< 10 April	12 April >

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monica May (stage actress)[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence of her meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:ACADEMICS. Her IBDB page says she only performed in three not very well known productions in the 1960s, the acting school she is currently running does not look notable either, and there is no evidence of her winning any awards of recognitions for her work or having a major fan base as searching her name on any search engine comes up mostly with information about the more notable Power Ranger SPD actress with the same name. To say that she is notable just because she taught at the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute violates WP:NOTINHERITED as the school being notable does not necessarily mean she is The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for the record, the two links in the article don't work. SalHamton (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hanson Bradford[edit]

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

Bradford has not had any significant acting roles as all of them were very minor guest roles. He has also not won or been nominated for any awards nor contributed to the entertainment industry in any way as searching his name online comes up mostly with sites that virtually every aspiring actor would be part of (e.g. locatetv, tvrage, teenstarsonline, and rottentomatoes). While he has an official Facebook and Twitter accounts, they are not being updated on a regular basis (in fact, his Twitter page only has two tweets and 33 followers), a good indication that acting is not a major priority for him and he does not have a lot of fans, except maybe young girls who fall in love with almost every handsome boy they see on TV, which should not merit notability. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, nor does his body of work suggest notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Up and coming child actor who is not quite notable yet. None of his work would allow him to pass WP:NACTOR. We can always re-create the page if and when he hits big time. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last match at Victoria Park[edit]

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

I very much doubt that a standalone article for a final game at a venue is notable. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The match is already mentioned in the article for Victoria Park. No indication of standalone notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. BigJim707 (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. As has been stated previously this subject is already mentioned at Victoria_Park,_Melbourne#Winding_down. - AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This match lacks enough significance for its own article. Ducknish (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article say, "The match was a fizzer". St Anselm (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The match was not notable. The brief mention already in the article on the venue suffices. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In theory anything notable and sourced could be merged into Victoria Park, Melbourne, but this article has no sources and the last match is already mentioned there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus agrees that this fails WP:BLP1E with one of the keeps confused with the policy of 1E and another one of the keeps not based in policy. Secret ^account 04:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ziauddin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E Per this [1] suggestion by Peter James I created an article on the skype controversy which is all Ziauddin is known for and redirected the articele to that per BLP1E, this however was reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When this article was nominated, it had not been developed sufficiently. Since there has been much activity in editing and adding fresh sources to show Ziauddin's work for Bangladesh to create a structure for its membership in the international court system. This adds much needed context to the Skype controversy for a reader who wants to dig deeper.Crtew (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. On the sources so far this seems to be 1E. But redirect, rather than delete, as there is a chance someone may search en.Wikipedia for Ahmed Ziauddin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is not a true 1E. One give away for a real WP:BLP1E is that you can ONLY find sources about the ONE event, but that's not the case for Ziauddin as he was also active, notable in fact, in the Asian ratification of the Rome Treaty. To treat him as 1E, you would have to completely write off the sources about his efforts on behalf of the treaty and further human rights work. Of course, he did play a major role in the one event where there are the most Internet hits in searches, and his role is in fact well documented in Bangladesh's Skype scandal. His conversations with Justice Huq made international news, and to give you an idea of how important this was in Bangladesh: one journalist wrote that it has been likened to the British News International phone hacking scandal.Crtew (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh sources and I would also add WP:SIGCOV to my reason. Out that out of the 22 current references at this moment, 12 of them have nothing to do with the Skype scandal that he was involved with. Those references span over a decade. Much of his work prior to this time occurred in an era when online newspapers were not as vibrant as they are today in Bangladesh. There are, however, some of his writings from the late 1990s that were found in better databases than Google and listed. And I'm not even counting the major world media that covered the scandal when it broke December 2012, like The Economist.Crtew (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: right now this is a stub article. How many stubs have almost 30 cites? Still it's important to keep this in mind because it means the community doesn't think the article is of the quality needed. If you look at other players in this Bangladeshi story, such as Mahmudur Rahman, his page is quite advanced but took some time. This is a more difficult search than contemporary searches. He was working in a place and time when not all news stories were stored or archived that you need for our expectation about a contemporary, simple Google search. Transliterations can also be a problem: Look at the variations of the transliterations for Mohammed Nizamul Huq. The stub assessment gives this story time to grow and develop.Crtew (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with Crtew's assessment on the grounds that while he is involved in the Asian ratification of the Rome Treaty, I can't find any reliable sources regarding that treaty of which he is a significant figure. All of the sources that mention him fail to provide significant coverage of the subject. He also fails WP:SCHOLAR. Right now I agree that WP:BLP1E applies to this subject.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quoting from WP:ONEEVENT, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I think therefore the article conforms to Wikipedia policy and should be kept, although attention should also be given to the weight of the article. Applesandapples (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, some selective quoting there, ONEEVENT "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." Apart from this, what is he known for? And please do not say "his advocacy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" as the source for that failed verification, all it says is he lobbied to a few people about it. The source also mentions three other people who did the same. It does not support the current statement that he is "known for it". Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody can read the whole policy of ONEEVENT and should. Experienced Wikipedians know it's not one way or the other. Policy asks us to make a decision about whether the person (to put it in cinematic terms) was an extra/bit character part or a supporting character in the film.Crtew (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that he is very much a central figure in the whole Skype affair. Not a "less significant" role. Applesandapples (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clear instance of WP:BLP1E. The size of that one event is not really of importance here, since the event itself was of such little importance. Qworty (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree that the event itself was of little importance. It was international news, and The Economist wrote two features with the event as the main subject[2] [3], and a very large number of newspapers inside and outside Bangladesh have covered the story. Applesandapples (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per WP:BLP1E. This guy appears to be insignificant aside from being at the epicenter of one news event.Ray^Talk 01:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources for only a single event. Sourcing for rest of bio is scant, and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR or any other notability guideline. Since the material pertinent to Skype controversy has already been added to that article, there is nothing more to merge. The subject does not INHERIT notability from the event. Argument for keep boils down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which is sufficient to establish notability, even if taken together. My own search turned up nothing even faintly promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: content is already in the Skype controversy, this is a clear WP:BLP1E and the arguments by the keep voters don't stack up, per things like WP:NOTINHERITED. I would not describe this article as a stub, but as a start class, and citation count doesn't mean anything as a raw number. Some bits of this article seem a little bit more fluffy than they need to be, but not bad enough to need removing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has been making a WP:NOTINHERITED claim. Yes, he has known the resigned judge Huq for over 25 years, but that's trivia. Ziauddin was the other caller of the inappropriate contact. Ziauddin had written charges for the court and was talking and giving advice to the judge. Moreover, there wouldn't have even been a justifiable war crimes court in the country in the first place had Bangladesh not ratified the Rome Statute.Crtew (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Asian treaty bit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh references added that were translated from Bangla.Crtew (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I frequently worry about cultural bias at Wikipedia. If it's not a major event in the United States, Canada, the UK or Australia, it often doesn't get the attention it deserves here. This is an encyclopedia for the entire world. This gentleman is at the epicenter of one noteworthy event (Skype controversy in Bangladesh), and contributed substantially in another noteworthy event (Asian ratification of the Rome Treaty). This is a close call, but I think we should give this article more time to see what develops. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:It is clearly WP:BLP1E and doesn't have sufficient information and reference to poetry AZ and it is full of the description of so called Skype controversy.--FreemesM ^(talk) 17:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it into perspective. The Skype controversy comprises only half the article. Furthermore, the Skype scandal comprises less than half of the subject of the references.Crtew (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just went through the references in the Asian advocacy for the Rome Statute section. Of those that I have access to; Three of them don't have any mention of Ziauddin [4] [5] [6], one is an article written by Ziauddin reproduced on a blog (which I think can be used for information, but not to establish notability)[7], two simply mention he facilitated a workshop [8] [9], and two give him a combined total of four sentences of coverage mentioning either that he was an "advisor to bangladeshi rights group Odhikar" or simply that he "attended the meeting". This does not signify significant coverage, and the entire section is more about what the organizations he is a part of are doing rather than what he has done.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengali-language source clearly summarizes Ziauddin's involvement in the Rome Statute 1998, the lobbying of Asian countries, and Bangladesh's government to ratify. Is it perfect? No -- and I think we actually all agree on that. The other sources provide relevant sourcing for a low-profile activity that spanned years. For me that's enough to suggest more time is needed to develop this other significant activity of his and to leave this as a stub until it can develop; that and his activity with the Rome Statute was connected to his activity in the news event. I also believe, he played a major role in that news event (see above for the 1E qualification). Moreover, the Skype scandal is still currently developing with the arrest of editor Mahmudur Rahman on 11 April and Ziauddin will soon be appearing before the court in a few weeks.Crtew (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a person has doubts that Ziauddin's role in the scandal was important, then why was Judge Huq's contact with him inappropriate? Crtew (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if wikipedia documents "low-profile activity".Coffeepusher (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have made a WP:GoodFaith misconstrual of my words. The end result that Bangladesh was an important signer and ratifier of the declaration is the same no matter whether you see it in the long-term of short-term. And to note, I don't see one delete vote that actually explains how he could be insignificant in the 1E and why contact with him was so innappropriate.Crtew (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how WP:AGF applies to this.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:ONEEVENT: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Both of these criteria appear to me to be met here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List eater texas a&m[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS, this is a non-notable situation. A brief mention of the situation may belong on articles related to the sports team, but even that would be a stretch - an article on this incident does not belong in an encyclopedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any point mentioning this anywhere. Absolutely absurd story failing WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:FINDERSKEEPERS and WP:EARLYBIRD (oh, and EVENT); also the story is just absurd. Nobody was really inconvenienced besides having to wait an extra minute to get their tickets. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Absurd story. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it really has become a college tradition, could be merged to Traditions of Texas A&M University but I have my doubts as to its significance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero evidence of any encyclopedic notability. (Also note that the author mentions themselves in the article, making this a very thinly-veiled attempt at self-promotion.) --Kinu ^t/_c 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an orphan for a reason. There's no significance to this event. Ducknish (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just plain ridiculous and totally insignificant. Fails WP:EVENT by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivial event hardly worth coverage at the time and clearly not worth including in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep in mind that a clear establishment of notability is not a criterion of speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. Lindsay Embrey[edit]

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

no stated evidence of importance illogical pie (take a slice) 19:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. Developed the city Richardson, Texas, has a building and a scholarship named in his honor, donated millions to Southern Methodist University, world-famous for being home to the George W. Bush Presidential Center.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Well, the rationale would be applicable to the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Yet, clearly, this article asserts significance and importance as a member of the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University, chair of the Alumni board and president of the Alumni Association, member of the athletic board and the School of Engineering Executive Board, and endowment and building established in his name, recipient of the Mustang Award, and honored as a member of the Hall of Leaders and recipient of the Distinguished Alumni Award from the School of Engineering. Honestly, I find it troubling that this article was nominated for deletion. Notability is clearly established. Cindy(need help?) 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. This was nominated through Page Curation, by a non-Texas user who has just a little over 1,000 edits. Are you kidding me? Let us Texans decide who is notable in Texas. Sheesh! Embrey's death prompted a Texas State Legislature House Resolution. Southern Methodist University certainly thinks he's notable, since they named J. Lindsay Embrey Engineering Building after him. This should have never, ever been nominated for deletion. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article at time of nomiation looked like this. I could see how it might be questionable at that point, but even then, it had a reasonable claim of notability. TROUT NOMINATOR liberally and strongly suggest that they lay off the Curation button since it had only been created less than 20 minutes earlier. Hasteur (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Clearly a notable person. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly, Embrey is of vast importance to SMU and the article makes that clear. Ducknish (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like the nomination was premature. Needs a little fleshing out as far as notability outside of the local area, but confident that sources will be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. —Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Aditya Dev Sood[edit]

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

Promotional editor has created this article at least four different times now. It has been deleted under two slightly different names, on March 19 [10] and on April 8 [11]. As a further affront, this time the spammer recreated BOTH versions of the article, as seen at Aditya dev sood. The subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Delete and salt all versions of his name, including Dr. Aditya Dev Sood, Aditya Dev Sood, and Aditya dev sood. Qworty (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete S/he blanked the page...doesn't that qualify as a WP:CSD#G7? She is the only major contributor. Go Phightins! 21:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and any future versions. The fact that an editor has created this article four times now is a cause for concern. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all versions of his name: Pure self-promotion. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. KAS^(talk) 07:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DaVatrice Lindsey[edit]

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

Self-promotional article about a musician and poet who fails to meet WP:BAND or WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Zoke (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party discussion found about the subject and her works. Fails notability on all criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is promotional junk that fails to meet WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-promotion. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as obviously notable. Non-admin closure. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School Street School[edit]

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

Five years without any additional information besides the name and location of the building and its addition date to the NRHP list. Not enough information to create an encyclopedically useful article. MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A building on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places? Please see WP:BEFORE. Cindy(need help?) 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and I already found nomination information to expand it with (and that's not even the main listing, which should have more references). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on NRHP. Swampyank (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This was clearly notable when it was nominated, nomination did not state a valid basis for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As all have said above, it's clearly notable due to its listing on the Register. Ducknish (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also temporarily salted due to repeated re-creation. —Darkwind (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ni Bell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at afd. recreated seemingly to push a book - the editor who created it seems to have added the book to several articles under at least 3 similar user names. Bit part actor who compiled a book - which does not appear to have had much independent coverage, and Amazon.co.uk currently lists as unavailable. noq (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it can be verified that the subject compiled a book for The Royal British Legion, no evidence has been found to contradict the 2011 AfD consensus that he is non-notable. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is to be deleted is it not worth adding a page on the book rather than the author, for educational significance as the book is held in the british library and the imperial war museum collections for the purpose of free educational or study aid. The book as already been accepted by wiki as notable in the bibliography of another wiki page and this might contribute to developing general information about the book. --Will peace (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is WP:notable about the book? And as explained before your having adding it into another page has absolutely no significance in making it notable in any way. Being in a library is not notable - especially the British library as that gets a copy of all books published in the UK. noq (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading about a particular person on wiki and I see they have taken part in a particular book, usually I wish to know more about that book, without leaving the wiki site ie i click an internal link rather than hitting google in a new tab or the isbn link. obviously i assumed wrongly, that this would make the content of wiki more comprehensive to me and others like me as a wiki user. As i agreed with you previously, been on another wiki page does not make something notable but for the reason just mentioned it seemed a natural extension of interest and practicality. The book seems to contain notable contributors and references and captures a specific point in time, in our history, i find that interesting and notable im sure many others do. As I understand it the Imperial War Museum only requests items for their collections unlike the British Library who receive copies by default as you point out. Also for your own reference amazon don't stock the book but Waterstones do http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/ni+bell/in+the+footsteps+of+war/8864001/ and have it available to order. And a kindle edition is available from amazon here http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Footsteps-War-Remembrance-ebook/dp/B00A44ZHQE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365774311&sr=8-1&keywords=ni+bell+90 again I provide this for your information only as your own search didn't seem very extensive. To conclude I can only provide sources that are out there and why I personally looked to expand the content on wiki as it was something of interest to me and possibly others. Sharing the great pool of information out there and all that. Obviously not this time round and I completely understand your reasons for doing so and your explanations given for deleting the page. --Will peace (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NBOOK for what qualifies as a notable book - being available for sale or in a library does not meet those requirements. noq (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of your qualifications for a notable book already. I think you need to read the whole discussion again and your own comments to see that I only answered the points you raised and corrected your information. At no point did I say a book being for sale made it notable in anyway. As for it being available in the British Library I already addressed that point. And I agree the page should be deleted based on what Wiki stipulate and my reasons why i thought it was of interest, which conflict with wiki. It's now becoming tiresome and a waste of time. Delete the page. --Will peace (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources for both author and book. Both fail all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, biggest claim is have two editions of a book released, which are self-published. SalHamton (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes hold no weight as no reliable sources were provided to estabilsh notability. It is noted for the record that sources do not have to be online to be used here, so no prejudice against re-creation with appropriate sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purappadu[edit]

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

Created by a blocked sock puppet, no third party sources provided or found. PROD removed by editor asserting notability but when asked to provide verification of the claim said ""its hard to find any coverage on the internet." While the IMDB entry shows that it is a film, mere existence is not sufficient rationale for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JK (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Though there is no coverage on the internet unfortunately, the film was distributed and exhibited all over Kerala [12] [13]. Also the people involved in the film including the director Jeassy and actor Mammootty are very much notable. JK (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Apart from the links provided above, You can find the full movie uploaded in Youtube[14], with 100,000+ views. This was a successful commercial movie released in Kerala and the people associated with this movie are notable personalities, including Mammootty, Suresh Gopi, Parvathy, Ouseppachan, ONV Kurup, etc. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 03:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: With no coverage in reliable independent sources provided, and apparently none forthcoming in the forseeable future, we have no evidence of notability whatsoever, regardless of how many times it may have been watched on YouTube. Article can be recreated in the future if sourcing is found, but from the discussion I've seen, I wouldn't hold my breath. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Andrew[edit]

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

Individual is not notable. She just runs a Facebook page. Wikipedia is not for the biography of every single blogger Jahor (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all 2602:306:BCD8:9DD0:5D5B:8FC6:2FDD:4685 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.80.78 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This woman has mention in several mainstream, high-quality RS and in a whole bunch of lower quality RS. Seems to me that she would pass notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep - this is not just some blogger, this is a person who runs a notable blog and who has been interviewed and/or profiled repeatedly by various segments of the science press. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
easy keep - passes GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick scan of the refs immediately suggests notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets general notability guidelines. Puzzling why this was nominated. Cindy(need help?) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking Keep This. Handily meets GNG with many appearances in media—dedicated coverage describing subject's life and career. WP:Trout for the disruptive SPA nominator. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She runs a Facebook fan page. She isn't curing cancer. Waste of space article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.239.216 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read this, "Elise Andrew (born 1989) is a British blogger, social media specialist, biologist, and webmaster. She is the founder and maintainer of the Facebook page "I Fucking Love Science"; a hobby which has had her called "the Neil deGrasse Tyson of Facebook".[1]" Let me quote that again, "the Neil deGrasse Tyson of Facebook". Does this really sound like the person who deserves an article written about them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.239.216 (talk • contribs)

Keep. significant coverage of her blog, and independent acknowledgement of her popularity. note: she got a lot of flak for being a female science blogger. of course she doesnt meet WP:EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND EARTHSHAKING CONTENT WHICH MUST BE WORSHIPPED, but thats ok, not everything here is of top importance.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein should be deleted, he didn't try to cure cancer. SarahStierch (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes general notability guidelines. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily able to find significant coverage amongst reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I hate doing this, but I have to admit that she has been covered enough to be notable, even if her only claim to fame is running a facebook page. Ducknish (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having received in depth coverage in independent third party sources but falling fowl of WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would prefer an article about I Fucking Love Science than one about Andrew? Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only if there are reliable sources on it that don't relate to this event. A quick google suggests that we're not exactly drowning in such sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What event? Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The event in early 2013 when it emerged that it was run by a woman, some people made sexist comments and those sexist comments recieved wide media coverage. See pretty much every independent reference in the Elise Andrew for details. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That event, the revelation that the blogger was female, and the near-immediate nasty responses, received wide media coverage. What would you do with those sources? Make an article called Reaction to 'I Fucking Love Science' being run by a woman? Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I would apply WP:1E, as I said above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        1E assumes at least one article is written to cover the reports in reliable sources. Which article would you write? I Fucking Love Science? Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Black Caucus of State Legislators[edit]

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

Originally tagged as ((db-corp)) which was removed by Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) claiming that "this is full of indications of importance/significance." I have re-reviewed the article and there are no reliable sources to back up that claim. The only sources listed on the page are sources to the organizations own sites. This article has been tagged ((Refimprove)) since Feb, 2011 and no attempts have been made to do so. There is simply no evidence of notability. Technical 13 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent sources (mixed in with the press releases) at GNews, HighBeam, GBooks, etc. E.g. [15][16][17][18][19][20], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't consider the Google sources reliable (except possibly the Gbooks one, but putting the book up like that seem copyvio to me). That leaves the one Highbeam source. That also seems kind of copyvio to me as they seem to be simply quoting another source. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources linked by Arxiloxos are published by the Lodi News-Sentinel, The Baltimore Sun, The Milwaukee Journal, The Dallas Morning News, The Columbus Times and State University of New York Press. All perfectly acceptable reliable sources. And even if we were to accept the clearly misguided claim of copyright violation that wouldn't detract from the fact that such sources have been published, establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the list of numerous independent sources. Not sure what User:Technical 13 is talking about; just because a source is indexed by Google does not make it a "Google source". (Nor does quotation equal copyright violation.) Also, under WP:NONPROFIT, please note that #1 says notable if national or international in scope; this organization is national. This organization is also long-lived -- more than 35 years since founding in 1977. --Lquilter (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing these sources, yet again, I retract my nomination for deletion as I was under-informed (Too many dang discrete sections to too many policies) and missed that section of the policy. I apologize for any inconveniences or aggravations this nomination may have caused. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Stewart Laurie[edit]

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

I couldn't establish his WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can: You realise this is going to be WP:SNOWed don't you? Or roes CBE and inclusion in Who's Who really mean nothing to you???? Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Can't see why this guy is notable. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit torn on this one actually. They certainly don't give CBEs out like Blue Peter badges, but at the same time we can't really reasonably keep an article that can never (verifiably) be expanded past a couple of sentences. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you say that? Just because it hasn't been so expanded yet doesn't mean it can't be. -- -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has long been accepted that the CBE counts as a "well-known and significant award or honour" under WP:ANYBIO. He also has an entry in Who's Who and a reasonably substantial obituary in The Times. The latter, at least, is also generally held to confer notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the CBE really a "well-known and significant award or honour"? It strikes that it probably is inside the UK, but probably not elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes see WP:SNOW. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, all Commonwealth countries, since it's been awarded since 1917. And WP:ANYBIO does not specify that it has to be "well-known and significant" worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources, and very little likelihood that sufficient coverage will be found. As for the award, it is the third grade award for the Order of the British Empire, with about 9000 recipients. That is not selective enough, in my opinion, to fulfill our notability requirements. The higher grades, GBE and KBE, yes, but not a CBE, as it does not confer knighthood not does it entitle the bearer to participate in all of the functions of the order. For the time period pertinent to this article, they were often routinely handed out to well-liked non-combatant officers for simply serving without any major demerit. It isn't an award for valor, and at this grade, not for extraordinary service, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment minor point but his CBE was for political services in the 1960s not his war service. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fear you know little about the British Honours System. The CBE is certainly not "routinely handed out to well-liked non-combatant officers for simply serving without any major demerit". You have to be pretty senior to be awarded a CBE. It is rarely awarded to officers below the rank of colonel or equivalent and is more commonly awarded to officers of brigadier rank or above (i.e. people who would usually qualify for an article under WP:SOLDIER). Only about 200 CBEs are awarded every year and fewer were awarded in the past. The claim that it is not awarded "for extraordinary service" are false. Your comments could apply to the MBE and OBE, but not the CBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both of Necrothesp's comments. I've also added another reference. Dalliance (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a stockbroker who was also a master of a livery company, deputy lieutenant and high sherrif and a bit of wartime service in his spare time. I have expanded the article with additional info. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between the various actions and honors this person did and achieved, there's more than enough here to estaiblish notability. Being short is not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the CBE, Who's Who, and lots of coverage in the London Gazeteer show notability. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Coyle[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent sources relate to some comments he has made, not amounting to notability. I agree that WP:TOOSOON may apply. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that he is a "major local political" per WP:POLITICIAN. SalHamton (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and WP:OUTCOMES. We have specifically deleted councillors' biographies before. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Secret ^account 04:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Borough Council police and crime commissioner election, 2012[edit]

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

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

These articles are not about the full elections but the result in just one of many districts that were combined for the vote. Localised figues only exist because of the way the count was done. There's no need for a plethora of local breakdowns and the information is covered by England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012#Thames Valley Police and South East England (European Parliament constituency)#Election results respectively. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Pointless articles - the results from Reading are meaningless as they are not the entire constituency for either of the elected posts. Number 5 7 13:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both – even though the results are not entirely meaningless, as they show how electors in that area voted on that day, which is of some psephological interest. It would be nice for each European electoral region (which en.Wikipedia calls "constituencies") to have the results by council area in the style of United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Votes_by_state or fr:Résultats détaillés de l'élection présidentielle française de 2012. But I don't suppose anyone is going to collect the information so let's delete the two anomalous Reading pages. Sussexonian (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too provincial in notability. That none of the people named in the article have articles of their own is telling. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wolf Alice. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. In the previous AfD, everyone voted delete, and the article was eventually moved to userspace and deleted as U1. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to band the only thing that has changed since the last AfD where there was insufficient sourcing for a stand alone article is that the article for the band itself now exists and is fairly established as meeting N and as such is an appropriate landing page for a redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and revert the band article back to including the full details of the single, making this article redundant. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improvised Action Collective[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable organization. Tagged for notability since 2008. Atlantima (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one blog source doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG... unless somebody can dig something else up. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable group and it doesn't seem likely to become notable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG: no RS, not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. czar · · 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against creating a redirect to whatever suitable article is found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State v. TAPP[edit]

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

Non-notable court case. Google search finds no indication that this case has served as a precedent in any other case, or is in any other way significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This case is included in the book cited in the article (Constitutional Law by Kanowitz). That book looks like a casebook and is available in Google Books if you want to check it. I suggest that State v. Tapp may be suitable for merger with, or a plausible redirect to, whatever article deals with the area of the law to which the book says it relates (compulsory self-incrimination). James500 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Other than its inclusion in that text (in which it may well serve as an example for a constitutional law class) I can find no references to this case. No other case cited it as a precedent. No law journal commented on it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, the case has been cited in textbooks (see Google), but it seems to be run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United states v downs[edit]

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

Non-notable court case. Article was PRODed and seconded by two editors who could not find any significant mentions of this case. This editor could also not find any significant mentions, and so bringing to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of importance or significance. It is present in legal databases[21] but doesn't seem to be discussed elsewhere. Even with press coverage it would probably fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable case only mentioned in a few places. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is sourced to a law report (the cryptic abbreviation that follows the name) and a book by Kanowitz (see my comments in the AfD debate for State v. Tapp). James500 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it's barely notable, but it is a 7th Circuit case, has been cited widely within that circuit, and could become notable in the future, if relied on by SCOTUS. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article consists of approximately one sentence (I say approximately, because it has grammatical problems that suggest it could be more than one with missing punctuation) and has no secondary sources. The article doesn't indicate the court's judgment, nor is it sourced to any book by Kanowitz. It may be possible to write a decent article about this case, but this is not it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Translations, Inc.[edit]

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

American translation company that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Prod removed without any reason given. Funny ^Pika! 13:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete an ISO certification and being a certified women owned business are not assertions of notability. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't appear to be any sources out there that say anything more than the company exists, like this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Express--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird by American Express[edit]

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

No sources, no independent notability. Everything here is already covered in American Express and and perhaps this should be redirected there. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without prejudice to creating a separate article if and when there's more material. Right now the paragraph at American Express#Consumer cards seems to cover it sufficiently. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the article - I think it's probably sufficient if it's captured under American Express Ademkader (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. —Ignatzmice ^talk _contribs 09:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. to Ghostbusters (franchise) Secret ^account 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin's Spirit Guide[edit]

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

This article is about a fictional book from Ghostbusters. There's several titles with this name on Amazon and a PDF file available at a fan website. I don't think the book meets the notability guidelines as it does not meet any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Dianna (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not technically a book as much as a plot device, but fails WP:GNG anyways. Zoke (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. While this plot device does not have enough notability to merit its own article, it does have enough available sourcing[22][23][24] to be at least mentioned and sourced where readers might expect it to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage amongst secondary sources, both in books and news articles, over a sustained period of time. — Cirt (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. Failing that, I lean towards deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghostbusters franchise. It is a well known term, however with so many terms and Ghostbusters lore not included at Wikipedia, this article sticks out like a sore thumb. As noted on the talk page to the article, it was created to promote a published non-official (but claims to be official, with content stolen from fan projects) book. If the article had been about official sources and written better, we may not have arrived here. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. I've speedy deleted this because it was created by a sock puppet of indef-blocked user User:Kelly Denis. One of the sock accounts used for this article was indef-blocked by checkuser on Commons - see here. This person has been using sock accounts for self-promotion quite regularly for the past month or two. INeverCry 17:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly denis/Kelly Dénis[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources (WP:Notability). All of the sources provided in the article are to social networking sites. Contested proposed deletion. ... discospinster _talk 13:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Zoke (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, and this edit -- article is being created by a single-purpose editor. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Images of subject claimed as "own work" also suggests autobiography or spam. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Given the new sources, I withdraw the nomination; that's enough to pass GNG Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Quiz Association[edit]

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

I looked through both Google Web and Google News, and I only found one WP:reliable source that discusses this group ([25], and this is only about a single event they held, not the group itself). Without additional, detailed discussions in RS, this does not meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. It sounds like an interesting group, but without evidence of notability, it can't have an article here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I am aware of the two newspaper article in the EL section, but neither significantly discusses the group itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: KQA has been featured in Hindu more than once here, here and here. Nayvik (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. The policy based consensus is clear here as the topic, while it "might" barely meet WP:GNG, it is perfectly covered in other articles and doesn't deserve a split on its own. Many of the keeps is WP:INTERESTING territory that ignores the sourcing conserns explained by DC and some of the later rationales (I discounted the last delete as a IDONTLIKEIT). Considering the sourcing issues and a prime target for BLP violations, I'm deleting this article and redirecting, but if someone gives me a plausible reason why to keep the content on a subpage, let me know. Secret ^account 04:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human–goat sexual intercourse[edit]

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

There has recently been edit-warring over this article, with attempts to blank it and turn it into a redirect without any consensus or discussion. I have no particular views on the matter myself, but purely as a procedural matter I have brought it to to AfD for discussion. I expect the parties to put forward arguments themselves on why it should be kept, deleted or redirected. Please note that the article must not be blanked or redirected while this discussion is underway. Prioryman (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with full protection until consensus is reached on article talk page. Zoke (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Comment was intended procedurally, does not reflect my position on the worthiness of the article. Zoke (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reason that this article should be kept instead of being redirected to the Zoophilia article, with any of its content being merged there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to zoophilia. Not an encyclopedic topic, this is a smorgasbord of trivia. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

......... Make that poorly sourced trivia...., per Delicious C. below. Carrite (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expected it to be baaad, but it is surprisingly well-referenced and wide ranging. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You should be trout-slapped for that one. However, I'm too lazy to actually go through with it. Consider yourself trout-slapped in spirit. Zoke (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-referenced and wide-ranging article demonstrating significant coverage in secondary sources over a period of time. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Might there be a better topic buried here? Notice that in the infamous sculpture of Pan doing the goat, Pan himself is portrayed with distinctly goaty features. (Pan isn't a human.) The theme in classical mythology isn't about "zoophilia" as such (that is, it isn't about an actual desire to mate with goats), but about the contiguities of human-animal sexuality, or sexuality as part of our animal nature. It's why satyrs have goat features. So while there is certainly a legitimate theme of "goats as tropes in the representation of human sexuality" (note "representation"; not sex acts per se, which goes to zoophilia), I have no idea what such an article would be called, or how to establish its scope. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the sources indicates a special or heightened notability for specific species. It can be covered in zoophilia. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no reason to arbitrarily lump together all the articles you possibly can under an umbrella where they will then be said not to "fit". The topic is notable, though as has been pointed out some of the sources may not have been up to par. What remains is sufficient. You might make a better argument for merging "Sudanese goat marriage incident" into this article (as was proposed in the talk) because there will be room for the content, and nobody actually looks up "Sudanese goat marriage incident". Wnt (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. I don't see why this topic should be elevated from Zoophilia. --Conti|✉ 19:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This is a valid search term and should redirect readers to the main Zoophilia article. As it stands now, however, it is nothing more or less than a collection of trivial mentions of human-goat sex and not an encyclopedia topic. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Expanding on a comment I made elsewhere, here are some specific problems with the current lede:

The statement "Human–goat sexual intercourse is one of the more common types of bestiality" is completely unsourced.
The statements "Of male zoophiles, 28% admitted sexual attraction to goats, ranking fourth. In female zoophiles, sexual attraction to goats is very rare or non-existent. Actual levels of sexual use of goats were lower than this however" are sourced to a document on a zoophile website which purports to be a report of some kind from a sexology conference (although one might question whether it is an accurate copy of the source). Upon reading this source, one discovers that these figures come from a single, small study. The generalizations are inappropriate even if the numbers are accurate within the study.
The statement "The act is usually performed by a male human upon a goat of either sex; male goats do not commonly take the initiative to copulate with a human female, although some cases have been reported" is sourced to an essay by Havelock Ellis, written in the 1930s. It appears to be a misstatement of Ellis' summary of a comment by Herodotus.

Any suggestion that this article is well-referenced is nonsense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, where's the hilarious naughtiness with that sort of attitude? It has some footnotes and a picture, it must be an encyclopedic topic, yes? < /s > Carrite (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Doesn't seem to be seriously discussed as a subject unto itself. Most mentions cover instances of this occurring or being depicted so any article would effectively become The Men Who Have Sex with Goats, rather than an actual encyclopedic work on this form of bestiality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article explains why it fits general notability guidelines and it seems to be backed up by reliable sources. If you want to delete it you need to come up with better reasons in my opinion. Pass a Method talk 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a valid argument for keeping a sub-page of another article. You have to explain how this subject is independently notable of the main subject of bestiality/zoophilia. If you can't then the appropriate response would be a merge or redirect to the main article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Every article is a sub-article of something else (or multiple other things). So either WP:GNG actually describes what we have an article about, or else the only guideline is "whatever I feel like deleting is toast". Wnt (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The association of goats with Satan and Pan puts it on a somewhat more notable level than other critters. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The reasons given for deletion seem to be insufficient; any article can indeed be seen as a sub-article of something. A Google search reveals several incidents along the same lines in Malawi in recent years, well-documented in the local press and court proceedings (the Sudanese solution of marriage to the goat not being considered, apparently). Oculi (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has disputed that some humans have had sex with goats. What we are discussing here is whether this is sufficiently different from the general sexual abuse of animals covered in Zoophilia to merit its own article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken the liberty of collecting some of these citations - by no means do I believe I have them all. [26] Zoophilia is a huge article and it doesn't have room for this kind of blow-by-blow analysis of one kind of zoophilia in one country; nonetheless, it is only by collecting and viewing the actual data that we learn that most of the time the people prosecuted are having sex with others' goats while they're tied to trees and are caught because of the unusual bleating. These details belong in an article specifically about the phenomenon of goat sex. I know it sounds silly but silly doesn't matter! For example, if you're going to make decisions about whether your state should actually pass a real law that will really allocate money that amounts to the entire livelihoods of multiple taxpayers to put a few silly people in jail, you should know all the details, understand how it works in countries that do it. If someone at the CDC is looking at a new STD they just isolated yesterday and puzzling out how it might have jumped into humans, they should be able to brainstorm on Wikipedia for ideas and have our best effort waiting here in response! He shouldn't be left scratching his head for three days saying "I wonder if anybody really does that?" out of somebody's sense of propriety. There is simply no topic too ridiculous that we shouldn't allow ourselves to look into it dispassionately and pull out the data. Wnt (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, I've removed that section. If you think it's a good idea to list individual cases of people arrested for having sex with goats, you are crazier than I thought. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that removing data from an article while you're trying to get it deleted is an abuse of process, except from what I've seen of these things the past year I'm feeling like as a matter of procedural policy it is an integral part of the process - I wonder how things would get deleted without it. I do, however, note that covering reports of crime is within WP:WELLKNOWN. Wnt (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article is up for deletion, under construction, or appearing on the front page, I'm going to remove blatant BLP violations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a look here after I saw the discusion on AN/I and on Jimbo's page. It seems to me that you do have notable incidents where people have sexual intercourse with goats. Not all of these incidents can be classified as cases of zoophilia. The impression I get from reading this article is that the typical cases involve lone farmers who just use goats as a masturbating devices. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cirt put a note about this discussion at the ancient Egypt project talk page, presumably because of this passage in the article: "In Ancient Egypt, at the temple in Mendes, the goat was viewed as the incarnation of the god of procreation. As a ritual of worship, the male priests would use female goats for sex, and the female priests would do likewise with male goats." Regardless of whether the article is deleted, I'm concerned about this statement. The source is a sexological study (not a historical one) that deals with ancient zoophilia only as background, and its source for this claim is unclear. A web search turns up only one remotely credible source (this website about ancient Egypt, written by a well-informed amateur), which refers to this same study. It also mentions two ancient sources: one mention in Herodotus of a single instance of human-goat intercourse in Mendes, and a passage in Pindar that suggests Mendes had a reputation among the Greeks for such activity. But that website also mentions the suggestion, from a 1949 book on sex and religion, that the "goat" involved in these incidents may have been a man dressed as a goat. So the notion that "As a ritual of worship, the male priests would use female goats for sex, and the female priests would do likewise with male goats" is dubious, to say the least. Unless some other source is out there, it's a serious exaggeration of vague statements in Greek sources. A. Parrot (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Meets WP:GNG without any question. Qworty (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You offered the same reason for reverting my redirection of the article to Zoophilia - what do you think is being censored here? Is this a conspiracy to hide the the fact that some people have sexually abused specific types of animals by pointing readers to the article which discusses the general subject in depth? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY. There is no way it fulfills GNG. Scattered old artworks depicting the act and a few modern news stories do not constitute significant coverage of it as a concept, any more than 'falling down stairs' or 'crossing a fence' are notable because they are occasionally portrayed in art and reported in historical sources. The only cited study of it, as a concept, is as part of a larger survey of bestiality or even of sexuality in general, and not as a stand-alone topic of analysis. The entire article synthesizes scattered references to sex with goats and is not based on a secondary analysis of the subject. Agricolae (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricolae. Insufficient sources to establish notability. Those arguing "keep" aren't producing good sources, and those arguing "delete" are able to show why the sources are insufficient and misrepresented. For instance, the source used for the reference to Pan and the goat doesn't meet RS standards for ancient art, sexuality, myth or religion; it would be challenged and almost certainly rejected in any article on the ancient world. Besides, Pan is not a human. He's a deity with goat features. I asked above whether there was a legitimate way to approach theriomorphism and sexuality as a "goat" trope, but the insistence has been that the scope of this article is "humans have sex with goats", har har, which necessarily excludes fictional or symbolic treatments such as Albee's in which "human-goat intercourse" is a literary device (as the subtitle "Who Is Sylvia?" indicates: anyone who'd ever seen an Albee play would know the play isn't "about" having sex with a goat). "Not censored" doesn't mean that if it's about sex it doesn't need to meet usual standards of notability and verification. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is indiscriminate and its sources are poor. "Human–goat sex" just isn't an encyclopaedic subject. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vembu Technologies[edit]

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

Yet another trivial software company writing its own wiki articles and supporting them with no more sourcing than a handful of its own recycled press releases. COI issues across their contributions history with articles on their products StoreGrid and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SyncBlaze (rejected). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoreGrid
Delete per nom, Davey2010 Talk 11:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of their products is a protection solution; another, a management solution. MEGO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StoreGrid[edit]

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

Yet another trivial software product, with an article written by its own developers (see other articles in their history). The only sourcing is a few recycled press releases. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vembu Technologies
Delete per nom, Davey2010 Talk 11:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Many weak rationales in both sides of the debate, with the keeps saying this is not a content fork and little else, the delete side stating this is OR (with very little to back it up) and others are advocating a merge of two articles into this one. Sounds more like an editing dispute and impossible to read a consensus here. I don't think relisting would help. Secret ^account 04:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights abuses in Kashmir[edit]

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

Article is redundant and a content fork of already existing articles on the topic - namely Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. This article serves no purpose other than being a duplicate and has a questionable scope, given that it does not cover the history of human rights either [27]. Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suggest the two articles be merged into the present one. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Nom. - how is it being used as a content fork can you explain please? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the admin : there is the discussion that reached a rough consensus against inclusion of selective original research in the name of "history of Human rights" (The secondary sources don't call it as human rights abuse). Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree they are redundant and a content fork of already existing articles. No need of multiple articles on the same subject. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No need of multiple articles on the same subject." - they are not about the exact same topic. This is nomination is WP:POINTY. See Wikipedia:Summary style. You might work towards keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronized rather than asking for its deletion. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article serves no purpose when its sub-sections have already articles of the same content. I tried to make it eligible look like different, I added the cause and some related incidents from history it was removed, labelled as OR, you disprove then it‘s labelled as no HRV, again you disprove they turn things over. When you restore it they attack on your user talk page. The article serves a purpose only if it is restored to this version. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SUMMARY This is the parent article, and there are no article BTW in HRV in Gilgit-Baltistan as yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for this article given that there are already dedicated articles to Kashmir HRV in Jammu Kashmir and Azad Kashmir already. A third summary article serves no purpose other than WP:REDUNDANT. There is nothing in this article that can't be covered in better detail in J&K and A&K articles. Gilgit-Baltistan content can be merged into Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir and that article renamed to Human rights in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Mar4d (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we have WP:SUMMARY? The article is not redundant as it is a summary article and the parent article of the others. As you just wrote, we have dedicated articles already (I know this of course as I wrote them) then a summary article is needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, you're dead-wrong again, wondering how?

This article aims to provide the whole record of Human rights abuses in the entirety of Kashmiri region.
Kashmir HRV in Jammu Kashmir and Azad Kashmir are two subsections of this article then by your logic we should redirect the smaller articles to the parent not the opposite.
Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are two different entities in Pakistan, hence one article for each is due.
You're trying to disrupt Wikipedia with this AFD to illustrate a point merely because you're upset A. that OR and POV content were not allowed to be included in the name of "History of Human rights" B. that Hindu Taliban was AFDed.

This is just a pointy nomination. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and improve the sync rather than crying "delete!". Per WP:SUMMARY. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noteworthy topic in its own right with significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little non-redundant content there is and delete anything else. This seems like a very, very clear case. There are already two well-written articles on the topic. This article is poorly written and is composed of scavenged sources from the others. Merge what isn't redundant and delete the rest per WP:REDUNDANT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that clear. WP:REDUNDANT is not applicable here:

it doesn't address summary articles or SPIN-off articles.
it talks about those pairs of articles who are exactly about the same topic. Here we have an article about Kashmir and two articles about two separate subsets of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (and we are still in need of an article about Human rights abuses in Gilgit Baltistan which is only in the parent article). Hence they are different territories governed by different nations.
Human rights abuses in Kashmir is more notable than the individual spin-off articles. Then by this logic we should delete the other two articles and merge them with this article, should we do that?

I hope it helps. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need help, and my comment still stands. And, while you have the right to respond, the argumentative nature on this discussion and at least one other India-related discussion isn't helpful. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's synthesis. The sources treat human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir (state of Pakistan) and Jammu and Kashmir (state of India) separately. Gilgit-Baltistan, is to everybody except the Indian government and those who it browbeats (such as certain UN agencies) into accepting its views, separate from Kashmir. I would expect from this article to have sources and analysis which address human rights issues common to both "Kashmirs", if they did have enough similarity to be compared with such regularity.
Also, this article suffers from a ridiculous syndrome common to India-related articles on Wikipedia. When human rights agencies and the news talk about "human rights abuses in Kashmir", they are talking about the Indian state, where the repression is especially extensive. Azad Kashmir in Pakistan is self-governing. This diversionary and undue emphasis on Pakistan's (or not-India's) problems has ruined the articles on bride burning and caste, which of course refer in the majority educated population and to academia as well to Indian problems. Shrigley (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not synthesis. Read WP:SYNTH. Don't understand why you like pointing to random policies.

"I would expect from this article to have sources and analysis which address human rights issues common to both "Kashmirs"" — why? You yourself acknowledged that the two kashmirs are governed by two nations then why should we not treat them separately? what kind of demand is this? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. As the article covers two different nations, a merge and redirect to Human rights in Indian or Pakistan would not be possible.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have not read the nomination rationale or the comments above. We are not discussing a merge into human rights in India or Pakistan, but rather into the already dedicated articles of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Why do you believe the content here cannot be merged into those already existing articles? Mar4d (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because

we don't have article about ″Human rights violations in Gilgit Baltistan″ (which should be created on its own merit)
This article is a summary style article.

I hope it helps clarify the issue. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied via G7 by User:Deb, article's author had already G7'd it before it was nominated for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Blood Cries Out[edit]

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

Article had insufficient or no information vhincze 09:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A1/A3 applied also, hardly any content. Secret ^account 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EMEIA[edit]

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

The term is specific to Ernst and Young initiative. Gaurav Pruthi ^talk 08:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No indication of significance. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any criteria for speedy deletion that apply, but I also don't see any reason to keep this. It is not even a definition; it is the expansion of an abbreviation. Either merge to Europe, the Middle East and Africa (though that page itself is borderline; see this 2004 deletion discussion) or delete. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Secret ^account 04:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine general election, 2015[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Dewritech (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's usual to have articles on upcoming elections such as United States presidential election, 2016. The Argentinian elections are held every 4 years so it's not idle speculation to say when it will be held, even if the exact date is to be decided. The article is currently in a process of being rewritten, so certainly I would suggest waiting till that is finished. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Colapeninsula, Davey2010 Talk 11:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard to have articles on forthcoming elections; how many times have we been through this issue by now? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no special opinion, so I defer to whatever is the established consensus. However, I must point that Cristina Kirchner is unable to run for the election, unless there is an amendment to the constitution. There are proposals for that, but it is premature to list her as a "potential candidate" unless such amendment actually takes place. Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and lack of references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh dear. WP:BIAS at its worst. No one would touch the article on the 2016 US presidential election. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K.Pudur[edit]

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

Name seems to be against WP:ACRONYMTITLE.Uncredible,lacks sources and images are not representative of the aforementioned place and in violation of WP:IRELEV. Vignesh Mani M (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for K.Pudur

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are duplicates of K.Pudur:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an easily verifiable village. Settlements are notable per editor consensus. WP:ACRONYMTITLE doesn't apply here. A move to K. Pudur would fix any naming issues. Irrelevant images are easily fixed by editing, not WP:TNT. The duplicate articles can be redirected easily. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the name of the article is no reason to delete it. The nom should have read WP:BEFORE and we wouldn't be having this waste of time discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In violation of WP:N and WP:RS,

If you google K.pudur in Maps, You will see K.Pudur Madurai, Tamil Nadu which is not the same as the one which the article is pointing to. I believe your Google search had turned up results for this neighborhood. In fact Google maps lists multiple villages in different districts with the same name. The solution should be to list the neighborhood in Madurai which has a larger population and more facilities. This article is pointing to a small village which is not even listed in the official panchayat database.

Official Panchayat list of villages in Perambalur district[28]. Also linking User page [29]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vignesh Mani M (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given that the village exists. If there are multiple K. Pudur villages, then we might want to consider a disambiguation page of some sort that links to the various articles and/or provinces where such villages are to be found. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Philippine network television schedule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Kiddie Techie (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a general schedule like this is not a TV guide. A TV guide gives the specifics of programs from week to week. Rather, this is basic information about Philippine network television. It's the first thing any reader would want to know. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It claims to be the TV guide for a specific week. I don't know how you can say this is not a TV guide: what is a TV guide if not a list of the times that each program starts in a particular week? If there was narrative text about scheduling decisions, ratings, etc, that would be legitimate. I also dispute that this is the first thing a reader would want to know - why would they want to know what was on TV on 6 December 2010? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, This is a TV Guide & should be gone!. Davey2010 Talk 11:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does indeed fit the description of a TV Guide. Don't buy the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure about the legitimacy of TV schedules here in general (see also Lists of United States network television schedules and Lists of Canadian network television schedules for more examples) but this one definitely fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Not only is it unreferenced, being "effective from 6 December 2010" means it only runs for less than 4 weeks in 2010. User:Howard_the_Duck also raised a valid point in the previous Afd - in that Filipino TV doesn't follow standard TV seasons like in American and Canadian programming, so to describe that this is a general schedule doesn't really hold that much weight. Funny ^Pika! 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the presumption that there is generally discussion about competition of network television in the Philippines as there is in the US. This has been a point of issue before that while it may appear to be a TV guide, it appears to be presenting a broader picture of the television line up for the nation from its over-the-air channels. We do this for the US (eg 2012–13 United States network television schedule), and I remember discussing the finer points of when this is a schedule and when this crosses the line to a TV guide a few years ago at WT:NOT. But again, my keep here is based on the fact that I would expect competition between network stations to be the subject of sourced discussion which these articles support. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I try to search online using the Google search engine for references for the article to be save but theres no exact information found on the internet regarding Philippines TV Schedule on 2010. I believe that this article should be deleted as it credibility is questionable since theres no proofs for the information that this article is providing -- Vhincze(Talk)

Comment My comments on the first AFD has to be read for context. Unlike in the US where there are "seasons", or a program airs on a specific period of the year on a specific number of seasons, then returns to the same time next year if the ratings are good, Philippine TV programs go on and on (Daily episodic programs are usually ordered for a season of 13 weeks) until ratings go bad, then never returns again, unless there's clamor for a sequel or a reboot.

That means you'd never find sources of TV schedules in a specific time period in one place. It's always the latest "schedules".

The only way anything like this could be accurate is to keep track of which programs end, start, and change time slots. If any of those things happen. This is not as regular like in the US where programs where programs are grouped on the time of the year when they start and end (either September/October->May, May->September/October). In this article, presumably this is only accurate as of December 31. –H T D 03:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: If anyone wants to check out things, 2010 in the Philippines#Television has a list of programs that started and ended in 2010. One can cross-reference the two lists, and can come up with a schedule that shows when the program started and ended. –H T D 04:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is exactly what WP:NOTTVGUIDE was meant to address. Go elsewhere for this kind of info, not to an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes there's a lot of discussion over a so-called "network war" over here, but mainly on blogs and forums. There's actually little, if any, independent coverage on television schedules over here. But more importantly, Wikipedia is not a television guide. As for TV shows, reruns are almost unheard of, and official DVDs are rather rare, so coverage for very old programs is also hard to come by. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Policy based consensus is rather clear as the sources provided was easily rebuked for failing our guidelines. Secret ^account 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Blain[edit]

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

Sources are either not RS, minimal or related to the website, with a slice of press release &/or promotion. Reads unacceptably advertorial and isn't ready for mainspace until the sourcing dramatically improves. Was rejected at AFC but moved to mainspace by author anyway. Recommend usification if deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Hi folks, I wrote this article and am brand new around here. I've spent a fair amount of time learning things around wikipedia, including proper markup, have gone through helping to clean up backlogged AFC (about 40 articles so far), updated various other minor pages and categories and created another article that is being discussed. I am really trying to understand how to help out and add new articles around here. This process is pretty frustrating. That being said..

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject. As well as Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.(2.5 million+) As well as some - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.

Analysis of the 15 sources in the article:

Published Major Secondary Sources -

Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times.
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today.
Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com.
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post.
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com.

Industry publications related to the person but independent of the subject -

a b c Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat.
Google's Suggested User List, [1], Retrieved on August 20, 2012
NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013
"Winners of the 2012 Spirit of Google+ Awards". Media Tapper. June 28, 2012.
Shervington, Martin (2012). The Art & Science of Google+.
"Guy Kawasaki and 10 Experts Chime in on the Value of Google Plus – and How You Can Start to Leverage It". Windmill Networking. Oct 1, 2012.

Independent publications - only to verify statements -

Google Social Statistics, [2] 2012
Amanda Blain on Google+
Circle Count, August 20, 2012

Since I spent some time reviewing other articles in the AFC, I didn't think there would be an issue in moving this ahead, but seems like its being used as a reason above and that I did something incorrect. I reviewed other articles that had been approved and I felt the above references shows at least the ability for a C-level article with help from some more experienced authors about "advertorial" and the style. Geek4gurl (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only actually reliable non-press released based source is the NYT article, and it is not devoted to her, but mentions her site as only one of several examples. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at these sources in more detail:

Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. - Mentions the site and has a quote from Blain but says nothing about her as a person - just a quote from her. This isn't going to count for Blain's notability as it doesn't contain any biography detail.
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today. Its about the site and doesn't add very much about Blain, Its too marginal to count as a reliable source for notability. Plus its identical to the Huffington Post article which makes me wonder if its a promotional puff piece or a recycles press release. Being quoted doesn't make you notable
Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com. About.com isn't a reliable source
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 - Can't comment on this as its not on-line but the title doesn't suggest its primarily about Blain or that it has much bio.
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post. Same problems as the psychology today article as its identical
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com. About.com isn't a reliable source

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused why this article is being judged so tough. It does seem to be penalized for submitting to AFC first, as many other articles get approved with no question with way worse sources than i've submitted here (not that that is ok) but not sure why there is little help on this and lots of simply "its wrong and pull it" Many wiki entries for people in the social media industry/internet personalities are left with "could use more sources", "additional clean up" or even stub articles. It is very discouraging to a new user to have hours of work immediately removed and deleted and certainly makes me not want to help out if everything just gets shot down because senior editors happened across it in the AFC. I've spent a lot of time to try and do things correctly.

As I posted above the notability guidelines I went off of - The user has a large fan base and cult following of over 2.5 million people and being 35th most followed person on the second largest social network in the world. The bottom two sections of sources listed above show she is considered an expert on Google Plus by her peers including interviews, stats, and speaking engagements. Blain also designed a popular website that had an ok amount of press and following.

I disagree with above analysis and at least i'm finally getting some real answers here after asking several times (including teahouse, irc chat, Spartaz directly for help, etc) and getting no real response. All of these articles are not 100% about Blain, but I sourced them to back the facts about Girlfriend Social, that she created instead of creating a separate page which seemed to be the standard for website creators.

Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. - This is used to verify that Amanda is the founder of the website which it does with this line. " Amanda Blain, the founder of Girlfriend Social"
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today. - It talks about her background, location, age, moving to place, technology background and more. It is about her company including launch date, and purpose - which is what this section is referencing. How would any article about a website/founder not be somewhat promotional? I am very confused.
Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com. - Im not sure how this doesn't count "at all". Its owned by InterActiveCorp, an independant major secondary source to me... but more importantly it is a direct interview with Amanda that includes some background and states she designed and is responsible for the website
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 - This is in reference to the number of users on the website which is mention and discussed in the women's world article. It also includes background information on Amanda.
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post. - It is a duplicate article, but the different publication should not discount its inclusions since it is a completely different publication that had to approve it - don't most news articles get syndicated in some degree? I included it as an additional sources I found.
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com. In terms of the female friendship industry, winning this user voted on award seems like an achievement. Not sure again why it doesn't count.

Are the sources not supposed to back up the specific points? Thats how I used them.

The remaining articles not gone through above, include large/medium social media websites that did peer direct interviews and being used as an expert source. It might not be the New York Times, but it isn't her personal blog site either. I still feel they count as independent third party sources in the industry. I'm not sure how they 'count for nothing' and are considered 'press releases'.

Including :

a b c Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat. a direct interview where she talks about google plus and her experiences specifically, as well as being called one of its biggest influencers
"Guy Kawasaki and 10 Experts Chime in on the Value of Google Plus – and How You Can Start to Leverage It". Windmill Networking. Oct 1, 2012. Interviewed with other major social media players as an expert on Google Plus
NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013 - According to the speaker page , spoke as the expert about Google Plus at a very large social media conference

Geek4gurl (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of evidence of persistent notability based on substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sources are heavily dependent on subject's own press releases and lack independence. No evidence that the subject has garnered any lasting notability. Heavily promotional in tone, reads like an advertisment, and full of puffery. Rewriting won't solve anything. Nothing in the article is of encyclopedic value. Arguement for keep boils down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which does much to establish notability, even if taken together. There's a good reason why this article was rejected at AFC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm learning as I go here. The reasons for my Keep: I felt these best described an Internet Personality celebrity -

WP:ENT - Cult following of 2.5 million - Average blog post or G+ posts gets several thousand interactions
WP:CREATIVE - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors and The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. I provided examples of how I thought this was done above.

Geek4gurl (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above ahem somewhat verbose discussion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's kinda of a WP:METOO and I'd be interested in your thoughts on what sources provive the detailed independant coverage of Blain's life/works that meets GNG/BIO? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On The Fence (since I'm also new around here...and not yet as far along as you, Geek4gurl :-) The article reads well; but on the other hand, I can see how stringent standards for notability keep Wikipedia out of an Internet cycle of self-promotion by not-so-notables. What about the test of time? If it does in fact get deleted, hang onto the source text that you've written/edited, and retry later, if she goes on to become noteworthy. Siryendor (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BASIC. Zoke (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather an assertion without evidence. Please can you explain which sources you think pass the GNG and WP:BIO. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage of this person as a real person (the sort of coverage that includes genuine biographical details) in independent, reliable sources. The writer of the article is new to Wikipedia, and is earnest and enthusiastic, and I hate to hurt her feelings. But this is an actual encyclopedia and we carry articles about truly notable people, as Wikipedia defines "notability" quite clearly. Notability does not come from a single passing mention in the New York Times, or from blog posts, or from fleeting popularity on social networks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was pondering a keep based on the HuffPo and PsychologyToday sources, until i realized that it was the same exact article written by the same person. So that is considered one source, but the rest just feels very superficial and of the mention-in-passing variety. The sourcing may be solid enough, but just barely, to support an article on Girlfriend Social and have Ms. Blain's article redirect to that. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fortunately we don't base importance on the number of followers on social networking sites. We have some reliable proof Blaim founded a website, but nothing of substance that talks about her in any depth. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your comments. Its helpful. This entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_Internet_personalities and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_personalities should all be removed (except a few) if the above stands true. There are more secondary sources and third party interviews for Blain than most of the ones in that section. Perhaps this is why I am so confused.

If "social networking sites" do not count for notability then - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Stars ? Youtube is a social network just as much as GooglePlus and in fact it is smaller.Geek4gurl (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring this up as an argument to keep my article. I feel i've talked about that above a great deal how there is enough in here for at least a starting article. I brought this up so some of you serious editors could have a look at that section and clean it up just like you are doing here. Its full of very poorly sourced articles and persons and that seems to be very important to many of you. Geek4gurl (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss and evaluate one article now and that is Amanda Blain. A "starting article" requires that the subject is notable, and there is general consensus here that passing mentions and blog posts are insufficient to establish notability. If someone nominates those other articles for deletion, then they too will be evaluated on their individual merits. As for YouTube, the fact is that some YouTube "stars" have attained notability, but by no means all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But regardless of me following proper channels, (asking directly for help to previous editors, using the teahouse multiple times, using the IRC chat) this is the only time i've actually been able to have a real substance conversation with multiple editors. I've learned more in this discussion (formating styles, deletion process, and referencing various points) than hours of trying to follow proper formats. Sorry it's gone off course, but thanks to all who are helping someone new learn your very difficult processes. Geek4gurl (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way of figuring out how WP works is to read up very thoroughly on the policies and guidelines, and then to observe how they are applied by experienced users. The best places to do this are article talk pages, notice boards and AfD's. Before I started editing, I spent about a year lurking on talk pages, following a few highly experienced editors around and seeing how they interpreted policy. Yes, it does take time to learn the ropes, and it can be very confusing until all of the different policies and guidelines gel into a coherent whole in your brain. Good luck, and happy editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TLDR. the failure to explain notability in a succinct way is a system problem, not a new editor problem. i see one good reference [30], but regrettably not enough, yet. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 11:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to enough in depth coverage in reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or send back to AfC at the page creators request. Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good amount of secondary source coverage of the topic. — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Keri (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the coverage is indepedent sources is not overwhelming, it is more than trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Walters (actor)[edit]

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

Extraordinarily poorly-sourced article on a living person with no particular evidence of encyclopedicity and no reliable sources on which to base a proper article. I already stripped out a number of highly-derogatory and entirely-unsourced accusations/insinuations per WP:BLP but a quick check in the article history will show them. Once those were removed from the article, there is nothing left. polarscribe (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:WEB. I can't find even mention of "Tourette's Guy" in reliable sources, unless you count Know Your Meme (which is pretty much the meme equivalent of Wikipedia). Incidentally, in my search I found a blog post lamenting the lack of an article for "Tourette's Guy", while the author promises to never use Wikipedia again because of it. ... discospinster _talk 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No available evidence of notability, specifically as an actor. Mcewan (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article's editor has inserted personal information into the page - specifically, a street address. I have removed it and requested that the personal information be oversighted, as it is a blatant violation of policy and common sense to include someone's residential address in a Wikipedia article. polarscribe (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tourettes guy is quite popular and is worthy of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs)
Delete for lack of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Ptitsyna[edit]

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

I declined an A1 and A7 CSD due to clear context and representation by an international modeling agency. That said, while attempting to expand the article, I have been unable to locate significant reliable and independent sources to establish notability. As a European model, predominantly working in Russia, I'm hoping that others may be able to locate foreign language sources that may be used to establish notability. Lacking this support, I would recommend deletion. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Cindy(need help?) 03:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:BIO. Zoke (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create (!)[edit]

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

Band not notable per WP:BAND. If their "Create (!) Workshops" have any notability, they should be their own article. That removed, this article fails to meet guidelines above. Zoke (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cool concept but fails WP:BAND... pretty sure their workshops aren't notable either. We'll have the full story... at 11! 13:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject relies on a single external link as a source - which, unfortunately, fails WP:RS. No exact matches found on G-search. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nighthawk[edit]

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

Minor wrestler. Notability not established through WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'- User:DrRonThomasJr belongs to the subject in question. He actually created the article, uploaded all relevant images and contributed 99% of its content. Feedback ^☎ 04:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible COI case - should I report this to COIN as well? hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble on the Rock 4[edit]

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

This was a non-notable MMA event from a defunct Hawaiian MMA organization (not to be confused with a newer organization of the same name based in the UK). The article consists solely of fight results and the only source links to a list of fight results. This fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and all coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These were notable MMA events, many UFC and Pride fighters participated in ROTR, and the promotion has been mentioned by Joe Rogan on the air as notable. ROTR was a notable event in the history of modern MMA, and was NOT simply a local, non-notable promotion. Sgtkabuki (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROTR is not even listed at WP:MMANOT as a second tier MMA organization. In addition, this discussion is about the specific events, not the organization. There is nothing that shows these individual fight cards were historically significant. The fact that some notable fighters competed is WP:NOTINHERITED, otherwise every MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL game would be considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT is pretty lenient, since I consider a top tier organization title fight enough for an event to pass. However, even by that lenient standard, this event still fails, because while there is a title fight, the organization is not top tier (or even second tier). Failing WP:SPORTSEVENT, the event would need to demonstrate significant, non-routine coverage to be considered notable, and while there is some coverage, it's all WP:ROUTINE. I can't find any argument to keep this event. CaSJer (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These events don't pass WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Phatboiz[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable production company. I was unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. I checked Google News, HighBeam, Credo, Questia, and NewsBank. The closest that I could find was this interview which seems promotional in nature and originates from a source of questionable reliability. - Mr X 00:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 00:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little if anything anywhere that looks like a reliable independent source. The chief claims of significance in the article are (1) that they have been nominated for a couple of awards, and (2) that they have worked with more notable performers. Neither of these goes far towards establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Barry Ryan[edit]

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

Delete: Non-notable; only notability even claimed is as the grandfather of an aristocrat. Quis separabit? 00:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:AUTHOR - no references to support assertions of notability. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the sake of clarity, I've split the article up a bit with more sub-headings. It's pretty clear that the article is less about the subject than it is about his children. If either of the children mentioned (2/10) are notable, then we should consider creating articles for them. But having an article for the father just to summarise the lives of two marginally notable children is a bit pointless. Stalwart111 02:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His granddaughter, Virginia Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie, has an article. Quis separabit? 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had noticed that. I suppose that just makes me even more sure about deletion. We generally don't accept arguments that notability might be inherited and that is usually in relation to parents/children. Grandparents/grandchildren is another step again. Stalwart111 06:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No absolutely. I wasn't trying to change your mind. I nominated the article for deletion, after all. I was just establishing that there is no nexus to notability just because his granddaughter married an aristocrat. Quis separabit? 16:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, understood that - we're both on the same page I think! Stalwart111 21:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing whatsoever to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Borders on WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies[edit]

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

In accordance with the removal of copyvio article by user Whpq (refer View history) the article now is incomplete. The institute's official website list courses most of which have not been listed or have been deleted. Also the internet user's trust on Wikipedia for providing authentic information may be tarnished. Just by providing 8 lines of information does not certify the credibility of the said institution. All members at Wikipedia struggle to provide non-copyrighted and authentic resources to its users. Also there is no further contribution the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencottonmouth123 (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep: Incomplete article or non-addition of adequate sources cannot be a ground for deletion. A degree awarding institute is deemed to be a notable institute, those grounds has been discussed in the earlier discussion and no need to be repeated here itself. I request the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Recognised degree-granting institution. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There remains enough information to show it an ative degree-granting university and that's all that is necessary. !
Keep - A recognized, active degree-granting institute and therefore notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the last discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not simply because it's a "recognized, active degree-granting institute", but because it is discussed in multiple reliable sources: http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/03/stories/2010110359960300.htm, http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/21365/ -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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