assertion of notability is like taking in account the number of blog posts for a blogger to be notable. Feedback ^☎ 15:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxan and David above. Ray^Talk 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Xxan mentioned the h-index is definitely too low. The entire article reads almost like a press release or what you would see as an "about" page from a company website. David mentioned not finding any reference or connection on Cloudhealth. After reading carefully it looks like it was an error in the article, it's [Cloud4healthhttp://cloud4health.com/team.html]. On that site it does list him as a team member but still does not provide clear notability to this article. Karverstudio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- My reasons are pretty much stated above. Feedback ^☎ 18:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North British, Arbroath and Montrose Railway

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

No citations, no signs of significance smileguy91^talk 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect this to East Coast Main Line.Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Yes, redirect because it is a likely search term and there is hardly anything to merge (and what there is is wrong!). However, the East Coast Main Line article rather loses focus north of the border so Edinburgh to Aberdeen Line would be a better target. The latter does actually mention this historical railway company. References are available and there is no reason to delete.[2] Thincat (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to North British Railway with which it appears to have merged in 1880 according to this source. The historical company may have been notable, but I see no evidence of that on the internet and redirection would not prejudice recreation if somebody came up with the material. --AJHingston (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References are available via Google and I have begun adding these into the article. See also the "What links here", which is another useful WP:BEFORE check. A historical railway company, established by Act of Parliament, is part of the record and worthy of noting in an encyclopaedia. It is a stub, but one for improvement, not deletion. AllyD (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I !voted above) I agree the topic is notable but the article I saw would have been improved by making it a redirect. The North British Railway would be (would have been) a better target except it doesn't mention the company at all. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needing improvement is never a reason to delete. Per Ally, an historic company which deserves an article. It would appear that the Edinburgh Gazette would be a rich source of info on the company. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a historic part of the British railways history. It may be a smaller part, and a short-lived part, but it's still a part of it. These may also be of use: [3][4][5][6][7] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the moment to North British Railway, allowing for a split when enough details become available per WP:SPLIT. It's notable. Edgepedia (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I have struck my !vote above but kept my comment). The article has been developed, partly by myself so it now establishes notability. In fact the line's viaducts were particularly notable at the time, notorious even, because, following the Tay Bridge disaster they were strengthened, demolished and rebuilt before the line had even been opened. Thincat (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say, that is a fine job that User:Thincat in particular has done on improving this article over the past day. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have struck out my earlier comments - the article now does what it should. There are often editors around who know their British railways; would that other topics were as well served. --AJHingston (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - reasonably well referenced and a good start. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 7 years 12:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact this article was nominated for deletion less than a day after it was created. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge up to parent, if it can't stand on its own. —Sladen (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- now adequately referenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - beginnings of a good and useful article. DBaK (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although the opinions for keep were numerically superior there were policy based arguments against a stand alone page that were not refuted. A discussion on the merits of merging can certainly continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 20:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colliston railway station

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

No reliable sources, possibly insignificant. smileguy91^talk 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - aren't almost all rail stations automatically notable? There's a little information in a Commons image: [8]. I get the feeling that all coverage of this station, given its location and closure date (1965), is going to be found in books, not on the internet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure this could be a speedy as A7 or possibly G1. A google books search suggests there may be some notability to this station so there I've no objection to recreation as a properly sourced article.Comment There's no such thing as automatic notability - it's just highly probable that all railway stations are likely to be noted in sources. This stub adds no real context or history to the station - the page creator should consider writing a full article in his sandbox first, then moving to main space. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Arbroath and Forfar Railway with redirect the opening and closing dates would be better presented in tabular form on that article rather than retaining this as a permanent stub. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added in some sources (BTW closure was 1955 rather than 1965 mentioned above); articles on historical artefacts of the UK railway system are reasonable content for encyclopaedic coverage so one for improvement not deletion. (As this is an article by a relatively new and possibly young editor, it would have been helpful to have placed maintenance templates for improvement rather than going straight to AfD just over an hour after the article was created.) AllyD (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect to see evidence that the sources mean it can be expanded beyond it's current stub state - if that is not the case I would recommend merging, possibly to a prose list of minor stations on the railway. BTW the 1965 date above is for full closure for goods trains, 1955 is given for closure to passengers. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jamieson's correct on the closure date. There's nothing wrong with a decently referenced stub. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:STUB it should not only be decently referenced but "Capable of Expansion". The limited sources in this case, and the little information prescribed within those sources suggest that while there is notability there is little prospect of expansion. It's why I suggest an upmerge to be a better option than keeping as a permastub or deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WP:V requires that it is verifiable, not verified. Anyway, we now have WP:RS for this as RCAHMS is certainly one. I expect that others exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RCAHMS record is not a reliable source for anything other than the station's existence which is the same for many other non-notable historical items in their collection. The General notabilty guidelines requires a higher threshold which is that those sources discussing the subject present significant coverage. The RCAHMS collection only includes one photograph of the station and no prose written about it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not have had a chance to expand yet. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 15:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this meets both the notability and verifiability criteria, and has the potential for further expansion. -- The Anome (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dainik Yugashankha

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

Not notable and fails WP:NME Mrwikidor ←track 20:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved the article from Dainik Yugashankha to a more productive transliteration in search, which is Dainik Jugasankha. Crtew (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable Bengali language newspaper published from three cities in Assam. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't help it pass the WP:NME, sorry! Mrwikidor ←track 15:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well- known and notable newspaper in Eastern India.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Using the new transliteration of Dainik Jugasankha, the newspaper clearly meets WP:NME as it is covered by reliable sources, has been published over 60 years and is one of the top newspapers in Assam. Crtew (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a good deal of source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dainik Prantajyoti

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

Non-notable daily newspaper which fails WP:NME Mrwikidor ←track 20:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable Bengali newspaper from Assam, cited by reliable source like [9]. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a University site where students and professors can have their own page. Please, read here[10]. Mrwikidor ←track 15:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well- known and notable newspaper in Eastern India.-- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 06:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, criterion 2 for newspapers under WP:NMEDIA includes papers that "have a significant history". This paper has been around since 1957, finding sources for a foreign language newspaper is tough, I don't think we need I high bar on these. J04n(talk page) 20:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindusthan Standard

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

Not notable newspaper that fails WP:NME Mrwikidor ←track 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hindusthan Standard was one of the leading English language newspapers of India in the 20th century. It has a significant history of publication and it is often cited by other reliable sources. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well- known newspaper. No question on notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well- known and notable newspaper.-- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly support the inclusion of the newspaper. It was started by Suresh Chandra Majumdar who was also one of the stake holders of ABP Group and it was the leading English language newspaper of West Bengal behind The Statesman until it was superseded by The Telegraph in 1982. I am also thinking on creating a article on Suresh Chandra Majumdar Solomon7968 (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of Funk

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

It is way to premature to assume notability. The tag team has been around for very little time and as of now, their very little history is already in both Brodus Clay and Matt Bloom. If they're still around after a few months and have had a significant run, then the article can be recreated. Until then, it's WP:CBALL. Feedback ^☎ 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Feedback ^☎ 22:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per Feedback. Clay and Tensai are a one month Tag Team. At the moment, they aren't notable as a Tag team. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite Clay and Tensai being a brief tag team. The duo must be updated with as much information as possible until the time comes when they are an official tag team. Hansen Sebastian 07:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. They have a match at WrestleMania 29, same as The Funkadactyls, that is enough notice because that goes down not only in history, but history at the most important event for the WWE .--DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Sebastian and DJ8946:No. Today, they aren't notable as a tag team. We can say that in the future, they will be notable. Also, we can't add all the information. The weekly matches and individual matches can't be listed per WP:PW. Also, have a match in WM don't make them notable. A lot of tag teams had matches in WM, like Hulk Hogan and Mr. T, John Morrison and R-Truth, Rob Van Dam and Booker T, Big Show and A-Train... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that makes them notable unless it was a one-time thing, but this isn't a one time partnership. .--DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You seem to not be old enough to understand because aside from Hogan/T all those teams had been a tag teams for months, way longer then "Tons of Funk". Maybe if they have a couple Tag Titles matches or something the page can be recreated. As for now Delete. Also if DJ8926 decides to undo the redirect to The Funkadactyls again, that should also be deleted. STATic message me! 16:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A throw-together team, and a young one. Their WrestleMania match isn't even a straight tag. By the logic that WrestleMania makes a team notable, we'd also have an article for the entire four-person team. And Tensai & Cameron. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not going to stay for a long time and there are multiple such instances where tag teams are created for story line in WWE and dropped off. Dinesh (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2013 (IST)
Delete. This could be a temporary team that happened to make it on the WrestleMania card. Temporary teams are often on WrestleMania (See "D'Lo Brown and Test (with Ivory)" on Wrestlemania XV). Until they become clearly notable, this article is invalid for an encyclopedia. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Army Corps of Engineers. Article content remains in the page history if anyone feels there is anything merge-worthy. —Darkwind (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer Branch (United States)

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

Per WP:HOAX. No evidence whatsoever of a separate organization called the Engineer Branch as opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers. Sources in article all refer solely to the Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a hoax. I think it's a badly named page; Engineer Branch (United States Army) would make more sense. The page about USACE is mostly about the civil engineering missions of the Corps. The guys who build Bailey bridges in the muck deserve some space.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that "A Corps of Engineers for the United States was authorized by the Congress on 11 Mar 1779." not for the United States Army. I believe the name of the branch is correct.
See also: Category:Branches of the United States Army for both current and historic branches.
SBaker43 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is much information in this article that is not in United States Army Corps of Engineers. While both articles deal with the same entity, I believe the appropriate action is to merge rather than delete.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can an organization be notable when it doesn't exist? A reader looking at an engineer unit now gets told that it is part of this non-existent branch. Which is "often confused" with the Corps of Engineers, which is a real, legally constituted body. Are the Afghanistan Districts part of it? Was the Manhattan District? How can anyone know when it doesn't exist? Was Douglas MacArthur part of this branch? Leslie Groves? Pee Wee Herman? How can we tell when it doesn't exist? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - BAD proposal. These two articles address different entities with different structures and missions but both in the Department of the Army. There is some overlap of missions and certainly overlapped activity in areas of responsibility but one is primarily a civilian agency; the other is a military combat support branch of the Army with military units.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers as it plainly says is a mostly civilian agency under the Department of the Army focused on national infrastructure and security missions. The Engineer Branch (United States) is a uniformed combat support branch of the U.S. Army which has military units that support and are trained to fight beside the other branches they support: Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, Signal Corps, Transportation, Medical Corps, etc.
Engineer branch officers may be assigned to the USACE but it's still a different organization.
See Coats of arms of U.S. Engineer Battalions for current and historic combat support Engineer battalions.
See also: Category:Branches of the United States Army for both current and historic branches.
I believe there is material in the USACE article that needs to be in the branch article. Obviously both articles need further clarification about how they relate to each other.
SBaker43 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source that this organisation exists? It is pointless and stupid to quote the Wikipedia to support your case, especially the hoax article. Supply a reliable source that it exists, and we're done. Otherwise, this article will be deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Nominator misunderstands the difference between the combat arms branches of the United States Army and the Army run, but civilian staffed US Army Corps of Engineers. On this Army career website:[11] it mentions the USACE as a civilian job after getting out of the Army having branched as an engineer. The Army school that trains engineer officer and enlisted personnel is the "United States Army Engineer School".[12]. The insignia for the Army's Engineer Branch and Regiment found here [13] shows similarities to the USACE, but the USACE uses a white castle for their logo [14]. The USACE website in the "About" section really only talks about the civil engineering function. The Engineer Branch, a combat arm of the US Army is the one that handles the Sappers, bridging, and other military engineering functions. This document explains the various branches that ROTC cadets may commission into [15] when it talks about being an engineer officer it does not mention much about the civil engineering functions of the USACE. Engineer Branch (United States) is part of the United States Army's Combat Arms, the United States Army Corps of Engineers maintains civil engineering projects throughout the United States. The only change needed is to standardize the way we name the Army Branches. EricSerge (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [16] explains the legal necessity dictated by the Goldwater–Nichols Act to differentiate the personnel who served the Army and those who served the USACE. This explains the common history, but current differing missions, functions, and organization. They came from the same place, but forked quite some time ago. The Fort Leonard Wood Chapter of the Society of American Military Engineers has a pdf:[17] that explains the definition of the Engineer Branch. EricSerge (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's actually a very good link, but all it is talking about is the different staff and line responsibilities of the Chief of Engineers; it demolishes rather than bolsters your case. And we do have a naming standard: we use the official names of the arms and services. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article itself says "also known as The Corps of Engineers" - which is what the United States Army Corps of Engineers calls itself on its website. This is at best a duplicate of United States Army Corps of Engineers and it is, at worst, a hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Bushranger, this is a self admitted duplication of the USACE. The history is a duplication of the USACE's history and section is a direct copy of this possibly being a giant copyvio. --Molestash (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a copyvio - as a .mil, it should be PD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, there are two elements to the United State Army Corps of Engineers, as has been well referenced above. There is a civilian works element, and there is the Combat support element. Both are under the United States Army, but their work is different given their civilian and military aspects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article author completely misunderstands the role of the US Army Corps of Engineers, under which combat engineers serve. "Engineer Branch" is an equivalent term for the "Corps of Engineers", that is, the branch of the Army which handles engineering. The misunderstanding is spread throughout the article text which makes very little of it salvageable. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Erroneous and redundant. The "Engineering Branch" is the same thing as the Army Corps of Engineers. As Binksternet states, the creator of this article appears to misunderstand the role of the Army Corps. It is the branch of the Army that does engineering, both for combat purposes (particularly during wartime) and for civil works (primarily in peacetime). Moreover, the only original content in this article is the lead section -- the text that erroneously states that the Engineering Branch is different from the Army Corps of Engineers. The rest of the article is copied verbatim from US government websites about the Army Corps of Engineers. The Symbolism section is from http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/Branches/engineers.aspx and the "History" section is from http://www.wood.army.mil/usaes/library/documents/Corps_History.pdf . --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never mind this article, moreover I have beaten my brain out repeatedly trying to figure out whether the USACE parented the combat engineer branch of the army (none of its material mentions combat engineer tasks, only dams etc) and if not, when did they split and under what circumstances. Thus I vote *STRONG KEEP* unless some well-explained, well referenced section is added to United States Army Corps of Engineers explaining its relationship to U.S. Army combat engineers, and if/when their history divided. Can anyone explain this to me simply without reference to websites that won't load? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They are and have always been part of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Both the combat engineers and the dam builders and many other engineers too. There has never been any split. They are one and the same. The Corps of Engineers is both a combat arm and a service. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hawkeye7 is mostly correct. However, it turns out that there were two separate organizations between 1838 and 1863, when the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers existed as a separate entity. However, that entity was merged into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1863, and there has been just one Corps of Engineers for the last 150 years.

I don't like the idea that it should be necessary to write a "well-explained, well referenced section" for inclusion in United States Army Corps of Engineers before we can can delete an article that consists of nothing but copy-paste content from two webpages, and I don't know what evidence will convince doubters that these entities are one and the same, but I'll try to present some evidence here. For starters, note that both Wikipedia articles indicate that the entity they describe was organized by the Continental Congress on 16 June 1775, directing that the army should have one chief engineer and two assistants. Now look at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brief History and its 321-page history book. Observe that the specific events mentioned in the short webpage from which the "Engineering Branch" article's "History" section are all findable in these longer histories. For example, paragraph 1 of the page used in this article discusses the Corps' role in the Battle of Yorktown; that same event is described in much greater detail (using many of the same words) on page 4 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers History book. The permanent establishment of the Corps in 1802 is described in paragraph 2 of the webpage that was copied to produce this article and in paragraph 2 of this page from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Brief History". Fast-forward to World War II, which is mentioned briefly in paragraph 9 of the page that was copied to create this article; you'll find a lot more information on the very same subject in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers history book sections entitled "Combat Engineers in World War II" (pages 130-145) and "The Manhattan Project" (pages 146-153 in the same PDF). These are one and the same organization, and its name is United States Army Corps of Engineers. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Also, see the "Heraldry" chapter of this Army Corps of Engineers Graphic Standards Manual for verification that the symbols displayed in the "Engineering Branch" article are in fact symbols of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. --Orlady (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The issue is one of a loose use of the language. There is no difference between the various branches of the Army, whether they are referred to as "X Branch" or "X Corps." The Signal, and Adjutant General are two that are regularly referred to either way and refer to the same organization. Further confusing the issue with the Engineers, however, is the existence of a separate group, the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This refers to the federal agency that is charged with the management of all federal public engineering in the US and it while it shares personnel and connections with the Engineer branch of the Army (which is why they share heraldic symbols), the USACE is not associated directly with the operational engineers of the Army, its schools, or functions. Check the About pages of the USACE website and compare with the Engineer School information on the Ft. Leonard Wood site.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the Army Corps history book, I find that some functions that formerly belonged to the Corps of Engineers have been transferred to other Army branches at various times. Notably, in a major Defense Department reorganization that occurred in 1962 (discussed on pages 221-222 of that book), an engineer training function was transferred to the Army Combat Developments Command. This may be what is now done at the Engineer Training School at Fort Leonard Wood. See page 217 of the book for information about the Corps' earlier history in relation to the Army Engineering School, including training at Fort Leonard Wood. Some other functions were moved around in later reorganizations. Thus, there may be an Engineer Branch in the regular Army (although the sources cited in the article don't establish that to my satisfaction), but this "Engineer Branch" can't legitimately claim the entire history of the Army Corps of Engineers as its own history, which is what the current article does. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one has established to my satisfaction by providing reliable sources that (a) there is anything officially called the "Engineer Branch" or (b) that there are two organizations with the exact same name, history and insignia. These are one and the same organization, and its name is United States Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, would you consider a rename and rewrite of the Engineer Branch article to Combat Engineers (United States) to reflect the wholly different character and mission of the operational work of those in the 12 MOS series? RTO Trainer (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the one article can be can be restructured with one major section about the military side of the Corps activity, and the other side about the civilian activities of the Corps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with this page can't be resolved by inventing new titles, nor by inventing an organization chart that says this is one side of the Army Corps. I've not yet seen sources that verify the existence of this supposed organization under any name. As it is now, the article starts off with an unsourced assertion about the existence of this organization, then proceeds to present information (copied verbatim from a couple of websites) that can be demonstrated to be about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that splitting the article is not the optimum direction. A full and complete account of the Corps can be housed at the Corps article, and should be. This particular attempt is not worth saving; we've spent more time analyzing it than it deserves. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am saying, there is a civilian activity of the Corps, and a military activity of the Corps. Both are one in the same, but their activities are substantially different. I am not saying that they are separate, I am saying that there should be sufficient reliable sources to document the combat activities of the Corps, and sufficient reliable sources to document the civilian activities of the Corps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folkloristic Education and Research Institute

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

Self published source submitted on 1/23/04. The person as well as the organization is no doubt doing great works but the subject fails to meet WP:GNG Mrwikidor ←track 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of documented coverage in reliable sources. (I could not find any reliable sources in English online). Iselilja (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As discussed. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pennachetti

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

Joseph Pennachetti does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The article has been flagged for notability and secondary sources for 3 years, and no secondary sources have been added.

Completing incomplete nom by Jellicle (talk · contribs). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete City managers are not generally notable, and Mr. Pennachetti does not appear to be an exception. There are mentions in news articles, but not significant coverage, just "City Manager Pennachetti said..." --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the key here is that just being City Manager is not itself enough for notability. Put another way, would Mr. Pennachetti be notable if he were not City Manager? Or would the City Manager of Toronto be notable if it were not Mr. Pennachetti? I'll throw out the usual caveats as well, though - if there's some notable initiative or programme for which Mr. Pennachetti is responsible, then you might have a better case for notability. But we do not appear to be there just yet. No objection to a mention at Toronto, perhaps in the infobox if it goes there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Spinning Spark 02:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lancia(truck)

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

This new article is poorly written and duplicates the majority of information already on the main Lancia article. The presence of this new article, without any new refs, only adds confusion.

Completing incomplete nom by Warren Whyte (talk · contribs). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written (translation from Italian?). Better to WP:TNT it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - normally I'd go and fix it, but there's no need for this to be outside of the main article, as per the nom, and it's not a useful redirect (as per the misformatted title). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also unsourced. Frigid Ninja 22:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Davey2010 06:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The only good reason to delete this is on quality grounds, which we don't do (We have far worse than this and can't get rid of them). The topic is notable, even if the title is broken, the current article trivial and only the list of model names really adds anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a duplication of the existing Lancia article. The vehicle list is already in the main article (although it may be incomplete), and the trucks division of Lancia isn't big enough to require its own article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has the inclination to do it well, it's an obvious candidate to fork from Lancia. However it would also be no loss in its current state. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue, moving to RFD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Case Tigers are Noble

I'm not sure why this page was ever created. It's not the name of a song or an album Case has ever recorded or released. It redirects to her album The Tigers Have Spoken but there is no song on the album by that name. "Tigers are Noble" is simply a phrase she says during some pre-song banter.

Completing incomplete nom by ChakaKong (talk · contribs). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UCD Fencing Club

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

Nomination As the creator of this page I sought to replace a previous page, of the same name, that had been deleted for lack of notability.

I had hoped that good, reputable and neutral sources could be obtained to substantiate the club. Unfortunately the only article of this nature that I could find is some fifteen years old. While the presence of an Olympic athlete would seem to solidify the notability of the organisation, it has come to my attention that the athlete in question officially competes under an altogether different organisation, the MPAI (which officially is concerned with the modern pentathlon rather than fencing specifically.)

Furthermore, I have also discovered that the club is not the largest club of its type in Ireland, but is in fact dwarfed in membership by a different university fencing club, the wikipedia page for which has been deleted due to lack of notability. Although the article states that the club has achieved the Intervarsity trophy twenty times in its history, which does seem to be the case (notwithstanding the lack of unbiased sources), the club has not won this particular competition for several years. All other sources pertaining to the club seem in some way created or influenced by the club or its members.

Finally, the rankings used as justification for the article are now out of date.

Postscript — The image used as the logo for the club is the generic official image representing the university. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tagging as CSD G7, as the author requested deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've declined the speedy, though, as there are edits by others. The IPs might be the author, but there's no real way of telling. A few days more won't matter. Peridon (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just on one point -- notability is not fleeting. It matters not whether the club has won the Intervarsity trophy twenty times in recent years, or not for several years. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another non-notable university society of which several have been previously deleted. ww2censor (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council

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

Non notable NGO. Mrwikidor ←track 18:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable human rights group. Noted by immigration office of Canada, home offices of UK and US. Has local and national level activities in whole of Bangladesh. Activities are widely covered in Bangladeshi media. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable organization in Bangladesh. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While the criteria in WP:DIPLOMAT are somewhat narrow, as Necrothesp notes the subject of the article was knighted, which is classified as a "significant award or honour" as noted in criterion one of anybio notability requirement. Therefore, the result of this AFD is keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Henry Bentinck

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

Not notable under any WP categories. Completely fails the criteria of WP:DIPLOMAT. No noteworthy achievements, was not involved in any notable events, only links in Wikipedia are in lists of, or as successor or predecessor to other, ambassadors. No secondary literature about him or any doisucssions about him in any literature as far as I can see. Smerus (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- we have list articles on all UK diplomatic missions. I would suggest that the criteria in WP:DIPLOMAT are too narrow or are being interpreted wrongly. Being head of mission in four countries successively should be sufficient to make him notable. More junior posts such as secretary would require the person to meet the criteria stated. For all UK missions to be headed by an ambassador is a relatively recent phenomenon. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but this still doesn't provide any evidence that he did or acheived anything - 'Being head of mission in four countries should be sufficient....' is a classic piece of WP:OR. If you want to change WP:DIPLOMAT, (which you implicitly acknowledge this character doesn't meet) seek to do so at the appropriate place.--Smerus (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The diplomat criteria are too narrow if he does not qualify. He was the lead British representative to four governments, that is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was knighted, which means he meets WP:ANYBIO in any case as he "received a well-known and significant award or honor". He was also effectively ambassador to several countries. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per sources found. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Calvinist Church of El Salvador

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

Christian denomination in El Salvador. No secondary sources used in the article except for directory entries, and none seem to exist on GNews. Furthermore, a comment on the talk page about a previous speedy nomination seems to confirm that we should not expect to find anything susceptible to save the article from deletion. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The church gets coverage in encyclopaedias such as the Historical Dictionary of the Reformed Churches. I found it by searching for the Spanish name (Iglesia Reformada Calvinista de El Salvador) - it is translated there as "Calvinist Reformed Church of El Salvador". The google search got several thousand hits - I suspect there are reliable foreign language sources also providing significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What happened Blanchard, why did you not find it in Google Books? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, it doesn't come up when searching by the article name. St Anselm (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't understand your comment as it came up immediately for me. But I suppose that's because I'm not adding " " marks on term when searching. Anyway, this denomination is obviously highly notable, even without starting into all the Spanish sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. and rename to American Presbyterian Church (founded 1977). I have not created any dab pages as suggested, but I concur with the idea that they would be useful. —Darkwind (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Presbyterian Church

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

Small Christian denomination that consists of two congregations. (Don't be fooled by the name.) Of the sources used, only one is non-primary and it's merely a directory entry. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that all denominations can be presumed to be notable. That is because there are plenty of encyclopaedias and handbooks that explain denominational differences and distinctives. This one is no different - it has an entry in the Encyclopedia of American religions published by Gale. St Anselm (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep St Anselm, if you're sure that Melton mentions them. But the title is a problem, "American Presbyterian Church" in books does not refer to this two-congregation splinter group founded in 1977. American Presbyterian Church (founded 1977) or some other parenthetical disambiguation is needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and convert original to disam page. I disagree with St Anselm that all denominations (of which there are at least 14,000 Christian alone) are inherently notable, but inclusion in Melton's Encyclopedia of America Religions does definitely demonstrate notability of this one. I also agree with In ictu oculi that a name change is in order. My suspicion is that the vast majority of people who type in "American Presbyterian Church" are looking for Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). My suggestion would be for this to be a redirect to American Presbyterian Church (disambiguation) and the current page to be renamed along the lines of American Presbyterian Church (denomination). I recognize that, technically, this may be a little over complicated, but considering the very likely fact that this specific small denomination is not the target of the majority who type in the name, I think it is warranted. Ravendrop 18:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, at best, merge into parent denomination and redirect) – I don't agree that denominations are inherently notable, they should be treated as per WP:NGO. I have no experience of Melton's Encyclopedia and would ask if it is anything more than an attempt to provide a comprehensive annotated list of American religious groups? Unless it provides clear criteria for selection which imply notability the mere listing is clearly not notable. Jpacobb (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per jpacobb 14:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep to allow sources such as those suggested by StAnselm to be added. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ian Brereton

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

No assertion of notability, fails Wikipedia:JOURNALIST. Albacore (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY by user:Breres (hint to any autobiographers out there who want to get away with it; don't use a username similar to real name own and at least pretend to be interested in contributing something useful to other articles). Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I suspect that the biographer is actually one his children, rather than the subject himself. However, it all looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the closest I can find is a totally unrelated pianist named Robert Brereton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexion (band)

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:NBAND. The article has been unreferenced since its creation in 2006, and the only external link is to the band's Myspace page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the band's albums, because they also show no evidence of notability:

All 3 album articles are entirely unreferenced, and there is no suggestion that the albums charted. I have not proposed a merger, because the material is unreferenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you non notable band, it should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. —Darkwind (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Boguslayev

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Reasons:

Articles are very short
Orphaned articles
Fails notability guidelines Alex (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - club chairmen or presidents are not inherently notable by virtue of their positions, and none of these three appear to to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As follows
Boguslayev: Weak Keep - notable as chairman of Motor Garant, local politician, and for being criticised in Ukrainian blogs for having inherited his wealth from his father (who already has article on en.wp)
Honcharov: Delete - doesn't appear to be separately notable from the club.
Kurgansky: Delete - this Kurgansky is only notable for connection to the club. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All fail WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Virtual Operating System

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

No sources. Fails WP:NSOFT. Dewritech (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Saaivignesh is one of the authors of the software, and his own edits to Wikipedia are on this page. That's against the rules of course. Dream Focus 18:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as an unsourced negative article. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Johnson (millionaire)

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

I think this is a hoax. Can't find anything in The Times or Guardian archives. Nothing in Who's Who (except Sir Victor Johnson, 6th Baronet who is clearly different. Looking at birth records there is a Peter V. Johnson born in 1946 in Glamorganshire, but no-one of a similar name in 1945. Article is unreferenced. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation with appropriate sources. —Darkwind (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic Group

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

Unremarkable company with no references to assert notability. Along with sister article United-21 there is likely some sockpuppetry going on. I suspect this is employees of the company. See Admin notice at Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso. Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't speak for WP:EN, as a CU on Commons, I can say that at least five accounts which were

Likely operated by the same person have uploaded images to Commons which appeared in this article, all of which were copyvios. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 18:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is no place for such companies Uncletomwood (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE most/all of the users involved in editing this article have been blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbettreso/Archive). --Biker Biker (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation emissions

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

This is a page of total bollocks and, as far as I can see, is irredeemable. The first sentence is wrong: "Transportation emissions are gases released into the air that come from fossil fuels." So, burning coal in the home is a transportation emission? And it goes on the same: "The gases emit CO2": no they don't, the gases don't emit anything. etc etc. The image used to illustrate has absolutely nothing to do with transportation! The article is written in a "you can do this" attitude - hardly encyclopaedic. It contains a very long list of See also links which seem to be largely random (Stench !). This seems, at best, a rough draft for a schoolkid's homework. I have frequently argued in AfD that a poorly written aricle is not grounds for deletion but a spur to improvement. In this case, I make an exception since there is nothing to salvage or merge to other places. Emeraude (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything is already covered in other pages. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 15:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete false info including original research. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT, and quickly. Frigid Ninja 22:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substantive info here, some good ref.'s and an overall structure for a decent page. Poorly written perhaps, but not irredeemable. First sentence only has a comma wrong. I don't see where it says "The gases emit CO2". Could use the tag: Fredwerner (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been edited since I made my comment. Look at a previous version from History. Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Spinning Spark 12:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Smile from the Trenches

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND.

There is a lengthy list of references, but most of them are to unreliable sources such as Facebook and Myspace, or other sites associated with the artists. I see no sign of the independent coverage in reliable sources which would satisfy WP:GNG, nor of anything to meet the other criteria in WP:BAND. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also deletion discussions on the band's 3 albums: AFD:A Smile from the Trenches EP, AFD:Caught Cheating and AFD:Leave the Gambling for Vegas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I looked for evidence of notability for the album AfDs I didn't find any. --Michig (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. We currently have an article on Derek Jones (musician). He clearly fails WP:GNG, and his only claim to notability per WP:NBAND is that he has been a member of both Falling in Reverse and A Smile from the Trenches. If this article is deleted, then Derek Jones (musician) should also be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - If A Smile from the Trenches is deleted, Derek Jones (musician) should be redirected to Falling in Reverse so long as it remains (or kept). --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lorraine_Heggessey#Boom_Pictures. —Darkwind (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Pictures

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

Company that has been in existence for less than a year. No major productions AFAICT. Article is clearly to promote the company and probably should have been speedied. Note that company's logo is not trademarked and fair use but has been created by the author of the page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lorraine_Heggessey#Boom_Pictures, but without deleting the page history. I'd declined the speedy because it wasn't blatantly and/or unambiguously promotional, but there is a definite problem with notability. I've found some articles talking about the company, but it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article just yet. So far everything that is in the article can be summed up at Heggessey's article. I'd hesitated before doing that in the hopes that someone would come up with more sources, but since she's the most visible face of Boom Pictures and the only one with an actual article, a redirect is probably the best option here. I have no problem with anyone userfying it and working on it until it passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. James086 ^Talk 09:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Wahi

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

not notable enough Ushau97 ^talk 08:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Is not WP:PEOPLE, written from a WP:COI standpoint. Speedy delete. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 08:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jip Deng

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

No sign of significance of the topic; nothing remarkable found in Google search. smt cha hal 07:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find something remarkable by searching the Chinese characters of Jip Deng (摺櫈). What's more, the cultural meanings of Jip Deng is actually in many Hong Kong people's mind and we are trying to record them on Wikipedia.Mary tmy (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More informations can be found when you search Chinese characters '摺櫈' in Google. Jip Deng (摺櫈 or 摺凳) is of fundamental importance in Hong Kong from 1960s to 1990s. Till now, Hong Kong people still use Jip Deng (摺櫈) in many different aspects like local restaurants. Jip Deng (摺櫈) carries historical values and cultural meanings of Hong Kong. Further elaboration of this topic would be valuable as people worldwide will know more about Hong Kong cultures.Evelineleung (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jip Deng is a phrase we speak in Cantonese like Dai Pai Dong. Jip Deng implicitly symbolizes low-income family in Hong Kong as it is one of the affordable furniture for them. Also, it was a common used prop in previous Hong Kong movies. Therefore, it represents Hong Kong's collective memories and cultures and it is extraordinary important to record it on Wikipedia.Siulingng6 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we mention Jip Deng in Hong Kong, Hong Kong people immediately think of some releavant memories like the famous scenes of the movies about triad society, or the old Hong Kong style. Especially Jip Deng was common to be found in people's homes in the past or in the food stalls called Dai Pai Dong, it was because Jip Deng could save a lot spaces while the spaces were valuable in Hong Kong. Therefore Jip Deng contains the cultural memories of Hong Kong.Wwkwongvega (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from SPI Clerk to closing admin: Three of the above accounts have edited from the same university, could be meatpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwkwongvega NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crash Canyon#Season 1. Redirecting to the parent article just in case this is ever entered as a search term. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moose on the Loose

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

The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this episode so it shouldn't have it's own page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV episode, and adds nothing not covered by the main article - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crash Canyon#Season 1. Redirecting to the parent article in case this is ever entered as a search term. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Our Savior

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

The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this episode so it shouldn't have it's own page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Process_for_creating_articles_on_television_episodes ♦ Tentinator ♦ 06:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe all the episodes can be merged with the main article page Crash Canyon. There is not enough content for the episode to standalone. Does not meet WP:EPISODE. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 08:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminized cloth

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

Contested PROD: Unreferenced stub with no indication of notability . Illia Connell (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs expanding per our editing policy - see metallised film for a larger article on a similar topic. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no longer unreferenced. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the nice improvements of Warden and Phil Bridger, I added a couple of more references to use of aluminized cloth in molten metal handling. With seven references, and with least six of them reliable sources, this topic passes notability guidelines per WP:GNG. More refs can be found under "aluminized fabric" and "aluminized textile". While still a stub, the article has no problems with it. Notability of the topic and an article with no problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzicato (software)

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

Heavily edited by a user with an obvious conflict of interest (the developer). Having searched for sources, I couldn't find anything that would allow this product to be considered a notable one. Promo, notability and sourcing templates were all edit-warred out of the article. Stalwart111 04:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Accusations from blocked editor.

I chose that name only because I want to support the company work, as some other users of the products do from number of years. If you do not find anything in the product that makes it "notable", it is because you certainly did absolutely not test the demo ! I invite you to do so : [redacted] (Stalwart111 09:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)) and to come back after, not to (pre)judge my work, but to help me to find how to write my article better in a more encyclopedical style. It is my first work. In the contributors rules, there are "don't byte newbies !" and that is exactly what you do (having yourself written an article for a company which looks very commercial too). Thank you to test the product and show in which way you are a music software specialist. If I do not quote a lot works written by university teachers, it is that the software is not supported by a lot of financial interests and I quote the only references I find. And actually the ones I found are published on .com websites but include technical analysis and present how to master the program, so these are not bad references. Finally as I arrive so I do not master the syntax. Do I have the time to learn and contribute freely ?Arpmuswikicontrib[reply]

Sorry, but WP:AFD is not the place to further spam editors here with links to your product. WP:BITE is an important guideline but it generally doesn't extend to promo-spammers trying to use Wikipedia as the Yellow Pages. To be considered notable, a subject must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting products. Your username is an obvious violation of policy and has been reported (not by me). Yes, I have contributed to dozens of articles about companies, company owners and other organisations (corporate and charitable). You are welcome to do so also, as long as the companies in question meet inclusion criteria. Oh, and how-to guides are generally not considered great sources. Stalwart111 09:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're not allowed to remove template AFD notifications from the top of articles, so please don't. Removing that template won't stop the article from being listed here for deletion anyway. Stalwart111 09:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that yourself you have personal interests for a company which develop music software. You do not talk as an objective editor : notability is a very subjective criteria and instead of helping me to contribute better, you induce my identity. You are not interested in contributing to develop the knowledge corpus, but only interfere with other's work. That attitude can only be motivated by personal financial interests. You are not decided to test the program demo, as I suggested, just because you do not have the skills and knowledge to do so. That is precisely why I do not accept that you insert notifications related to my work. As I said, I mention the sources I find, and maybe "how to" are not equivalent to post-doctoral sources, nevertheless they help a lot of internet users (and not especially software) to learn something (it is the goal, here, and not defend some "cast spirit" as you do). So, unless you can prove you have skills in music notation software field, do not interfere any more in my work. And by the way, let new editors contribute at their own level and also readers who have lesser knowledge and not a very high academic background to discover novelties. It is not everyone who can produce in just one day a perfect article. The one I try to make has nothing to do with "yellow pages" : I begin to talk about technical aspects, but that cannot be done in one hour.Arpmuswikicontrib

You don't WP:OWN the article - your willingness to "accept" criticism is irrelevant. The product does not meet inclusion guidelines and was tagged that way. Again, please don't remove AFD tags - deleting them won't stop the article from being deleted anyway. That will just get you blocked. Only the supply of reliable sources that give your product significant coverage will save it. Stalwart111 10:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Stalwart111 11:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I removed a comment from an obvious block-evading IP sock. Stalwart111 14:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear violation of WP:PROMO; not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<comment redacted>

Delete - Obviously promotional, either by the product's actual author or by someone enamored of the product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- <redacted>
  - It would help if you could find some useful references, for example a major computer publication reviewing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The now-deleted comment, "The problem is that for little products, press is not so in a hurry", makes it blatantly obvious that the article's promoter is intending to use Wikipedia to try to ascribe artificial notability to his product. Nope. Can't do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed comments from block-evading IP and will now semi-protect this page for the duration of the discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC) (see WP:ANI#Promo-spammer on the loose -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Though promotional, it could be rewritten. There are two full reviews, neither based on PR, which is enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon piece isn't a review, it's a "how to". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, the only "source" (listed at the end) for that article is the company that created the software being reviewed. So did the company provide those how-to instructions for Salon to reprint? I'm actually inclined to think that the TopTenReviews one is better... but not sufficient on its own. That and TTR has courted controversy in the past for its commercial (click-through advertising) relationships with the producers of the products it reviews. It came up in a separate AFD I participated in, I think. Not a deal-killer but surely a concern if it's the only "independent" source being offered, and might not be independent. Stalwart111 22:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I searched online and found numerous web pages that mention the software, doesn't that make the subject notable? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. "Mentions" are not what is required. See Wikipedia:Notability (software) (an essay) and WP:GNG (policy). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I shouldn't have used the word "mention", please read "discuss" instead: substantial text is used to describe the software. It is available in share ware and free versions too.[18] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's from www.music-composing.com - a site set up to sell the product. See the notes at the bottom of the page. Stalwart111 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of that, the link was shared to know whether clauses for "free software" could be used in relation to this software (looks weak though) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get where you're coming from. Yeah, it's available free, but that's a trial/demo version designed to encourage you to buy the full product later. I don't think there's any doubt this is an entirely commercial product, even if they drum up business with free samples. In fact, the company's representative tried to give me a trial version (see the hatted section above) claiming it would somehow prove notability. Stalwart111 22:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your patience and time, I don't know how good or otherwise the various web sites that mention the product are as I do not have the wherewithal to do so. I remain neutral in this discussion, I won't vote "keep" is all I say. I leave it to the better informed to decide.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The drama with which this started shouldn't preclude us from having a nice civilised chat about it. And it still has about 6 days to go. Stalwart111 23:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's more spam in this article than a WW2 shop, and with a name like that, if there was any coverage, it should be easy to find: there is no coverage, in anything other than how-to guides. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software article with poor references - the salon article is not from salon, but instead Demand Media, a content-farm with reliability problems and almost no editorial oversite; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a combination advertisement and tutorial, and .... the software has taken place in the global market. (?!?!?). Given text like this, notability is a side issue. This fairly obviously reads like a paid or COI placement, and non-article text like this should be deleted on sight pour encourager les autres. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Darkwind (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CyberEmotions

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

academia spam Krushia (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Written slightly like an advertisement, but it can be rewritten to be encyclopedic. Has many big players (Warsaw University of Technology)(Berlin Institute of Technology), etc. involved. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 08:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'll try working on the cleanup. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First music videos aired on MTV

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

Fancruft, sourced using potentially copyvio external links ViperSnake151 Talk 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like VH1 sourced the content. If the links are to copyvios, they need to go, period. However, since there are other RS'es for the order, the copyvio links don't mean that the article must be deleted in their absence. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Boston Globe page—well, series of pages—as a reference for the first ten. —rybec 02:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. The information is sourceable and worthwhile content; the links can be evaluated, but the article is worthwhile even if some of them go. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes the first day special enough to warrant its own page? To me, it seems like a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main MTV article, not notable on its own. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  * FYI, I now have an account. --Hisasi Zing-Zing (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Darkwind (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juluk

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

It is still unsourced and still lacks coordinate information. There are also no links to this page in the mainspace. Eye snore (PC) 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an article concerns a populated place, then the norm is for it to be retained and the nominator's concerns are a matter of article improvement. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this place, which indicates multiple possible spellings: Zuluk, Djuluk. See also Google Maps. AllyD (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears to be a real place (per AllyD above), so is kept. No sourcing and no coords is unfortunate but are not reasons to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Politics of Eritrea. Courcelles 05:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Eritrea

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

The article say it is a list of rulers of Eritrea but contains nothing but links to two other pages which list heads of state and provincial heads. As this article wouldn't ever contain anything that doesn't duplicate the other two, I don't see any reason for it to exist. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Politics of Eritrea. Praemonitus (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is merely a list of other lists. I can't see any reason for its existence. Paul Marston (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Totally unnecessary. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 15:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt for 3 months. It is noted for the record that the only comments in favor of keeping the article were made by apparent SPA accounts, possibly indicating some form of puppetry. —Darkwind (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yap Kwong Weng

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

Subject of the article is a functionary in a Non Governmental Organization and has won various minor, non notable honors. PROD declined without explanation by a sock puppet of the article creator. Safiel (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This gentleman does not seem to meet the guidelines. The author seems only to be interested in editing that page, and may be acquainted with the subject, possibly WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. There is no indication of notability and no indication that the article would not be a permanent orphan. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I would like to request that this article not be deleted. Yap's participation as a Country Chair of the Global Dignity organisation puts him in a leading position of importance in both civil society and the non-governmental sector in the region. His achievements of being appointed a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum and presence in many forums of civil discourse is also notable as a search on Google might uncover. As he continues his work in Cambodia, I am certain that he will play an important role in shaping the public discourse in the capacity of Global Dignity Chair of Cambodia. I humbly request that this post not be deleted. kelvinchongyh (talk)

— kelvinchongyh (talk • contribs) has made no edits on any other subject.

"I am certain that he will play an important role" means "He is not yet notable, but I think he will be". However, we do not keep articles because somebody guesses that their subjects will be notable some day: we need verifiable evidence that he is notable now. See WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ducknish (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete As a young Singaporean, I have noted that Yap Kwong Weng has played a significant role in initiating change in the local and international front. Yap, as a Young Global Leader as well as Country Chair for Cambodia, Global Dignity, has addressed international audiences in Singapore, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and other parts of the world. In March 2011, Yap Spoke at the Sustainable Development and Leadership Forum, held in Curtin University, Sarawak. The event was attended by Datuk Lee Kim Shin, Assistant Minister of Infrastructure Development and Communication. Yap highlighted the risks that climate change has on humanity and spoke on the subject of social capital, emphasizing the need for harmonious collaboration to effectively tackle current world issues. (Curtin, 2011; The Borneo Post, 2011) ^[1] ^[2].

In a separate event in January 2013, Yap addressed an international audience at the "National Conference on the Role of Youth in Reconciliation" held in the Lashman Kadirgamar Institute for International Relations and Strategic Studies in Sri Lanka. He highlighted the rise of global instability and proceeded to expound on the key driving factors that has helped to trigger unprecedented events around the world (Eg. The Arab Spring, 9/11. etc). He then discussed the responses to such events and the importance of involving today's youths in the implemented of proposed frameworks and solutions (Kadirgamar Institute, 2013). ^[3]

In 2011, Yap spoke at TEDXKL, an independently organized TED event held in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia (TedxKL, 2011).^[4]

In addition to that, In 2010, Yap trekked through the Taklamakan Desert in China in an event organized by Racing the Planet. His trek aimed to raise public awareness of the United Nations Association of Singapore (UNAS), of which he is the Secretary General. The 100km trek which was, according to Yap, "to further the cause of UNAS and play a part in the UN's millennium goals." (Brunei Times, 2010). ^[5].

Yap is also an Associate Fellow with the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, (SIIA), a local think tank. He has written papers which have been published with the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy, the Rajaratnam School of international Studies, and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) (MINDEF, 2009).^[6]. In 2013, a commentary by Yap, titled "Does Sabah merit ASEAN's attention?", was published in the commentaries section of Singapore's local papers. In the paper, Yap evaluates the recent Sabah-Sulu conflict and ASEAN's role in resolution of it. (Today Online, 2013) ^[7]

As seen here, Yap Kwong Weng has contributed significantly to initiating societal changes both locally and internationally. He has published works and has been noted in local and international media. I therefore request that this article not be deleted. Thank you. lokezsw (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokszw (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Lokszw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, subject has received passing mention in a few non-primary reliable sources. That being said the subject has not received significant coverage in any of those sources and thus leads me to conclude that the subject utterly fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and is not notable. Perhaps it is too soon for the subject to receive significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ In addition to the above entry, I want to emphasise that Yap is a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader, which is certainly a notable award which deserves recognition. Moreover, the award is widely recognised by Wikipedia in the entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Young_Global_Leaders

It is hence submitted that this entry should not be deleted.

kelvinchongyh (talk) (talk • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.117.127 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already posted a bold "do not delete". Posting more than one is likely to be confusing, as it runs the risk of giving the impression that another person has said that, so I have struck that bold message. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Just saw the wiki page as I googled for Yap's bio. So decided to share my thoughts. Yap is clearly notable in the areas of community service in Singapore and has shown consistent progress over the years in several areas, both locally and internationally. Furthermore, his work is also verifiable through the links provided. I really don't see why his contributions should be rejected online. Therefore, it may be worthwhile considering to put up this wiki article. For considerations. Hammieham15 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Melinda[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G11, pretty obvious promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Her! A Tutelage with Lip

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

Non-notable book lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Appears to be self-published. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, the page is written in a purely promotional style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I've tagged it for a speedy, but just in case it survives I want to voice my support for a delete. The article is blatant promotion and searching brings up almost nothing about the book. There is nothing out there to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charli Baltimore#Singles. —Darkwind (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philly Stand Up

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

Does not meet notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs - ChakaKong (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nom by ChakaKong (talk · contribs) — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added the AFD template stuff underneath. Stalwart111 01:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charli Baltimore#Singles. I can find no coverage about this single. Normally, this would be a redirect to the album, but there is no article for the album so teh discography singles section is teh next best choice. Note that I did find sources for a "Philly Stand Up" by Jay Weldon, but doesn't apepar to be related. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Whpq. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SNP file format. Plausable enough, that we really shouldn't leave this redlinked Courcelles 05:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot (file format)

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

This article is basically a duplicate of SNP file format (and would also be an implausible redirect). The other article has more information (and was also created earlier), so it should be the one that remains. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley 02:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom that this article duplicates SNP file format and that the latter article has more information and more secondary refs. --Mark viking (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a less descriptive duplicate of SNP file format --Karverstudio (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NPASR if sources are not found. —Darkwind (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taïeb Mhiri School

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

Unsourced article about the secondary school. I would say this is speedy deletion material, however, seach does find something about the school - I just can not collect the results and make an article out of them. Let us discuss. Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked for Arabic sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not be able to deduce notability from them. It would be good if someone could.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although I'm not sure how the Tunisian system works, if a secondary school is the same as a high school, surely it's automatically notable anyway? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A secondary school is equivalent to a high school and we keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Tunisian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local and Arabic sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am looking for sourcing, I did figure out school is probably named for Taïeb Mhiri, and worked up a stub bio for him.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG as none of the sources count as significant coverage. No prejudice against userfyfing the article should someone find the content merge-worthy. —Darkwind (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, but not peculiar

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

unremarkable game,i dont think it needs to be on wikipedia,let the community decide.Uncletomwood (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Uncletomwood (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real coverage to cite the article with. Ducknish (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that most people who went to summer camp in the USA will probably be familiar with this game in some form. I think the addition of external references (including published books) should satisfy the NOR requirement. As for notability, I think ObnP is no less notable than Johnny Whoops and Scissors (game). AVOIDCOI disclosure: I am the creator of this article. However, if there is a larger topic that "Odd, but not peculiar" would fit into, I would not be averse to merging it into the larger article. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added external references, including to two published books on the subject of games of this type. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article in its current state has enough references to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does this really pass WP:GNG? Wiki Answers is obviously not reliable, the Parade.com source seems very blog-ish and tabloidy to me, Wildrapid.com is almost certainly a blog. That leaves two books, which I can't fully analyse as there are only very small snippets of the book available. There's plenty of passing remarks using this phrase, and several other things in non-reliable sources, but I'm really not seeing any significant, non-trivial coverage in clear WP:RS - I get the feeling the coverage in those books either classifies as trivial or routine, or that it simply isn't in-depth coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own (Crunchy Black album)

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

Non notable album and the artists page is now a redirect so this page doesn't really link to anywhere. Koala15 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 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 March 23. Snotbot t • c » 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy delete Promotional and eminently non-notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article as it currently exists does not meet WP:V, and People of India does not appear to be a reliable source sufficient to rewrite the article. No prejudice against recreation iff appropriate sources can be found. —Darkwind (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkaligar

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

Prod contested without comment. My prod rationale was "This appears to be original research: 'The Sikkaligar people that we did research on...', 'A 210-item wordlist was collected...' Wikipedia is not for publishing of original research." Some of the quoted verbage has since been removed, but not what was the apparent OR itself. I can find a few mentions of Sikkaligar in lists available in Google Books, but that is it, not enough information to write an article without OR. LadyofShalott 19:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a substantial entry for these people in People of India. Warden (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "states" series of The People of India is not a good source and has been criticised previously both on various article talk pages, at WT:INB and at WP:RSN, eg: here. As well as by academics, of course. It would probably be sensible not to use it in the article, if only because it regurgitates the work of gentleman-scholar ethnographers from the British Raj period - most of whom were scientific racists - and generally does so by outright plagiarism or with an absolute minimal acknowledgement. The "national" series, published by OUP during the lifetime of the series editor, is ok. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a lot of work, but worth keeping. They sound a little bit like the Romani people of Eastern Europe but much more primitive. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Borderlien keep/no consensus matter here Courcelles 05:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All but dissertation

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

WP:NOTDIC, does not meet GNG. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a wealth of information on the internet about this. Many of the references concern sites that will help the PhD candidate finish his dissertation or write it for him. Also, various colleges and universities list their policies on the ABD (all but dissertation) candidates. I myself was in this category a few years and know firsthand it is a valid subject. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you "know firsthand" is a prime example of original research! Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was was me relating my experience; it was not meant to be used as proof. Look at the rest of my arguments. Bill Pollard (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of your arguments don't really get the question we're asking here. No one's disputing that ABD is a real concept or a real phrase; the question is whether its notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. A wealth of information is not the same as a wealth of reliable information. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A somewhat close call. When in doubt, I put quotation marks around it and do a Google search. I got 600,000 hits, indicating widespread usage of the term. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a wealth of information on the subject, so it passes WP:GNG. The article already goes well beyond a dictionary definition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary def for a concept about which it's hard to conceive anything worthwhile could be said, [19] notwithstanding. It would be like having an article called Gathered enough signatures but hasn't turned in the nomination papers yet so as it stands he won't be on the ballot -- um, OK, yeah, got it. EEng (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rafhael Domingues

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to an MLS club that he has played pro matches. While true, none of the matches in which he has played were fully pro, and being signed to but not playing for a fully-pro club is explicitly excluded as a source of notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rafhina has played pro matches for fully pro team in Brazil, how can the Paranaense 1st Div. in Brazil not qualify, when USL etc in the USA qualifies. Additionally he scored two goals in an officially sanctioned pro match against another full pro side Iraty. The criteria may need to be re looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.84.221 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of reliable sources on the List of fully pro leagues. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but will get a Keep if he gets some playing time in a fully pro league. Worth watching for soccer fans. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete soccer players in Brazil are usually famous, but that one does not seem to be notable to me. Campeonato Brasileiro Série C is actually not professional and not notable. Algébrico (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I'm not an expert on the subject, but a google test wasn't impressive. I also couldn't find any WP:RS. I trust the nominator's judgment, while also echoing User:Phoenix and Winslow's statement that if he makes it into pro league, he can then get an article. Feedback ^☎ 21:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:N and the other notability pages are official guidelines, and we can't just ignore them and let a non-notable page persist. This isn't being fussy; this is upholding community standards. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON, and the Wikipedia community would welcome this article's re-creation if the game becomes notable. —Darkwind (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise: A Tale of Horror

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

Non-notable indie game (equivalent to a self-published book) with no meaningful coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a press release that was reprinted by GamaSutra, but PR isn't usable as a RS regardless of where it's posted. The game had an trivial mention in this Eurogamer article, but that's a trivial mention and it doesn't give notability. This is ultimately a non-notable indie game. I have no issue with it being userfied, but the overall article needs a lot of work to become more neutral and encyclopedic. The review section of the article is a huge example of this, as the section seems to be written with a bit of a slant with phrases such as "The editor of the review was excited yet retain some professionalism" and "despite all of this he also says". I know it's common to paraphrase in review sections, but this seemed to have been written by someone who wanted to represent the game as good as possible despite the review having some negative things to say. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional material about a non-notable indie game. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the promotinal material is a problem and noteability is a huge issue for me, i can not convince you i just can not do that, i am only 1 guy doing this article i am lucky if i do get help at all. its easy to make a page but jesus christ is there a part in the article i did not mess up in?--Indienews (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply - don't beat up on yourself, Indie: we've all messed up on articles and other things here. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good: do the best you can, seek help and criticism, and don't be discouraged by trivial setbacks. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a small article on the game at Indiegames.com and a review at ScrewAttack. That's the best I could come up with. Don't give up, Indienews. There are a lot of indie game topics that still need coverage! If you'd like a quick set of pointers about how to write an article that will survive AfD, please leave me a note on my talk page. I'd like to help if I can. -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a change in the staff section that lost two of its staff members, so i'm going to guess that beta tester is another promotional word or that it was removed since it lacked noteability?? --Indienews (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the notability/significance to justify an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: come on can we at least give this a chance and not have random users getting fussy over noteability, i'm going to say this once or twice this article is a work in progress meaning its far from finished so i will happily defend this article till im dead or gone --Indienews (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melchers Building

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

I know I started this very article myself a few years ago, but now I'm a little older and taken a second look at it.. I'm not so convinced it meets the Wikipedia standards of notability. No famous architect, and subsequently no overly interesting organization is housed in the Melchers. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the oldest commercial building in Honolulu, and I found it discussed in many books. For example, Discovering Historic America: California & the West describes it as among a group of "particularly noteworthy structures". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few more references. Seems historic enough to be notable. There aren't many buildings of that vintage in Honolulu. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oldest commercial building, in the capital and largest city of a state. Not such a bad article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a contributing property to the Merchant Street Historic District, according to this nomination form. Some buildings are on the National Register even if they don't have famous architects or notable organizations, because they play an important role in a city's history. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Old by US standards and enough sources to establish notability.--Charles (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the deletion of an article you created can be discouraging, WP:N is an official guideline. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Darkwind (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Surname DNA Project

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

This is a non-notable DNA project. FamilyTreeDNA currently has 7,347 such surname projects [20]. These projects are administrated by "unpaid volunteers who have an interest in the history and genealogy of a particular haplogroup, lineage, geographic region, or surname" [21]. Anyone can create a surname project [22]. The creator of the article is User:Nigelbrooks; the adminstrator of the surname project is "Nigel Brooks" [23]. The only published thing I could find about the project on Google and GoogleBooks was by a publisher (Ceed Publishing) pushing Wikipedia articles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Article has been written in an unbiased way and would welcome a 3rd party analysis added to it - you would have hoped people with the intellect of Brianann MacAmhlaidh and expertise on DNA would help with this rather than trying to get all FTDNA Surname Projects removed from Wikipedia - I question if Brianann MacAmhlaidh has a 3rd party reason for attacking such pages when they do not constitute their own personal views - I have read many Wiki articles where this user has attacked an article when they do not represent this users views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelbrooks (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based upon reliable third-part sources. If the subject of an article isn't given significant coverage by independent sources, it's not considered notable. A FamilyTreeDNA project isn't notable in itself; and it's project webpage, administrator, and affiliate webpages aren't independent sources. Wikipedia isn't the place to publicise or advertise a particular subject, but a place to display a summary of what reliable sources have to say about the subject.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eminently non-notable. Sorry, Nigel. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not written for publicity and great pains went into making sure any external links to research and websites by the original creator of the page were not included. - This is very discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.1.82 (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to have have received significant independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Social capital crucial to environmental sustainability. [24].Curtin, Media Release 2011, Retrieved 31 Mar 2013
^ Curtin, Unas to jointly host Sustainable Devt and Leadership Forum.[25], The Borneo Post, 08 Mar 2011. Retrieved on 31 Mar 2013.
^ National Conference on the Role of Youth in Reconciliation. [26]. Kadirgamar Institute, 02 Jan 2013.
^ http://www.tedxkl.com/yap-kwong-weng/
^ Singapore wonderman to trek 'desert of no return. [27]. Brunei Times, 17 Aug 2010. Retrieved 31 Mar 2013
^ http://www.mindef.gov.sg/content/imindef/publications/pointer/monographs/mono7/_jcr_content/imindefPars/0005/file.res/Key%20Perspectives%20on%20Special%20Forces.pdf
^ Does Sabah merit ASEAN’s attention? [28]. Today, 18 Mar 2013. Retrieved 31 Mar 2013

[1] Social capital crucial to environmental sustainability. [24].Curtin, Media Release 2011, Retrieved 31 Mar 2013

[2] Curtin, Unas to jointly host Sustainable Devt and Leadership Forum.[25], The Borneo Post, 08 Mar 2011. Retrieved on 31 Mar 2013.

[3] National Conference on the Role of Youth in Reconciliation. [26]. Kadirgamar Institute, 02 Jan 2013.

[4] ttp://www.tedxkl.com/yap-kwong-weng/

[5] Singapore wonderman to trek 'desert of no return. [27]. Brunei Times, 17 Aug 2010. Retrieved 31 Mar 2013

[6] ttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/content/imindef/publications/pointer/monographs/mono7/_jcr_content/imindefPars/0005/file.res/Key%20Perspectives%20on%20Special%20Forces.pdf

[7] Does Sabah merit ASEAN’s attention? [28]. Today, 18 Mar 2013. Retrieved 31 Mar 2013

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]