The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimous consensus for Keep, after research/improvements, nominator requested that the sources be integrated to improve the article. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclemania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Almost no information on page, one reference. Although a Google search will give multiple hits, most of the pages are blank or say that there is no information on the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Jucchan (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Computer Gaming World published an extensive review (two and a half pages long) of the game in its January 1995 issue (see pages 161-164). Mobygames lists seven other magazines which published reviews of this game. Admittedly copies of the listed issues may be a bit difficult to track down, but it does appear that sufficient WP:RS exist to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Video game popularity in the pre-Internet era is difficult to track, but this game was distributed internationally, and got certain impact (and relevance)--El Pantera (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: OK, could someone add to the article so it has some information on it? Also, the link to the Accolade article goes to the article about knighthood. Jucchan (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional meaning of accolade refers to a ceremony conferring knighthood, so that's where the Wikilink directs because that's presumed to be the most common use. However, there's also a Accolade_(disambiguation) page which includes a link to Accolade (company). --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC) EDIT: I found the time to rewrite the article using Computer Gaming World as a reference so that it's now a "proper" Stub. The Accolade link now directs to the game company, not the knighthood ritual. It still needs more references, so I added the "single-source" tag. Hopefully someone can access some of the other magazine reviews listed in Mobygames. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to fail GNG for sports. He hasn't played in any major games (yet!) SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norhadi Ubaidillah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had been previously deleted by PROD on similar grounds. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above for the same reasons. He has not played at a significant level. C679 10:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - has not played in a professional football league. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I'm missing something, but the article on the Malaysia Super League says that it's a professional league. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus of policy-based discussion was that the subject fails notability guidelines. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cammarata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists). Reason given in PROD was: Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Illia Connell (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that the correct previous AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael T Cammarata. The first AFD referenced above is a different person. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the previous AfD is still the same person per here that AfD must of been the same person too just in a different name. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, if you look at the AFD discussion they're talking about a firefighter that died during the Sept 11 attacks. The creator of this person's bio first used "Michael T Cammarata", and then this time around just reused the title without the middle initial since it was available. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh whatever, Delete anyways fails WP:BIO JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to successfully source this. Amazing claims of having invented internet marketing (or whatever) on the article, the bit about producing the movie with those kids is correct, however I don't feel that is enough to establish notability, so he fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. If he continues his production career then maybe this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources found. GregJackP Boomer! 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on Hollywood Reporter - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/vanessa-hudgens-ashley-tisdale-animated-movie-371542 - Confirms the movie release date, cast and that Mr. Cammarata is producing it.^[1] Hollywood Reporter - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/big-time-rush-kendall-schmidt-logan-henderson-370437 - confirms MR. Cammarata manages Big Time Rush Kendall Schmidt and Logan Henderson^[2] IMDB http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm3148735/clients_rank - confirms Mr. Cammarata manages Ray J, Kendall Schmidt, Logan Henderson, Kevin Schmidt, Kenneth Schmidt and more. Also includes he is part of Cammarata Management and The Beddingfield company which also manages josh hutcherson ^[3] PollStarPro http://www.pollstarpro.com/search.aspx?ArticleID=53&id=research&ArtistID=243157&ScienceArtistID=184845 - confirms Mr. Cammarata manages the group Big Time Rush , Ray J, Kendall Schmidt, Logan Henderson, Kevin Schmidt, Kenneth Schmidt complete list http://www.pollstarpro.com/search.aspx?ArticleID=29&id=research&CompFunctionID=&ScienceCompFunctionID=122346,^[4][5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.89.30 (talk • contribs) — 173.14.89.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Seems non-notable. Greengreengreenred 07:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If anyone was wondering, all four of the "Keep" votes above my "Delete" vote were posted by the same user (173.14.89.30). Greengreengreenred 07:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he manages one of the biggest music groups in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.32 (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — 166.147.123.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Big Time Rush is currently 2nd biggest boy band in the world. They landed the over Parade Magazine ^[6]
• Comment used archive.org to link him to being the founder of Ultraboard known as UB and UB2K one of the first Message_boards ^[7]
• Comment used archive.org to find background Message boards major release was designed under ultrascripts brand 1999 and latest name change from Ultraboard being cgi based to php based was in 2000 see ^[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetfreedom (talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I compared Ultraboard to VBulletin, Phpbb, and other internet forum software found at http://cgi.resourceindex.com/Programs_and_Scripts/ and http://php.resourceindex.com/Programs_and_Scripts/ also using web.archive.org to confirm Ultraboard was the first to use php and was the first listing 1996
• Comment using archive, I have also linked and found that Michael Cammarata released the first video game music video which was one of the most downloaded files from gamespy/fileplanet at is time^[9], Diablo II/Gangsters Paradise Music Video, and Starcraft/Limp Bizkit Music Video by GamingMV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetfreedom (talk • contribs) 09:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Internetfreedom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep thats a big project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.226.104 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — 76.173.226.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk)

• Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.115.76 (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — 76.167.115.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Why? Please demonstrate how this meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KBFR (pirate radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete This article is incredibly poorly written. The external links listed in the article are not all active. Of those that are, several of them point to various social media accounts (e.g. twitter account) which are no longer active. There are absolutely no inline citations in the entire article. The article needs a complete rewrite in order to comply with both Wikipedia standards as well as to be coherent in general. The article is clearly written as a personal opinion, at one point criticizing the FCC of using "Gestapo tactics." A box calling for additional citations and verification has been active since 2007 and another box calls for a complete rewrite since the beginning of 2009. Thus, the article has been in serious trouble for over just about four to five years now. It is apparent that there is no interest in this article and that it will not be fixed any time in the future, it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhakan (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This article reflects a very real social phenomenon (Pirate Radio) and is more relevant today than ever with the advent of Low Power FM (LPFM) kicking into gear Oct. of 2013. The history of why we GOT LPFM come from pirate radio, such as KBFR. The Prometheus Group (who have been the ones that are making LPFM possible in the US) is made up of people that started as pirate radio operators just like KBFR. Also keep in mind that pirate radio is BY THE PEOPLE.. it is not polished or sophisticated. "Badly written" is a subjective idea IF the content is highly valuable (which this content is). Lastly, I know one of the original founders of this station and will ask him to look at and update links in this article to improve it's overall quality. Possibly, he can also update/cleanup the text of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.102.183 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Malformed nomination and discussion moved from previous Afd discussion page[1] Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Contrary to the anon IP's assertion above, the fact that pirate radio exists as a notable concept does not mean that every individual pirate radio station in existence should necessarily have its own separate article — rather, individual pirates are only notable if you can add reliable sources which directly attest to the notability of that specific station in its own right. Conventionally licensed radio stations are a different story, but that's because the relevant broadcast regulator (FCC, CRTC, OFCOM, etc.) issues publicly accessible licensing documents which count as reliable sources — it is not because either class of radio station is automatically entitled to an article just because it exists.

In its current form, this article is very poorly referenced and makes no credible claim of notability; rather, it claims existence and then bogs down in deep trivia of the type that wouldn't warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article even if this were a real licensed radio station. Accordingly, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources and the article makes no claim of notability, just existence. Supplied references are either dead links, dont mention this pirate radio station at all, or mention it only in passing. Same of any other references I was able to find, either go to self-published blogs, or mention the subject of this article only in passing. Changing my !vote to week keep. I'd still prefer to see a reference other than local weekly newspaper. If this is such a strong example of a pirate radio station, has it received any attention from outside the area? Worth noting that the notability of the subject of pirate radio is not at issue here at all, this particular station is. RadioFan (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as subject is the focus of multiple in-depth articles in multiple reliable third-party sources over a sustained period. These include this 2001 cover story from Boulder Weekly, this 2002 Boulder Weekly profile, and this 2008 article in Westword. Does the article need a lot of work? Heck yes, but AfD is not cleanup. (Pardon me for repeating myself from the original AfD but the same strong sources are still available and the basic policies about notability have not changed.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Other sources than the ones Dravecky lists can be found, as the comment in the first nomination shows. Cirt, who is not one of those admins who show up from time to time to Keep something that they are interested in, but rather a steady deletor of more articles than he keeps, saw fit to close this Keep two years ago. Anarchangel (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dravecky. FurrySings (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mistress (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NALBUMS this compilation did not receive notable coverage from independent reliable sources and there isnt anything substantial aside from a track listing. Can mention at artist's discography and page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This has received some coverage, e.g. MTV, Boston Globe, but not really enough for a standalone article, and we don't have much in the article at the moment. A merge to Jay Sean discography may be best. --Michig (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 20:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also per nom, support just merging it into the artists article (following album notability guidelines). SarahStierch (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jay Sean discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the Lights (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NALBUMS this compilation did not receive notable coverage from independent reliable sources and there isnt anything substantial aside from a track listing. Can mention at artist's discography and page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Jay Sean discography. Not significant enough for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, previously this article was merged and redirected. Nothing has really changed since then, same level/quality of information, be it that happened several years ago. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jay Sean discography. It was already previously a redirect, and since this album didn't appear to get enough reliable coverage, converting back to a redirect probably wouldn't hurt either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Narutolovehinata5. SarahStierch (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I can easily see where this is heading (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Florence International Boarding School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – since the school also includes secondary school education, it qualifies for a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - senior high school and boarding school. No evidence of WP:Before due diligence being carried out. 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 Nepalese 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 sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no need for me to repeat TerriersFan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per the three comments so far and my own view. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese style of crossing road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not completely sure what to say about this, but it seems more like a blog post or essay. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - I G3 CSDed this at about the same time as this nomination. This page was created and deleted just a couple of days ago. - MrX 17:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-encyclopaedic, non-notable, non-referenced. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Normally such an article would default to keep, however, given the interplay of paid editing/COI/ in the article creation and sockpuppetry in this discussion I will delete the article. No prejudice to speedy recreation with reliable sourcing, and I will userfy a copy of this article on request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ray Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:CRIME or WP:BIO for that matter; most likely created as a "companion" article to Fry's lawyer Stephen Aarons in an attempt to boost his perceived notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Meets the notability criteria under Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts was convicted of multiple separate killings. WP Bio: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. - Known and verifiability convicted - which is available in government court records in three separate trials - Also is a Serial killer, and the subject of a book on his crimes. And is currently the last person schedule to die ever on death row in New Mexico, which makes Fry important to Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States, where repeal has been debated quite heavily. Meanie (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no significant depth of coverage from reliable sources. Your other opinions on why he is important are irrelevant to Wikipedia guidelines on notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So State court records are irrelevant? https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200000542 - 4 Charges in one trial - 4 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200000513 - 4 Charges in another trial - 4 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200001055 - 7 Charges in another trial - 6 convictions
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-200001103 - 2 Charges represented by Aarons - 2 Dismissed
https://caselookup.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-1116-CR-9700788 - 5 Charges in another trial - 3 Convictions

19 convictions for violent crimes in New Mexico - all of which were the subject of intense media scrutiny and a book. Meanie (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had you really read WP:BIO or WP:Reliable sources, you'd know that government records don't apply, and neither does a book by a non-notable author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia Secondary Sources:Law "Legal writers usually prefer to cite primary sources because only primary sources are authoritative and precedential, while secondary sources are only persuasive at best.[25]" For wiki law the rules are different - Or do I misread - are court records not the authoritative voice? Its why we can say XYZ is a convicted criminal. Meanie (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Court records are fine to verify a statement, but court records and similar records do nothing to boost notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Court records verify the criminality - I totally agree. Media sources also corroborate this.

In ONE paper in the state Robert Fry is brought up in 19 different articles, including by a candidate for governor in the state in the discussion about the 2009 Repeal and its after affects. August 9th, 2012 - Death Penalty Challenges Still Haunt NM Courts - http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/09/news/death-penalty-challenges-still-haunt-nm-courts.html
August 9th, 2012 - States Look to NM on Executions - http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/04/09/news/states-look-to-nm-on-executions.html
January 28th, 2011 -AG's Office Argues for Penalty Phase - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/28238174864newsmetro01-28-11.htm
Dec 10, 2010 - Astorga Death Penalty Trial Can Proceed - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/032332537958newsmetro12-03-10.htm
June 8, 2010 - Dueling Over Death Penalty, invoked by candidate for Governor - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/082335485340newsstate06-08-10.htm
April 5, 2009 - Law Leaves Room for Executions - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/xgr/05104724state04-05-09.htm
Case related stories - 54 Hits in ABQ Journal Archives December 9, 2005 - Killer's Verdict, Sentance Upheld - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/414937nm12-09-05.htm
May 25, 2005 - Court TV show Will Look at NM Killer - http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/354061nm05-25-05.htm

And this is without getting into the Santa Fe New Mexican, the Santa Fe Reporter and the ABQ Tribune. It could be argued this case was as big in New Mexico, as Paul Bernardo was to Canada. In the Media Court TV : Forensic Files
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0986733/plotsummary
MSNBC Lockup
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14346975#14346975 Meanie (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Never mind the bestselling dimestore paperback about this serial killer, the 8 unsolved murders believed to be his, or the fact he is the first defendant in US history to face three separate death penalty trials. Focus on one inescapable fact: the NM legislature and governor struck a political compromise by abolishing the death penalty for all future cases but keeping Fry on the chopping block. Can the government pass a law contemplating the execution of one person? It is a unique constitutional debate sure to drag on for years in the courts and wiki debates... Steve Aarons (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Aar095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, he is not a serial killer. Not a spree killer, not a massmurderer, but a killer. He has a few murders under his belt, but so do a lot of people. If he, and his case, was so in need of an article why was it created now? It would appear that this article was created to provide a foundation for the lawyer's article which is also up for AfD. Regardless, this does not meet WP:CRIME and as a WP:BIO (ignoring the crime) he fails because of WP:BLP1E. PeterWesco (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant believe you the fact this is the only person in the united states ever to have three separate death penalty trials, and will be the last person EVER to die on New Mexico death row, and is one of two people exempt from its 2009 repeal. By your logic Paul Bernardo is not a serial killer, and isnt notable. Meanie (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Paul Bernardo meets the term of serial killer because: he had a target profile (young girls), it was sexually related, he has a body count, etc. I find it comical you are comparing Fry to Bernardo. Fry does not meet any criteria of serial killer. "He will be the last person to die on NM death row" UNTIL the law is changed in the future. There can't be a "last person to die" on death row as the world is not over, laws can be changed, etc. He had three separate death penalty trials - That is noteworthy. It should be noteworthy under: "Botched police investigations" "Botched murder trials" "Wastes of tax payer's dollars". This is simply a case of a guy who did not get caught on his first killing, but was eventually caught and he was charge and sentenced. This is another example of why he also does not meet the serial killer label. PeterWesco (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was tempted to go through the crime project and flag anything for deletion which didn't have at least the notoriety of this guy in their state. Though that would likely be half of the project as most of them are notable for one act. Especially the 50% of death row inmates in America who have wiki pages. But Ill not do that because they are houses being built. This article is a week old - a multiple murderer who the media has been on about for years - and in New Mexico and surrounding areas they know him. Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. I'd like to remind you, and Jamie in good faith of the aforementioned Wiki Ideal. This is a new article. Give it a chance to become something - and if its not notable and not well cited in a month lets get rid of it. But it was created last week. And I do do this for coffee money - I have a real job - I just like writing. But I wouldn't do it if I didn't think it didn't have a place. Meanie (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Confirmed Sockpuppeteer Hasteur (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Wiki defines Serial_killer as "three or more" separate murders. Fry has been convicted of four separate murders and suspected in eight or more others in Four Corners. It's not just numbers: same target profile; same signature MO (pick up homeless Navajo person leaving bar, drive out to remote lands, rape if female, bludgeon to death, keep trophy). How can crime scenes spread out over years be WP:BLP1E? Recommend you ask Serial Killer Task Force for input, or delete Serial Killers as an independent basis of inclusion. Steve Aarons (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seem to pass WP:CRIME, per fact that he has gone trough three separate death penalty trials. and is likely to be the last man ever executed in New Mexico. Also good sourcing which indicates notability beyond an "everyday criminal".--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As cited before. Meets notability. Three separate death penalty trials (only person in US history), 4 different murders, over a number of years with convictions. Save a change in the law he will be the last person to die on NM death penalty under the post 71 restoration of the death penalty. Further was subject of fodder in the campaign for governor and has been subject of major media attention from his first trial through to the present. Boatingfaster (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ATTENTION AfD CLOSING ADMIN - There are 2 SockPuppet investigations going on with editors in this AfD discussion. Please do not close this AfD until all are identified/cleared of sock/meat puppetry.

• CHECK USER RESULTS Closing admin please note the results of this SPI: here PeterWesco (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User: Steve Aarons Was part of a WP:COI/WP:PAID with the striked out sockmaster. He was pleading for this article to justify his own notability (his article has already been deleted) PeterWesco (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment However well intentioned may be Mr. Wesco's zeal, lining out everything said by Meanie and attacking me as well is a logical fallacy known as ad hominen. WP:NPA. "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." The lined out content remains uncontradicted: WP:NOT (a) Three separate death penalty jury trials; (b) four murder convictions over four year period; (c) prime suspect in eight other signature murders of Navajos in rugged Four Corners desert; (d) last man on death row in New Mexico (e) political football in gubernatorial election; (f) in line for the dubious distinction of being first man in US history to be executed AFTER his state abolished the death penalty (law specifically grandfathered him in) (g) subject of a bestselling dimestore novel by a notable true crime author. Compare articles in categories Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force and Stub-Class Serial killer-related articles SteveAarons (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanie et al were deemed sockpuckets. As such, sockpuppet comments and votes are routinely stuck from discussions. The striking through, and notes to the closing admin, are done as a service to the closing admin so they know that this discussion was tainted with sockpuppets, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. PeterWesco (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanie voted once and his sockpuppet boatingfaster voted once. I would line out the second keep; lining out all of his extensive citations is an attack on the person not the content. WP:COI AND WP:PAID are false and, again, personal attacks. What about the only relevant issue regarding deletion, Mr. Wesco - WP:NOT. Is this notorious serial killer "notable"? SteveAarons (talk) aar095 07:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in personal attacks, I am involved in stating facts. As I stated above, the comments, votes, and opinions of sockpuppets have zero value in the discussions. WP:NPOV is not possible with WP:COI. You can continue to argue this case, it is your choice, but I have already stated my views on the topic and no amount of lawyering is going to change that opinion. There are numerous other instances on Wikipedia where I have completely changed my opinion, when faced with facts presented from people I respect, and I have yielded my vote and left the AfD. To repeat: people I have respect for, people who's opinion means something, and people who are presenting facts from a NPOV. You are far from neutral on this topic, so your opinion on the matter means less than zero to me. Good day sir. PeterWesco (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Icewind Dale Trilogy#Plot summary. And merge from history as deemed editorially necessary. The "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based deletion rationale, i.e. a lack of reliable independent sources discussing the topic.  Sandstein  12:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshinibon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional artifact. Claritas § 15:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending a search for sources, but merge to The Icewind Dale Trilogy otherwise. BOZ (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BURDEN suggests you should !vote delete if there are currently no sources available. --Claritas § 18:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation of your reasoning. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDFORMAT, a keep recommendation can only come after sources are provided. You cannot preemptively keep or preemptively validate any source that might be presented, otherwise that means you are casting a vote.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this is a MacGuffin central to the plot of four novels and a videogame. I agree that the article as written contains far more in-world information than necessary and needs a pruning; but AFD is not cleanup.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide third party reliable sources to support your assertion of notability. --Claritas § 12:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, Vulcan's comment is a textbook violation of WP:AFDFORMAT, which states that "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Without any explanation as to how this article would meet our notability requirements (and "being central to the plot" is not one of them), Vulcan's "keep" recommendation is liable to be discarded by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator has "retired" after past socking in fictional elements-related discussions had been brought up. Existing sources in the article are varied and show broad coverage of this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is sourced only to primary sources, ie the novels in which the subject -a fictional artifact- appears. Since WP:GNG states that, for notability purposes, sources must be "secondary" and "independent of the subject or its creator", Jclemens's above comment is obviously bad faith and should be discarded by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Icewind Dale Trilogy. I could not find anything to help this one. Web Warlock (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to The Icewind Dale Trilogy#Plot summary: non-notable article that doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline. The only sources available are primary and that is not enough for a stand-alone article. Given that The_Icewind_Dale_Trilogy#Plot_summary already covers everything that can be said on the artifact, I don't see any content here that could be merged without being redundant.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 17:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vulcan. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per Vulcan" doesn't give any explanation as to why the article should be kept. Your comment is thus also liable to be discarded by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Icewind Dale Trilogy#Plot summary. No notability, at all, outside of the fictional works in which the weapon appears. Since this keeps coming up, let's be clear: sources from TSR and Wizards of the Coast never establish any form of notability for Dungeons & Dragons-related fictional elements, no matter how many such sources are cited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Icewind Dale Trilogy: it's a plot device in the book series and fails WP:GNG on its own. Hekerui (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Icewind Dale Trilogy, and merge any little bits into the plot as desired. This could be moved to a list of Forgotten Realms artifacts article later on though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Universal Description Discovery and Integration#Green Pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page has the same content as that of the UDDI Page section titled 'Structure' Compfreak7 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Universal Description Discovery and Integration#Green Pages. Already covered there. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Universal Description Discovery and Integration#Green Pages. No information independent of UDDI. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Universal Description Discovery and Integration#Green Pages. Please consider merge WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. I have copied minor improvements (wikilinks, refs) to Universal_Description_Discovery_and_Integration#Green_Pages. Redirect can be done without losing any of this work. -—Kvng 16:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per lack of deletion arguments / nomination withdrawal. Will explore discussed options on talk page. (non-admin closure) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring anthromorphic insects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, "Notability of lists (whether titled as 'List of Xs' or 'Xs') is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I have not been able to locate any reliable source grouping films that feature anthropomorphic insects due to the narrowness of the topic. However, I do think that List of films featuring anthropomorphic characters could be created. Recent precedents of such lists following the guidelines are films featuring home invasions and films featuring diabetes, both well-referenced lists that easily survived deletion attempts. In the meantime, here I had proposed deletion and offered an alternative solution where the three films could be listed at the fourth film's "See also" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is outright deletion right? I would definitely and strongly disagree with that. I do, however, second the proposal to Merge this into a List of films featuring anthropomorphic characters article, adding any other films with anthropomorphic characters in as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone wants to go ahead and create the broader list, then I guess we can redirect this list there. It just does not suffice on its own. It's not a realistic search term (and is misspelled to boot). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't spotted the typo in this title, but I didn't make any comment about a redirect. The list could be a good project for WikiProject Film to sort out. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the general list is created by someone, then the four film titles here would be merged there, and this list article would redirect to the new list article. WikiProject Film could be petitioned for help, but it is less an organization and more of a forum with each editor working on their own thing. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jiminy Cricket, keep. List of films featuring anthropomorphic characters would be way too long on its own. Better to make it a list of more manageable lists, including this one and Films and television based on Alice in Wonderland hmmm, that one needs to be renamed, per WP:SALAT. There's more entries that could be added: Pinocchio (1940 film), Mr. Bug Goes to Town, Joe's Apartment, etc. It could even be split up into sublists, like List of films featuring ant-ropomorphic characters, List of bee movies featuring anthropomorphic characters. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, you provide some good examples. Still, I did not find any reliable sources that identify this particular grouping. Did you find any? I don't think that a list of films featuring anthropomorphic characters would be that unwieldy, including your examples and more, but it seems premature to argue to keep this as a sub-list when the more general list has not existed on Wikipedia all this time. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are seriously underestimating the number of films. Just off the top of my head, I can come up with most (all?) of the Looney Tunes oeuvre, Woody Woodpecker filmography, Yogi Bear#Films and specials, Andy Panda#Filmography, Roger Rabbit, many, many Disney films, Alvin and the Chipmunks, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, Scooby-Doo, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Finding Nemo, etc. etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm referring to the guidelines at WP:NOTESAL, which I referenced in my initial comment above. All your examples can belong in a more general list. What I am asking is, are there grounds for this particular list ("anthropomorphic insects") to be considered notable per the guidelines? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We can start off with a general list, and then re-spin out things if the list does get too big. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have an alternative suggestion. What about List of films featuring insects? I know I saw one grouping of that in a source during my initial research. We can put anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic examples; Microcosmos was identified by the aforementioned source. Other examples would include horror films, I'm sure. It would be a much easier list to put together; there's an existing category here that we could basically convert to list form and add references. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These kinds of pages are useful for research using wikipedia. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Saint James, Beroun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not clear how this is notable. It's clear from the article that it is WP:VERYOLD but not much else. References provided are to travel sites including a hotel website and the town website. Not the kind of significant coverage in 3rd party sources WP:GNG calls for. A search on the English and Czech names brings up a number of travel guides that make only passing mention. RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't know Czech, but a search for the Czech name (Kostel sv. Jakuba v Berouně) on Google Books brings up 327 results. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a 13th century church is notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a ref that it is recognized as a cultural heritage monument--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank n Dank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD): Not notable according to WP:MUSICIAN Illia Connell (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND via Allmusic bio, The Skinny, Detroit Free Press, Charted records, and Google Books also shows coverage from The Wire. --Michig (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources by Michig. Cavarrone (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources and rationale presented by User:Michig above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Santhosh Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

does not meet wiki notability criteria, Shrikanthv (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of satisfying notability criteria for films. At best, it could be redirected to Santhosh Pandit. Salih (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from no reliable independent sources being available to substantiate this as a notable film per WP:NFILM, I'm also disturbed by its apparent WP:COI wherein the creator of all three film articles has the same name as the director. Also, it doesn't seem like many people were actually involved in this film except Santhosh Pandit if you look at the infobox. Mkdw^talk 02:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to Santhosh Pandit as the film's existence is verifiable but lacks independent notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per lack of significant coverage. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was '. Article will be userfied per the consensus of this discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Currency Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional content lacking established notability in accordance with WP:ORG or general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Note that the sources provided in this article relate to numistatics and affiliated organizations. A search for reliable and independent sources has been lacking. Cindy(talk to me) 13:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations included in the article are from the main news periodical for paper numismatics and include mention of the National Currency Foundation and its role in advancing research and education in the paper currency field. In addition, the following link (mediocre) connects The National Currency Foundation with the Smithsonian Institution [2]. The article's specific description of the Foundation's role with the Smithsonian Institution was drafted by the Smithsonian's Public Relations Department. A private email from the division curator could be provided as proof, but would not be appropriate as a public citation.Godot13 (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Godot13! In answer to your question on my talkpage, this is what I see. Your article is highly promotional and reads like an advertisement for the organization. For example, take a look at the first section under Educational Goals. None of this content is encyclopedic. It appears that this article was written merely to promote awareness of the organization. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We can establish notability by showing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let's take a look at the 19 sources used. Ten are citations using the organization's website or the National Bank Note Census, which is maintained by the subject. An assessment of the other sources:
    • http://americanhistory.si.edu/numismatics/ (does not mention the subject)
    • http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?article&ArticleId=21314 (does not mention the subject)
    • http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?article&ArticleId=25302 (conference plenary lacking independence and significant coverage)
    • http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?article&ArticleId=26137 (content about the org, but it was written by Huntoon, who is an employee/researcher of sorts working with the org, so fails independence)
    • https://www.spmc.org/sister-organizations (merely lists the subject as a "sister organization" and provides a link to the org's website)
    • http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2012/12/19/34121/ (press release about the president of the org merely stating that he founded the org)
    • http://www.money.org/communications/press-releases/archives/2012-press-releases/peter-huntoon-awarded-honorary-doctorate-of-numismatics.aspx (press release, does not mention the subject)
    • http://www.thehigginsmuseum.org/jhickman.htm (does not mention the subject)
    • http://www.coinworld.com/Articles/ViewArticle/don-kelly-sells-rights-to-national-bank-note- (does not mention the subject)
    • In essence, we haven't yet established notability. There is a lack of significant sources that meet the threshold for reliability and independence. If you have more questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 03:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cindy-

• Your points are well made. I beg to differ on a few, but in general I understand what you are saying. The only reason I provided citations for the names of those in the field was in an attempt to demonstrate their qualifications and lay some historical context for the NCF’s work. Under Educational Goals (really just the subsection about Visual Exhibits) my intent was not to promote but to provide examples of NCF’s work, but it is possible the end result was the same. I think this could be re-worked in order to make it more encyclopedic and less of a list of available exhibits. Perhaps the only link/citation in that (re-worked) section would be to the Exhibit page of the NCF site and let readers figure it out from there.
• It may be that this organization is simply too young to have acquired the necessary coverage to meet the notability requirements; therefore fixing the issue above would still not resolve the discussion over deletion. I reviewed the notability criteria again and realize that the supporting material is largely circumstantial and a bit thin.
• So I (as someone who will continue to write entries) have a better understanding for the future, and using the present article as an example, would the following generally go towards notability: 1) Listing of the NCF on the Smithsonian Institution’s Affiliates Website? This would mean that the NCF would be approved (with an appropriate exhibit space) to borrow objects and create exhibits; 2) a detailed description of the NCF’s activities in a numismatic publication? 3) A detailed description in a non-numismatic publication? When I mention publication here I am referring to either peer-reviewed publications or the main stream newspapers (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal).
• If this is going to be deleted, may I revise and resubmit when there is more support for notability? Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - (1) Being an affiliate of the Smithsonian does not establish notability as that is not inherited. (2) Notability in general requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Without actually seeing the souces, it is a bit of a guessing game. If there multiple articles, and the publisher is deemed a reliable source, and the author/source of the article is independent of the organsiation, then the answer is generally yes. (3) See answer to 2. As for resubmitting in the future, there is no bar to creating the article later if the organisation gains coverage over time. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly unrelated question as I am new to all this: can a user have more than one sandbox at a time to work on multiple pieces?Godot13 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Coverage about the organisation is insubstantial and fail to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. The organisation was founded in in June 2011 so it a relatively new. No prejudice to recreation in the future if the coverage changes. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - Based on comments at Godot13's talk page, I will amend my !vote to userfication. -- Whpq (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am amenable to Userfy until such time (which may not come) as this article and the organization meets notability criteria. Godot13 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. I'm fine with it being userfied, of course. SarahStierch (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per everyone above. There's nothing in this that should keep it out of the userspace, and Godot13 has expressed willingness to keep working on it and get it up to standards. delldot ∇. 03:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy with the proviso that if improvement is not made in 1 year that the article be nominated for XfD from the userspace as a failed draft. Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy. Even a quick read of the opening reveals that this is a commercial, not an Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Watch S.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Children's football team which is not notable. C679 11:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 11:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Cloudz679.--Rapsar (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable youth team, article appears to have some semi-promotional fluff involved as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeno94 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 December 2012
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sport Club do Recife. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arena do Sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Future stadium for which construction has not yet begun. C679 10:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 10:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sport Club do Recife, the proposed stadium's new tenants/owners. GiantSnowman 09:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - it's a reasonable search term, but not independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KTC (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herrljunga Cider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product with no independent assertion of the claim to be the country's best selling cider. Bob Re-born (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Herrljunga Cider is not only a product, it is also the name of the more than 100 year old company that produces the cider as well as several well known brands of beer and other beverages. The company has an annual revenue of 150 million Swedish kronor. /FredrikT (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: according to this newspaper article Herrljunga Cider was the 7th largest brewery in Sweden in 2011. /FredrikT (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not an expert in Swedish, still less in the Swedish beverage industry. There's a little press coverage in English[3][4] and of the big beer review sites, it features on RateBeer.com[5] but not BeerAdvocate[6]. I don't think that's quite enough, but there may be more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Herrljunga Cider isn't Aston Maner or the C&C Group, but it's well known in Sweden, and, as FredrikT has pointed out above, an important part of the history of Swedish cider. I get a couple of hundred hits in sv:Mediearkivet when I search for herrljunga cider, so there's plenty of press coverage in Swedish. /Julle (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does appear to be a popular Swedish drink (and sounds tasty). Perhaps it can be expanded by a Swedish reader/English writer. SarahStierch (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. JohnCD (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Huggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why didn't the nominator just put a speedy delete tag on this, since it's just a cut-and-paste copyvio of the second of the two listed "references"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why didn't you!? Salvidrim! 13:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under G12 as copyvio of http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,63399/ . 13:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Solidarity Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

nonnotable (as of yet) awareness day, references given are to parties directly involved in the event, or are passing mentions in literature of the movement. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not yet notable, only primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A Google Book search yields a book mention, but otherwise nothing quite comes in the way of reliable sources. Weihang7 (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a non-notable non-event with no reliable sources to substantiate it. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage is limited to atheist blogs. For an event like this, we'd have to see coverage in mainstream publications (newspapers, TV, major radio, etc) to indicate it has some kind of wider impact or national importance. (There's not a specific Wikipedia policy for days as far as I know, but policies on organizations and events are relevant, as are the general guidelines.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search for "Atheist Solidarity Day" on High Beam yielded no results. Donner60 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as A7 by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar lal vyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY CLOSE, wrong venue. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuna (Album) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuna (Album)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Blank article. Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 06:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - Wrong venue. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 07:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bonhomme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC criteria for biographical articles; he also fails WP:CREATIVE. Even in past versions bloated with COI detail such as this and this, it's hard to tell what the claim to notability even is. JFHJr (㊟) 06:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence found that the subject meets notability guidelines. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google News searches haven't provided anything substantial aside from this minor mention through a Variety film review. A different search provided this which mentions he co-founded a film studio and that company is currently working with a project, Dark Rising: Warrior of Worlds (2013). Although it seems Pierre Bonhomme may not be notable yet, the company may be (although it was founded this year) because I found news articles here and here. He has also founded another production company Hideaway Pictures. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Three relistings already. WP:NPASR Courcelles 00:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pegah Anvarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article contains no claims or references supporting notability. Google search gives some retail links, but no editorial coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've found some sources and linked to them, but there's not a whole lot out there that is anything other than a trivial mention. She certainly seems to be incredibly close to passing Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but there isn't enough yet to where I'd say she is overwhelmingly so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: OK, I am coming straight from the Daniel Hernandez AfD, but after arguing a (very weak) keep for him, I have to vote keep for Ms. Anvarian based on the online sources. I am seeing hits for her in magazines going back to 2004 on Google Books, so she has been around for eight years at least (and is still around). The article is appropriately neutral in tone and the sources are sufficient to pass minimal notability. As she is still working, further reliable sources will come along to support the material that is already out there. Mabalu (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio, with concerns about promotional nature into the bargain. Peridon (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee (Taylor) Jukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely non-notable radio DJ who has not accomplished anything of importance. Article seems like it was written by the subject herself and there are no sources. Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unreferenced promotional blurb with no proper claim of notability — radio personalities are not typically entitled to articles on here if their prominence is limited to a single mid-sized or small media market, and even a genuinely notable radio personality would not be entitled to keep an article that used fluffy PR descriptors like "passionate, talented and enthusiastic" right in the introduction. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged as G12, copy violation - While trying to recover her personal website at archive.org, it came to my attention that this biography is a copy violation, this was archived in February 2011 and this article was started that April. Her website was redesigned but there isn't much and her LinkedIn profile suggests she is currently working as Assistant Brand Director at Virgin Radio Vancouver. Multiple Google News searches have provided nothing useful aside from one press release. Although radio personalities can be notable local or national, it seems this one has not received the attention required for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IBall Slide i9702 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable product, with no apparent in-depth sources available. - MrX 02:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of the 100s of 1000s of run of the mill products. Also, WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 19:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:SPIP, fails notability test. Very limited outside sources or citations. Only notable for contribution to Red Vs. Blue which has its own page that also covers him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milestones1975 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Easily passes notability guidelines. Also, I feel you are a little too new to assume an article requires deletion. RAP (talk) 5:14 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Easily meets notability guidelines the article however does need more cites than the four it currently has. Kyle1278 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Linguist (University of Birmingham) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

student journal; no indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete -- I find it hard to believe that a student newssheet, produced at a departmental level could be anything other than ephemeral and thus NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that this publication has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Northcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Some of the subject's accomplishments is her novel written but only remarkable in Amazon. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Mediran (t • c) 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've taken out a lot of info from the article that was being sourced through Amazon, IMDb, and her own website. I did manage to find a mention in Mashable, but so far I'm having a lot of trouble showing that she and her work have been mentioned in RS. All I'm finding are predominantly blog posts, semi-primary sources (such as a profile for an appearance at a comic book con), and random "junk" hits. I think I'll probably have to vote delete.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did a search and while she does seem to be more talked about than some of the other indie authors out there, she hasn't been the focus of enough independent and reliable sources to show notability. There is the potential for her becoming notable if any of the plans for her books to become TV shows or movies ever pans out, but we can't keep the article based on crystal balling that these books might receive more coverage or get an adaptation in the future. A lot can change, after all. I have no problem with it getting userfied, but I do want to warn the original editor that the previous incarnation of the article had issues with neutrality and reliable sourcing.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be much interest in outright deletion, but I'm not seeing a strong consensus about what to do with the content. So no prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Tower Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was proposed for deletion by User:Drmies at Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Tower Road. I have no opinion on the proposal, but am putting the article up for AFD in order to test its notability before continuing with or closing the DYK review. Gatoclass (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies' statement at DYK - "But there is, in my opinion, a big problem with the article itself. The most substantial and best-sourced part of it deals with the tower--for the rest, the road as a road has only generated coverage because of the redesign; it's the equivalent of BLP1, in a way, and sources do not substantially discuss the existence, history, meaning, etc. of the road. Note also that all the newspaper articles and websites that cover this issue is very, very local, and consider that Google Books, for example, offers nothing substantial on this road. In my opinion, this is a candidate for AfD (or merge into Devil's Tower) more than for DYK" Statement copied by TheOriginalSoni (talk)

• What, no headnote pointing to Devil's Tower Road? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that this is two articles in one. The "early history" section is about Devil's Tower (Gibraltar), and contains content that that article sorely needs. The "recent history" section is about construction work relating to Gibraltar International Airport which would improve the "new road access" section of that article. And these are mixed together in an article on a road. Would that the effort that went into this had gone into putting that writing into the actual articles on those subjects that we already had! Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1 – the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion. Warden (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid !vote. There is already an argument for deletion by Uncle G above. Moreover, there were arguments for deletion by Drmies, which were not copied by the nominator here. I have copied those arguments here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're putting words in people's mouths. Uncle G doesn't say we should delete anything but instead seems to be suggesting that we have material for two articles here. User:Drmies agrees with Uncle G and talks of merger too. We still don't have any editor making a clear proposition that the article be deleted and AFD is neither cleanup nor a guessing game. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article should be deleted since there is no evidence whatsoever that the road is notable as a road in its own right. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. The nominator rationale is unconvincing, as the biographies of living people policy doesn't apply to non-living things such as roads (duh). Notability deliberately isn't concerned with the reasons why reliable sources note topics, only that they noted them. Diego (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to read what Drmies said again, more carefully. Xe used BLP1E as an equivalent situation, pointing out that this is a road that isn't notable in itself, but that is merely (and literally) tangential to actual notable subjects. It isn't actually discussed as a subject on its own merits, but only in respect of other subjects that it is merely one facet of, such as the plans for the road access to and around an airport, which logically belong in the article on the airport (especially since this wouldn't even have been the road under one of the plans). Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Uncle. Of course equivalent is the keyword here: a misreading of my words only obfuscates the argument. The bit about the reasons why reliable sources note something is odd: I'm not interesting in attempting to perceive intentions of pieces of writing, which would be an impossible thing to do. My point is that none of the sources discuss the road as a road: they mention it incidentally. It's a simple fact: not all roads are notable. You know, the house I live in was formerly owned by Wayne Greenhaw, and thereafter by Karen Riley and Richard Lee Young (these are valid topics). That doesn't make the house notable, let alone the street I live on--but it seems that my equivalencies are unequivocally rejected. In short: this article is not about the street. It's about a couple of things that are on the street, and really just one. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The AfD process is not a notability test; notability would be though. The article is well written, well sourced by reliable independent sources, and has enough material to warrant a standalone article. Furthermore, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, "An article that explains the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics." Mkdw^talk 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you meant by "the AFD process is not a notability test", when deletion policy clearly includes under "reasons for deletion" Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). Gatoclass (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he's referring to your words that you're "putting the article up for AFD in order to test its notability". So far nobody really has stated or believes that this article's content should be completely deleted by lack of notability; thus, a merge discussion at Talk:Devil's Tower Road would be more appropriate. Diego (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well actually, Drmies described it as "a candidate for AFD" so I took him at his word. But thanks for the explanation. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A notability test would be you going through the points of WP:N and checking whether the article met the requirements. You 'test' the article against the policy. As you pointed out, "whose subjects fail to meet", which in order to fail must have undergone a check or test prior. If you have no opinion on the article and have not done the steps required in WP:BEFORE, then you should not be nominating the article for deletion. If, Drmies felt the article should be deleted and had done all the checks and tests required in BEFORE, then he should nominate the article and provide his reasons here for why the article should be deleted against which policies. The AfD process is for editors to discuss their findings from their own examinations and tests of whether the article meets the notability and other pillar policies of Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, thanks for the explanation. In response, I should clarify that I don't nominate articles here just on someone's random comment, in fact I did look through the article myself in response to Drmies' comments and felt his concerns had validity. At the same time, I could also see some valid reasons why the article might be kept, so when I said I had "no opinion" I meant I was undecided. Because the Gibraltar articles have attracted a degree of controversy at DYK, I felt the best option at that point was to put the question to the broader community rather than deal with the matter "in house". Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is the second recent nom on a road in Gibraltar. It has adequate content to my mind. In view of the way this started, I see not reason to criticise nom, except that perhaps he should exercise some independent judgment before accepting the comments of others. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record: I haven't yet come up with a satisfactory solution to the problem that I described above. It's useful content in the wrong place. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, the reason the problem you proposed hasn't been addressed by the other editors is because they don't necessarily see it as problematic. Invariably in an encyclopedia about everything, you will have overlap information. Many articles deal with the overview. If the sections were titled differently they would have sub-articles headings. Mkdw^talk 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't overlap or indeed overview. This is talking about the redevelopment of an airport and the history of a ruin instead of having content about the actual subject. And clearly two if not three people above have seen the same problem, which is in truth a fairly obvious one. It's a classic case of trying to make a non-subject into an ostensible subject by tangent, and some of the more difficult to deal with fallout from the whole Gibraltarpedia fiasco that rewarded editors for creating new articles over contributing to existing ones on the actual subjects. Which is why it has languished so long (three months) at DYK review and finally come to AFD when the DYK people couldn't work out what to do to address the problem. I always try to give opinions at AFD that are what I would do with my tools, on the grounds that one shouldn't opine what one doesn't want done or is unwilling to do onesself. And I simply haven't worked out what to do here, and what I'd do with my tools to fix this. But the problem is quite apparent, simply from reading the article alone, even if one hasn't done, as I have, further background research to see if the world documents this road as a specific topic in itself. Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the best outcome would be to merge the Devil's Tower (Gibraltar) stub into this one. The works on the road seem enough to define a topic; by merging it with the buildings and monuments on the road, you create a broader topic containing all the related available content. Diego (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody has seriously contested or rebutted the argument that there are insufficient reliable sources for inclusion as an article.  Sandstein  00:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wapsi Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only sources are a.) a dead link to a press release, b.) a review that may or may not be reputable; c.) a podcast

Being published in book form is not an assertation of webcomic notability. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are not a sufficient assertation of notability; even though the second AFD kept this comic due to its winning this award, several WCCA winners in the past have been deleted. Likewise the Lulu awards; their page shows a huge amount of redlinks, suggesting that the award is not a paragon of notability.

In short, I'm seeing no reliable, secondary sources for this comic, nor could I find any. The second AFD argued entirely on the point of its award win, making no arguments either way as far as the sourcing issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lulu awards site is outdated because it is historical; the awards have not been presented since 2009 - citing that the website has redlinks *now* as a cause to believe it was not important at the time that it was awarded to the article subject seems poor logic to me. I'm not sure why I'm even trying; I believe most people interested in webcomics abandoned this fight during the last sweep of article deletions when a few editors seemed determined to destroy all webcomic articles based on a belief that only work that is in print and covered by the print media was significant. I think the web and the world of epublishing have evolved beyond that, but perhaps attitudes here have not. Netmouse (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What sources are you suggesting that prove notability here? Precedent from other AFDs is that the awards given are not sufficient for notability, and I'm seeing nothing else that's reputable here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It seems that webcomic articles found non-notable by Wikipedia standards have been offered to Comixpedia to keep them. Does anyone know if this is still a common practice? I've asked about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Webcomics_work_group to seek advice on how these cases are handled. Diego (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've mentioned before, Wikipedia's notability standards are somewhat broken when it comes to webcomics. Some of the best-known, longest-running, most notorious-on-the-Internet comics get nominated, and deleted, for a lack of reliable sources; while it's true that WP:ITSPOPULAR and WP:ITSUSEFUL are arguments to avoid, the fact that these are things people will come seeking information on simply because, well, they're widely and popularly known, but find the articles gone, means that at some point a WP:NWEBCOMICS really needs to be considered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with all of the above that this does not satisfy current notability and WP:SIGCOV standards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Nerge abd redurect are very similar, but merge does the paperwork for copyright purposes if anyone desires to merge stuff in Courcelles 00:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability - no significant coverage in secondary sources. Claritas § 15:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending a search for sources, but merge to list article otherwise. BOZ (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities; I don't think this is notable in and of itself, but is a potential (if unlikely) search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator has "retired" after past socking in fictional elements-related discussions had been brought up. Existing sources in the article are varied and show broad coverage of this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is sourced only to primary sources, ie the roleplaying games in which the subject -a fictional character- appears. Since WP:GNG states that, for notability purposes, sources must be "secondary" and "independent of the subject or its creator", Jclemens's above comment is obviously bad faith and should be discarded by the closing admin.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's absolutely nothing bad-faith about pointing out the previous sockpuppetry that the nominator has engaged in in previous similar fictional elements discussions. Were I lying about it, it would indeed be bad faith. I'm not. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's look at the sources, shall we? Since there is no coverage outside of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEes and nothing that indicates any "broad coverage".
  • 1. TSR - primary source
  • 2. WotC - primary source
  • 3. Dragon magazine - primary source (published by TSR, later WotC)
  • 4. TSR - primary source
  • 5. ditto
  • 6. ditto
  • 7. ditto
  • 8. ditto
  • 9. ditto
  • 10. WotC - primary source
  • 11. ditto
  • 12. TSR - primary source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities; I didn't find anything for this entry that would be of use or enough to meet the guidelines. Web Warlock (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities (I can't see any relevant content that might be merged in a list and that isn't already there): non-notable article that fails WP:GNG, not a single independent source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Zero evidence of any notability at all outside of the source material. TSR and WotC published material never establish notability in any form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. The article subject fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Hekerui (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premachi Goshta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreleased film. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:NFF. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL; it says right there in the source given that they don't even know when it's being released. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain - It is mostly likely that sources are not English but I found this which lists February 2013 as the release date but I don't know how credible that website is. I also found this which lists Kadam Pallavi as one of the actors (I'm assuming actors?) but I also don't know how credible that is and I also found this which provides some details but does not establish the release or at least an estimate. A search at The Hindu and The Indian Express provided nothing relevant but I found two results for "Premachi Goshta" here (Google News) and another here (Google Books) but they seem to be irrelevant, however, the Google Books page suggests this title translates to "story of love" and the trailers seem to be about romance. I would lean towards delete for now but I am considering the possibility of non-English sources. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The date of release 1 Feb 2013 is confirmed from the official trailer from the production house. The actress Pallavi Kadam is unrelated here. She has been in the Marathi play Eka Premachi Goshta (Story of one love). The Google News results gives two links which are also unrelated. The Google books result is for the 1997 play Premachi Goshta . But yeah... the translation is right. I can't yet comment as delete or keep. I have now added some info which Marathi trailers and news channels talk. (i.e. Kulkarni's first romantic film and Hattangadi's comeback in Marathi after long) I cant add those links as references as they aren't released on Youtube by respective News channels. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand per available sources as a reasonable exception to WP:NFF as a completed film soon to be released... or if not kept, Incubate for a very short time. research shows film is completed, receiving coverage and Gomolo tells us it is to be released on February 1, 2013.[7] Sure its a stub... but policy allows stubs on notable topics to remain and encourages they be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per significant coverage. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juris Ernštreits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (talk). Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonards Andžāns, where the nominator was asked to renominate individually and give a better rationale for why the article should be deleted. The nominator has failed to do the latter, and the discussion at WT:FOOTY which is linked above, shows no consensus to go and mass-delete Latvian footballers that has played in the Soviet top league. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence they meet WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Brigade (Washington, D.C. band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced, does not meet WP:NBAND//WP:MUSIC, and only claims to notability are completely unsourced. In short: this was a restored PROD that should have stayed deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As usual with lesser-known music groups from the pre-web era, this is hard. I cannot however source this at all: Although Youth Brigade existed as a band for less than a year, they are still considered an important part of the DC hardcore punk scene, influencing many other bands and bandmembers (most notably Bert Queiroz), and forming other bands such as Double-O and the highly influential post-hardcore band, Rain. I will note that I did find a book hit for a hardcore band called Youth Brigade, with the specific note that it is "not the same-named DC band", which I assume is this one. So Youth Brigade (band) is notable, while this one is not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The band has an entry in Encyclopedia of Punk Music and Culture, and is covered fairly widely (and to varying degrees) in books on US punk, e.g. Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital, The Dave Grohl Story, Not So Quiet on the Western Front, American Hardcore: A Tribal History, A Cultural Dictionary of Punk: 1974-1982, Post: A Look at the Influence of Post-Hardcore-1985-2007, Encyclopedia of recorded sound: A-L, Volume 1, and in Maximumrocknroll. --Michig (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few additional book sources, which seem to be merely passing mentions: [8] [9] [10][11]. I don't think these serve to establish notability, and they certainly do not back the assertions made in the article. I would expect a lot more from a band created 31 years ago that allegedly had such a huge impact on the genre. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:BAND point 5 - two or more albums on a notable record label. And per all the [{WP:RS|coverage]] found by Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Influential DC Hardcore band with a Teen Idles/Dischord Records connection. Ample sources above. Our punk rock history coverage needs improvement down the line, including this piece. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be agreement that the sourcing needs improvement, so a renomination is possible if this doesn't happen.  Sandstein  00:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Inuit Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Not notable;
• Unrecognized by all major dog associations;
• Promotional/advertisement - the only external link is to unofficial 'breed society';
• No references despite 'citations needed' template since March 2008.

There has been a brief discussion here about this article, also Utonagan and Tamaskan Dog. Utonagan is already at AfD and I'm also tagging Tamaskan Dog now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The content of the page could be improved (and Tikuko already improved it since my initial post), but this breed of dog is now relatively famous since their appearance on TV, notably in Game of Thrones - the HBO series. I actually came to this page to learn more about them after I saw them on the show. The "promotion" is questionable bc there are a number of societies and breeders that have the dog or similar dogs (see the talk page - where there is also a lot of fighting...which needs to be resolved). Dog breeders (who may have initiated the article) may not be the best encyclopedia writers or willing to learn or navigate all of the WP rules (one proclaims "stop editing my page" for example)... but with more time, many others can improve this article (and the original editors can learn how WP works). A lot of people have looked at it in a short period of time (28 rated it - and only a small % of people rate articles)...plus there are dozens of questions about this breed of dog on yahoo answers, etc. People are very curious about it since it appeared on TV. It should be improved though...and the Utonagan and the Tamaskan breeders need to resolve their differences w/ this dog breed. Angelatomato (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a link to "about.com" that talks about this dog (and there are other pages too)...The Northern Inuit Society isn't the sole source of information / external pages on the dog. Angelatomato (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Essentially the same breed as Tamaskan and Utonagan with minor unimportant differences that consist of "my wolf-looking dog is better than your wolf-looking dog." Also see discussion here. --Tikuko 17:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, the breed was in fact featured as a major component of an extremely notable TV show. --Tikuko 10:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that notability is not inherited from the show and I understand that there are few to no reliable secondary sources on the breed so it probably fails WP:N; however the breed is mentioned in a couple academic papers studying wolfdogs in the UK. I can see this going either way, assuming that a source can be found that isn't the breed club itself.--TKK ^{bark !} 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the academic papers cited by Tikuko above are sources for the article. Miniapolis (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are used in the article - but the article needs to be cleaned up & cited better. I'd put a box on top that says "this article needs citations / clean up per wikipedia standards" (etc). The "Tamaskan Dog" recently made it through AFD (I never commented on that one as I was totally unfamiliar) but has a different notice box on top...perhaps that box can also be used. Angelatomato (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fighter fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails WP:NMMA. Only two bouts for the UFC and was already released from the promotion. Poison Whiskey 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:MMANOT, WP:ATHLETE and WP:NMMA. Fought in two live UFC events and was a participant in a few fights on The Ultimate Fighter, in which he competed a show that had 1-2 million viewers, in a professional exhibition bout. Though not counted by the NSAC, these are pro bouts, which is what we look for as part of MMANOT. Was also notable for being one of the very few flyweight fighters in the UFC. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:MMANOT more than two fights at top tier. Has not accomplished that.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:BLP --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]