< 25 April	27 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. J04n(talk page) 00:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fishscale cocaine[edit]

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

No sources; grammatical errors so extensive as to make part of the (very short) article incoherent; not notable. PStrait (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dispute that the article is "incoherent" but Google news gives no hits and Google Books gives only one. No sources = no article. Dricherby (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term exists in the Urban Dictionary and on various drug forums. The article makes sense, at least to me. But I could find no in depth reliable secondary sources about this form of the drug. Without reliable sources, the article cannot stand, per WP:GNG. A redirect to Cocaine would be, possible, but I can't find a reliable source even for verifiability. --Mark viking (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the massive grammatical errors, nor the incomprehensibility claimed in the nomination. But I'm also not seeing any sources. At best this is an overlong dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't any reliable source to verify the notability of this term. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graziano (businessman)[edit]

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

Author removed PROD template. Subject is a businessman who appeared on a Dragons Den TV programme. Remainder of the claims in the article are cited to primary sources, generally the article is promoting Graziano's businesses. A Google search for independent, relaible sources about Graziano's will bring up several others of the same name, but not the Canadian version. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He scored a deal on the Canadian edition of Dragon's Den. Good for him. But there is not significant independent coverage in reliable sources about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientific Conferences[edit]

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

An indiscriminate topic with no inherent notability. As things stand, it is apparently being used as advertising for the sort of activity increasingly denoted by the term "Predatory open access journals" (a claim supported by consideration of who created the article -- a now-blocked sock of User:Scholarscentral). At bottom, a misuse of Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against future recreation as a proper list. The current list of "selected conferences to be held in 2013" is a clear WP:NOTDIR violation and has no inclusion criteria; most of the conferences on the list seem rather minor (most haven't been held more than five times). Deleting the article wouldn't hinder anyone trying to create a replacement article that adhered to Wikipedia policies. Dricherby (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. I've been watchlisting the related List of computer science conferences, which at least has something resembling inclusion and sourcing standards, and regularly have to revert spammy additions of unsourced conferences. The spam farm under consideration is what you get when those sorts of changes aren't reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of academic conferences and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of academic conferences (2nd nomination), two older deletion discussions on a similar topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the conference entries I looked at have not yet taken place. Perhaps the inclusion criterion is "future conferences that I want to advertise", but neither the list entries nor the hypothesized criterion show any evidence of notability. With lack of reliable sources and a probable WP:CRYSTAL for most or all of the entries, this article should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is the issue, here: I'd say that these events are "almost certain to take place" this year. Dricherby (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no inclusion criteria, no plausible value to anyone. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- As list of scientific conferences is very important to scientific community, I request you to keep this page and give me time to find references and edit the article as per guidelines.If a page is not to be created for conferences which are not organized yet..I will update the page with conferences which are already held..Platyone (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked sockpuppet. Dricherby (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a calendar for academics. In any case, a simple list of conferences is of little use to the academic community, since academics know the conferences in their own fields and there's usually somebody within any given field who maintains a list of conferences on their own web page, along with important information such as submission deadlines which wouldn't be appropriate on Wikipedia anyway. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of academic conferences are not notable in the sense that Wikipedia requires so there is no scope for the article to be anything more than a huge list of conference names. And that's before we ask about what the inclusion criteria would be for this list. Dricherby (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I argued when I PRODed this article, while the sponsoring organizations of these conference may (or may not) be notable, not every meeting that they hold is notable. This is simply WP:LISTCRUFT, and possibly an attempt to use the list to promote certain conferences. (I note among the list several conferences promoted by OMICS Publishing Group, an organization that has been relentlessly promoted by a sockfarm of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. CU has already determined that Platyone (talk · contribs) has used at least one other account based on the current SPI.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the creator of this article (Chicago1432 (talk · contribs)) has been blocked as a sockpuppet, perhaps WP:CSD#G5 also applies here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "keep" vote above comes from another sockpuppet now blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a viable topic. But it should mean list of notable conferences with articles in Wikipedia-- which won't be many individual conferences, but can and should include articles on conferences held in series with a common title, of which there are many notable ones--though so far we have written very few articles. As for the present article, it's worthless as it stands, for reasons explained above. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete No claim to notability per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Goni[edit]

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

Unremarkable person & article written in foreign language Aftab1995 (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Should be listed as CSD#A7 (person whose article makes no notability claim) instead of the current G1, which excludes non-English content. czar · · 23:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go Goodwins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable company, (Had removed routes but restored for afd) –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as company doesn't meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, only one-single source, no unbiased public coverage... Alex^{discussion ★} 21:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you folks are forgetting how this article was in its heyday, which despite the copyright problem, shows notability. Now it has been stripped of that, narrow minded deletionists just want to eradicate everything bus without searching for its notability. Why not improve and expand the article instead of removing it? It makes me sick how I spend hours and hours creating these articles and then serial deletionists come along and nominate it without thinking twice about its merits and history. It goes without saying that I !vote keep. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 22:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not our problem, article has no history, & refs, So it's clearly non notable.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN, WP:SOFIXIT, WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is the company notable for anything other than transporting the cricket teams? If so, what? czar · · 23:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you nominated twice, davey. Ansh666 22:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, the first nom didn't appear on afd list so re-done. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would have made more sense to delete the 2nd nom instead of redirecting the first—less cruft left over. czar · · 23:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think of that but thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→23:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pure WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM and WP:ADVERT. The guys behind this article are just trying to make money by getting people to ride these buses. They should lay out the cash for their own website and stop using Wikipedia as a free web-hosting service, which we are WP:NOT. Qworty (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those claims are completely unfounded and as far as I know, untrue. There is no advertising intent here at all. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 09:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be of borderline notability, but the suggestion that it is of promotional intent does not seem credible. As for the absurd comment that "they should lay out the cash for their own website", they clearly already have - aside from the list of routes, the URL of said website is about the only piece of content in the article! Quackdave (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few good refs in Rcsprinter's diff, and I didn't find much more in search, but I don't see the claim of notability other than being the official transport of the English cricket teams. If something else comes up, I'd reconsider. It must be discouraging to see the article go, but consider that we looked and just don't see the WP:ORGDEPTH. czar · · 23:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM isn't a good enough rationale, Tell us why.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have recently culled all articles on British bus routes. This is an article about a bus operator, rather than a bus route, but the same objections apply. WP:NOTTRAVEL. The routes operated are liable to change, which will mean that the article will need maintenance, but no one has any incentive to ensure that it does not go out of date. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs don't exist to show notability. Lack of coverage means it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 21:07, 2 May 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 Light tube. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light-core[edit]

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

I don't think this is a known architectural design, though this could possibly have been mistranslated from Chinese (光核心). Both the Chinese wiki [1] and Baike articles [2] were created on the same date as this one, 13th April. The one on the Chinese wiki has since been deleted as promotional. I haven't been able to find any sources on this term, but I hope any architects out there who might recognise this technique can prove me wrong. Funny ^Pika! 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering what you've said about the zh-wiki page and the lack of sources (google search for english term turns up nothing and chinese turns up nothing but video games). Don't think it meets notability in any case. Ansh666 21:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the below, redirecting seems to be the way to go. Ansh666 07:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Light tube which is the English name for the concept. Light pipe is popular, too, and is a redirect to the same page. I did find a few sources that used the term "light core" so recommend redirect rather than deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms about withdrawing this and redirecting but I'd feel more comfortable if there were some sources to confirm this. Would you mind linking some of them here? Funny ^Pika! 20:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of a challenge to search for, as "light core" composites are a kind of building material. Working from the assertion in the article that "light core" technology makes new designs in deep-plan buildings possible, I found, for instance, the article NATURAL ILLUMINATION OF DEEP-PLAN OFFICE BUILDINGS: LIGHT PIPE STRATEGIES which talks of light-pipe strategies for lighting the interiors of deep plan buildings. Some architects use the term, too, for instance Spotlighting the works of architect Stephen Sullivan. In that article, a description of a light pipe is called a "light core" by the architect. --Mark viking (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mark viking. Dea db eef 22:16, 30 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. Keep Christmas Island cuisine. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican cuisine[edit]

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

No evidence that there is any sort of cuisine associated with the Vatican City. The two refs are guidebooks discussing restaurants in the area of Rome around the outside of Vatican City. PamD 20:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adding Christmas Island cuisine-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC) :Keep The guides cover the restaurants around the Vatican City, the details are albeit brief. What does the Pope eat? If he didn't have any cuisine, he'd be dead surely. I can probably find more evidence that he eats fish on a Friday somewhere if you need it. Max Borin (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete not one hit in all of google books for the actual term Vatican cuisine. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the vastly re-written Christmas Island cuisine-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTTRAVEL and no hint of actual existence. Ansh666 20:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC) (note: this vote is for Vatican cuisine only. Ansh666 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Christmas Island cuisine - the creation of that, while intended possibly to give others a hard time, actually turned out much better than expected and hoped. Ansh666 03:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Holy See is not a proper country, the Catholic Church only pretends to be a country some of the time (i.e. when it suits its politics). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking through creator's (User:Max Borin) contribs, I see lots of new page creation, including Christmas Island cuisine and Turkish Cypriot cuisine, which follow the same "format", are of the same quality, and have similar dubious sources. ~~As an obvious new user, Max, you might want to review some project pages such as WP:NEW~~. Ansh666 21:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC) (Well, I'm kinda naive. Sock? Ansh666 03:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Oh come on. Either delete as an obvious WP:HOAX or add section on communion wafers. Qworty (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be a notable dish. Couldnt find anything in a search. Mkdw ^talk 03:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vatican cuisine. Reliable sources turn up nothing. Responding to the one "keep", the mere fact that the pope eats doesn't mean that there is a Papal Cuisine, or a Vatican Cuisine. Nor is there a Wikipedia Cuisine just because Wikipedians eat, for example. First Light (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Christmas Island cuisine. First Light (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited say nothing about cuisine within the Vatican. This is a non-subject. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vatican cuisine but Keep Christmas Island cuisine. Christmas Island has a long history (along with the Cocos (Keeling) Islands) of interaction with people of Malaysia and Indonesia, given their relative proximity. On the Cocos Islands this has developed into a full-blown Cocos Malay culture with very distinctive cuisine, music, rituals, heritage, etc. While nowhere near as pronounced on Christmas Island, elements of the same interaction are there and I don't think you could consider Christmas Island culture (including cuisine) to be sufficiently covered by articles like Australian cuisine. I am at a bit of a loss as to why we have Christmas Island cuisine but not Cocossian cuisine for which I think an article could quite easily be created. But, yeah, the Vatican one can go. Stalwart111 07:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the AfD was only about Vatican cuisine, but it's good to know that some of the articles User:Max Borin made can be salvaged and made useful. For any interested in the other articles made, I suggest going here. Ansh666 09:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand, and I do understand the want to add the Christmas Island article too. Entirely fair enough, but I think it's a bit of a different case. I've actually spent some time re-writing it and have added some more info and references. I still strongly support the deletion of the Vatican one but hopefully I've done enough to demonstrate that the other is worth keeping. Stalwart111 09:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vatican, keep Christmas Island. It wasn't particularly helpful to have both of them together. St Anselm (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is for Vatican only! Christmas Island had its own AfD, which it survived (look it up) and is now doing much better under other editors. I only referred to it to point out that the creator had made other questionable articles. Ansh666 06:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) A search turned up nothing. I really need to get some more sleep. Ansh666 06:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was added to the Christmas Island article by User:TheRedPenOfDoom here. St Anselm (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized, two days later... Ansh666 06:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - It appears that many contributors here have based their delete !votes solely upon the Vatican cuisine article. Please note that Christmas Island cuisine was added later after this AfD was initially started for the Vatican cuisine article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! TRPOD (quite rightly; it was rubbish) bundled it but has since suggested it be kept. Without wanting to unduly pre-empt a close, it looks like there is still strong support for deleting the Vatican one but a change of heart about the Christmas Island one. All good. Stalwart111 07:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Christmas Island cuisine. Sources in the article such as [3], [4] indicate that this topic meets WP:N. No comment about the Vatican cuisine article at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christmas Island cuisine as something unique, but delete Vatican cuisine as something that's just silly (although somewhat amusing). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Vatican item. Keep -- Christmas Island cuisine. It seems to me very unlikely that cooking in the Vatican differs singificnatly from that of the surrounding Rome. On the other hand, having been a completely isolated community for over 200 years (except during infrequent visits from ships), I find it wholly credible that the island has distinctive dishes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Vatican is an ondipendent state but there is not a Vatican food culture, in my opinion the people in Vatican eats a mixed Italian cuisine and the cuisine of their plce of birth.The resturant close to the Vatican but outside the Vatican are not in the Vatican but in italy.User:Lucifero4

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

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

The result was delete. Will provide deleted content upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corps insignia of the United States Army[edit]

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

As per Category:Wikipedia image galleries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. The appropriate gallery has been created at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Field_Corps_insignia_of_the_United_States_Army. Thus this article has been listed for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 26. Snotbot t • c » 19:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely procedural cleanup deletion. Did this even really need to come to AFD rather than a PROD? Or could this be handled under CSD A5? Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator, Grandmartin11. How far do you believe one's authority runs in this sort of case? Could one delete it oneself, or what procedure should be followed? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure military WP:CRUFT. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could this be seen as an overly ornate List of United States Army Corps?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Not all the corps insignias on the page in question here are on the Commons page? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All images appear to be on wikicommons.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, and redirect to List of United States Army Corps; a list of United States Army Corps would be an appropriate subject for a list. Remove the images per WP:MOSICON then redirect to Corps#United States and have it be an embedded list.

We should also look at the article American Civil War Corps Badges. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the examples listed by the nom if it's already moved to Commons. A list of corps might be a good idea, but I'm not crazy about this format for it. Intothat darkness 15:31, 2 May 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) 00:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bente Lyon[edit]

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

Drug smugglers and brothel keepers are ten-a-penny; lacks the required significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete' - Like said, dime a dozen. No coverage that's enough for me to say notable at this time that I can find. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is a celebrity. Norway's only publicly known convicted brothel keeper, convicted drug trafficker with experience as a prostitute, who has written a book that has been portrayed on NRK. --Normash (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's apparently nationally known as a brothel keeper. "A dime a dozen" implies that nobody in that profession can be notable, which is conceivably a moral judgment or a POV, but not an appropriate way to make a modern encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She works hard for the WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive national media coverage over a period of years, meets GNG. I will add additional sources if no one else adds them first. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As for the moral judgement of the profession, I think it is relevant to point out that being a brothel keeper = organizing prostitution is illegal in Norway, and that the article should be treated as a BLP about a person only or primarily known for crime, specifically two trials. (This may also explain why she basically is the only well-known brothel keeper in Norway and not one of a dozens: media in Norway normally protects the identity of criminals). There was extensive media coverage of the trials, the coverage itself has been subjected to scholarly analysis (in Norwegian). The coverage focused heavily on the indidual's role and she willingly participated to it. After the second trial, she published a self-biography which sold ca. 1,300 ex. and she was interviewed in NRK about, which may make her semi-notable as an author. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:52, 29 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Sudo Ghost 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lasko[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF Sudo Ghost 19:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per Barney. - Sudo Ghost 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Fellow of the British Academy and obits in the major national dailies. It's a crap article as yet, but that's still no reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any reference to him being a Fellow of the British Academy, and that seems like something an obituary would point out. I sure I'm just missing it somewhere, but do you have a source that would show that? - Sudo Ghost 20:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't know it already, it didn't happen? Do your research before you AfD articles. Have some respect for other editors! Maybe even try reading the sources that are already in the article you're hunting for. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It didn't happen?" is referring to what, exactly? I would love for you to show where in those sources it mentions being a Fellow of the British Academy, because I read all of them. - SudoGhost 21:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's in Who's Who and clearly you didn't read that because you don't have a subscription. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So...it's WP:POINTy because I didn't read something I am incapable of reading? I'm not, nor did I ever say "it didn't happen", but if I'm going to withdraw a nomination I'd like to at least see what's being claimed before I do so, because it sure isn't in the article nor was I able to find anything about him being a Fellow of any kind before I nominated the article for deletion. - Sudo Ghost 21:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said no such thing, although to be pedantic, the copy of the Indie obit clearly mentions FBA [5] Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I thought Andy had responded. I honestly didn't see the copy posted to Google Groups, because a copy-pasted reproduction on a forum isn't a reliable source. However, if you're saying there are reliable sources that verify this that I don't have access to, I'll take your word on it. - Sudo Ghost 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Read the External links section. Read the Indie obit that's linked there.

"Lasko's energy and scholarship gained recognition in a number of ways. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, served as a Trustee of the British Museum and as a Commissioner for Historic Monuments. But it was only after his retirement as director from the Courtauld that ..."

You clearly didn't read this in your haste to chase down Philafrenzy's created articles. I have no idea why you're doing this and I don't care, but please don't take the piss and tell me that you're doing it because someone gonged with a CBE, let alone national daily obits, doesn't meet our pitifully low bar for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that – This, and also David Park (art historian), which you've also AfD'ed, are two newly created articles from the same author. Neither of them are anywhere near ripe for going near AfD as they're both new, short articles still under ongoing development. These AfDs are both pointy, bitey and trouty – especially with the "I'm going to AfD your article" threats in edit summaries. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under ongoing development doesn't mean anything, and it would only be WP:BITEy if it were a new editor as opposed to an editor who has created enough articles that they should know how it works by now, nor is it WP:POINTy. It's almost as if, as I was removing the backlog from Category:Biography articles without living parameter, I came across several articles that were tagged for notability because they lacked any sort of sources showing notability? - Sudo Ghost 21:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep, Obituaries in The Independent and The Guardian, CBE, FBA, entry in Who's Who... If he only had one of these, he would be kept. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 26 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Sudo Ghost 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Park (art historian)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, the subject fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Sudo Ghost 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per Barney and Johnbod. - Sudo Ghost 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty easy choice - "Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London since 1986" meets criterion 3, as this is the top British academy for archaeologists and related academics, and others are probably met, although the article is not very helpful. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That society's article is a little heavy on the primary sources, are there any third-party sources that show that this is a top British society, one that would make being a fellow notable? - Sudo Ghost 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep he's a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries WP:PROF, and he's in Who's Who (adequate independent 3rd party coverage). Please check Who's Who WP:BEFORE nominating a British professor... Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to check a subscription-only publication, one that shares a name with dozens of non-notable publications, before nominating an article for deletion? Is there any basis that being in such a publication would show any notability whatsoever? - Sudo Ghost 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we want you to use a bit of common sense. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little civility would go a long way. - Sudo Ghost 19:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So would a little common sense! Philafrenzy (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would dictate that an article should show the most basic level of notability before an editor tries to spit out dozens of stub articles, because this is not something I'd even consider moving into the mainspace, because common sense would suggest that its notability would be questioned. If civility is too much to ask for, then perhaps some common sense of your own would help you before accusing others of lacking that same thing. - Sudo Ghost 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what linking that version is supposed to prove, other than that the man is a world expert in wall painting, and a professor at one of the most prestigious art institutions in the world. His whole bio is in the reference. You just have to read it to see the notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A professor and an expert? Neither of those show notability, and the article also makes no mention of being a "world expert" (a useless descriptor for showing notability anyways). That was the point of showing that version of the article, because if you're going to place an article in namespace, it needs to be able to stand on its own, and that version didn't even come close to doing so. I don't know if being a fellow of that society meets WP:PROF #3 since the article of that Society lacks any real third-party sources to back up that assertion, but that's why it's at AfD. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but claiming that there is a lack of common sense is both inaccurate and meaningless, unless you believe that accusing others of lacking common sense actually helps anything? - Sudo Ghost 19:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now trying the same thing with Peter Lasko. This really is wasting everyone's time. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "trying the same thing" you mean trying to ensure that these BLP articles belong on Wikipedia then I am indeed guilty, but I fail to see what point that has to this AfD. What "really is wasting everyone's time" is editors who create dozens of subpar stubs about subjects with no indication of how they would be notable. The fellowship aspect of this particular article, which was added after the fact, may show notability, but if an article is notable it would help to indicate that when you create the article. To do otherwise is "wasting everyone's time". - Sudo Ghost 19:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep as above. Take a look at Peter Lasko / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lasko too. Same author, same newly-created status, same obvious notability and sourcing, same editor taking them to AfD with some pretty dubious threats in the edit summaries. I don't know what their problem is with these articles, but it's more trout than policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 26 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, cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Editors interested in merging can work with the page history. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Rose of Lima Catholic School (Toronto)[edit]

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

unnotable primary school. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is Barney the barney barney, the school WAS mentioned in the news years ago.FreshCorp619 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep it, Delete it, or merge it with Bendale article. So I choose Keep since i'm doing elementary school articles sporadically. Please standardize it. FreshCorp619 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the consensus is that primary schools are generally NN, but can appear in list articles dealing with all those in an area, or managaed by a particular education board, or such like according to local circumstances. The template on the article looks as if we have had a number of these created. Can we have an omnibus AFD nomination for these? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as usual. We do not need an AfD nomination dto do these very obviousmerges, which is the standard procedure for primary schools. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto Catholic District School Board, per standard practice in Canada for non-notable schools. PK T(alk) 15:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aneuch[edit]

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

This wiki software seems to lack any notability. Yaron K. (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I have had to defend the article, and I suppose if an article on Oddmuse didn't survive, I shouldn't expect mine to either. Apparently I misunderstood Wikipedia and its purpose. Do with it what you will. Cajunman4life (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. I've also marked a portion of the article as a copyright violation as it is copied verbatim from the project's page which makes no indication that the page is licensed in a way compatible with Wikipedia's. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a public domain notification at the bottom of the original wiki, however since the article will be deleted it's a moot point.Cajunman4life (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's non-notable software. The coverage doesn't exist to show that it meets WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aukash zahid[edit]

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

Don't think this is a speedy becuase it claims notability. But WP:TOOSOON certainly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. A writeup in the school paper is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A school boy who has written some poetry and had it published; from what I know of poetry publishing, this has probably been done at his own expense (or rather that of his parents and friends. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

34th International Conference on Proteomics and Bioinformatics[edit]

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

This is one of a number of articles created on individual conferences. No coverage outside of the conference website. Probable WP:COI issues, certainly WP:N issues, WP:SPAM, etc etc etc Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This conference has not happened yet and I could not find any secondary sources discussing this particular conference. Thus the article should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. There may be scope for a more general article on International Conference on Proteomics and Bioinformatics, depending how notable is the conference series as a whole. --Mark viking (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if can be verified that the conference will occur, that hardly seems encyclopedic. Whereas the group sponsoring the conference may or may not be notable, not every meeting held by the group is notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no individual conference ofthis sort will be individually notable. The conference series might be, if someone wants to write a proper article. Personally, I tend to regard articles like this where the conference has not yet been held as promotional DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Movius[edit]

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

Article has no third-party sources, has unclear notability, and appears to exist primarily for link-spam and puffery. —me_and 16:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the majority of the linkspam; you can see it if you look here, before I started editing. —me_and 16:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell, fails the citation requirements of WP:PROF C1 (he doesn't have that many articles and psych is a very prolific field, so this is no surprise). He does not appear much in press, or get quoted that much as an authority, failing WP:BIO and WP:PROF C7. I do not see other grounds for claiming notability for this subject. Ray^Talk 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not yet apparent. Probably too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as promotional and failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:03, 29 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. Borderline notability, but it appears to be established (barely). Both sides of argument have strong cases. No consensus to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Daniel Shein (author)[edit]

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

spam from Voidz. non notable author, awards are not major, lacks notable works, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of local puff and listings. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a spam article created by an account which shows every sign of being a professional promoter, who has a history of creating numerous unsuitable articles and adding dubious or even downright fake references to give a spurious impression of notability. This article is no exception. Only one of the five references even mentions Shein, and that one is a page on a business promotion site. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't like to reward anyone for paying to get an article on Wikipedia, this person appears to be notable. One reason neither we nor the editor for hire was able to locate good sources was because the subject uses the name Erik Stoops in writing and on camera. The article as it is does not do this subject justice. Joja lozzo 01:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you assume that "we" failed to "locate good sources" because we didn't look for Erik Daniel Stoops as well as for Erik Daniel Shein. I can't speak for anyone else, but I searched not only for Erik Stoops and Erik Shein separately, but also for both together, in each case both with and without the middle name. I found Wikipedia, Linkedin, Amazon (selling his work), IMDb, Wikipedia mirrors, publishers' sites, publicity and advertising sites (e.g www.publishersmarketplace.com), books by him, not about him, and so on and so on, but nothing resembling significant coverage in a reliable independent source. If you can do better, please let us know, but so far you have merely stated that he "appears to be" notable, but you have provided no sources to show that he is. You may find it helpful to look at WP:ITSNOTABLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for implying any lack of capability on anyone's part here and for failing to include sources. Stoops has an entry in Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series, January 1, 2004 (available by subscription on Highbeam or Gale Cengage). That entry includes references to reviews of his books:

Appraisal,

winter-spring, 1996, Eileen Egizi and James Knittle, review of Sharks, p. 59;

summer, 1996, Peg Ciszek and Melinda Cote, review of Whales, p. 35;

fall, 1998, Deborah Lymer and Augusta Malvagno, review of Wolves and Their Relatives, p. 25.

Booklist,

January 1, 1995, Mary Harris Veeder, review of Alligators and Crocodiles, p. 820;

December 1, 1995, Hazel Rochman, review of Whales, p. 630;

May 1, 1997, Lauren Peterson, review of Dolphins, p. 1492;

November 1, 1997, Patricia Braun, review of Wolves and Their Relatives, p. 469.

Horn Book Guide,

spring, 1997, Danielle J. Ford, review of Dolphins, p. 128.

School Library Journal,

October, 1994, Frances E. Millhouser, review of Sharks, pp. 140-141;

March, 1995, Susan Oliver, review of Alligators and Crocodiles, p. 220;

January, 1996, Frances E. Mill-houser, review of Whales, 126;

July, 1997, Lisa Wu Stowe, review of Dolphins, p. 88;

January, 1998, Lisa Wu Stowe review of Wolves and Their Relatives, pp. 132-133;

May, 2001, Arwen Marshall, review of Bears, p. 141;

January, 2002, Karey Wehner, review of Bat Basics, pp. 127-128.

Science Activities,

spring, 1997, Donald J. Nash, review of Dolphins, p. 45.

and it lists all his publications as of 2002:

Writings;

(With Annette T. Wright) Snakes and Other Reptiles of the Southwest, Golden West (Phoenix, AZ), 1992.

(With Annette T. Wright) Boas & Pythons: Breeding and Care, TFH Publications (Neptune City, NJ), 1993.

For children;

(With Annette T. Wright) Snakes, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1992.

(With mother, Sherrie L. Stoops) Sharks, illustrated by Jeffrey L. Martin, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1994.

Penguins and Seals (CD-ROM), Emerging Technology Consultants, 1994.

(With Debbie Lynne Stone) Alligators and Crocodiles, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1994.

(With Jeffrey L. Martin and Debbie Lynne Stone) Whales, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1995.

(With Jeffrey L. Martin) Scorpions and Venomous Insects of the Southwest, Golden West Publishers (Phoenix, AZ), 1995.

(With Jeffrey L. Martin and Debbie Lynne Stone) Dolphins, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1996.

(With Dagmar Fertl) Wolves and Their Relatives, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 1997.

The Teiidaes, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.

Skinks, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.

Geckos and Their Relatives, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.

Beaded and Monitor Lizards, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.

Chameleons and Agamids, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.

Iguanids and Their Relatives, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 1997.

(With Dagmar Fertl and Michelle Reddy) Bears, Sterling Publishing (New York, NY), 2000.

For Children (with Kimberly Williams);

The Banded Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

Bat Basics, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

Bat Conservation, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

Bats That Drink Nectar, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

Bats That Eat Fruit, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

Bats That Eat Insects, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

The Brush-Tailed Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

The Crested Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

The Little Blue Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

Vampire Bats, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

The Yellow-Eyed Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2000.

The Large Penguins, Faulkner's Publishing (Benton Harbor, MI), 2002.

Joja lozzo 17:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Contemporary Authors" tries to be as comprehensive a reference as possible, including virtually any genuinely published author, excluding only vanity- published authors and the like. While this means it is invaluable as a source of information, it means that it is useless as evidence of notability. You say that it "includes references to reviews", but what are those reviews? Are they in-depth reviews, or simply a couple of sentences doing little more than tell us of the existence of the books? And simply providing a list of an author's works does nothing at all to show whether he is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good points. I was only able to find archives for School Library Journal and they want a fee so I stopped there. Maybe someone else here has access to a library with an an SLJ account. Joja lozzo 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional piece not backed by multiple published independent sources. Carrite (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author as shown by the reviews, which meet WP:CREATIVE. Not promotional--how can an article that consists almost entirely of a bibliography listing the published works & the awards for them be promotional rather than informative? Earlier versions were indeed a little on the promotional side, but TokyoGirl took care of that. I think an earlier editor accidentally removed a reliable source I found, Gale Contemporary Authors, a standard encyclopedic work we have widely accepted as proving notability. I've added it back just now. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 24 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, JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the stringent requirements of WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by sockpuppet/paid editor/spammer. WP:PROMO PeterWesco (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ad hominem. Please, comment on the content and not on the contributer. By the way, the article creator was not a scokpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.218.189.238 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 1 May 2013 — 101.218.189.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep as the author meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.218.189.238 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — 101.218.189.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I think that the sources described above allow the subject to at least meet the bare minimum of notability requirements, and it should be maintained. I don't think PROMO applies here. The article isn't really promotional- just lacking in content. Ducknish (talk) 21:14, 2 May 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. The consensus here is clear. Not all may agree with WP:CRIN but this isn't the place to debate it. J04n(talk page) 14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Davies (cricketer, born 1959)[edit]

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

Surely this is not a notable sportsman? By any reasonable yardstick he really can't be? I'm sure he's a decent bloke, but notable? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First-class cricketer, therefore fulfils WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Johnlp (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First-class cricketers meet the criteria for inclusion as per WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he clearly fulfils the notability criteria. JH (talk page) 17:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. No policy based rationale given by the nom for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he's hardly a first-class cricketer if he was bowled-out for a duck in his first and only game. I really don't see why such a marginal thing should pass notability. And this guy very blatantly fails WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the notability requirements for cricketers are ridiculously low. Guys who play 1 or 2 matches, unsuccessfully, perhaps only against Oxford or Cambridge, suggests that the policy is wrong. How about 10 matches as an arbitrary cutoff? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we are to have an arbitrary cutoff, one is better than ten IMO. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 match does not a career make. We should write about people with cricketing careers, not good club cricketers who happened to play once or twice against the Oxbridge universities because the team were short on players and they went to the same school as the coach (or whatever). The resulting article is completely biased against their real life career as a postman or schoolteacher or whatever they actually did in real life. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which players with "cricketing careers" do you have in mind, Barney? This is why there are such things as notability criteria, so that there is an easy way to establish which players are eligible for articles and which aren't. And if you have a citation that the team were "short on players" at the time, please offer it to the article. This constant re-hashing of the "should we change notability standards for cricket articles, against the flow of the rest of the encyclopedia's guidelines", is one of the reasons I don't contribute any longer. Bobo . 07:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic. Please restrict discussion to whether Mark Davies meets the notability criteria. If you want to talk about what the notability criteria ought to be, please head over to WP:Cricket and make your case there. Dricherby (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment " he's hardly a first-class cricketer"... umm well evidently he was. We've been through the notability discussion countless times. First-class, be it one appearance for 100, is first-class, hence the player gets included to create a full history. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: meets WP:CRIN. This is not the place to discuss whether the notability criteria for cricket are reasonable but they're comparable with other sports (at least one appearance in a major professional league). Dricherby (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Barney, the notability requirements for cricket-playing individuals are the same as for any other sport. Would you disagree with the "single game" cutoff in... baseball? Gridiron? Ice hockey? Soccer? Bobo. 00:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then where would you put the cutoff? A problem still exists until a solution is formulated. Bobo. 13:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is irrelevant. Please stay on-topic. Dricherby (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't actually see it as irrelevant, where people are questioning well-established WP:BIO criteria - the whole point of WP:BIO criteria is that they are the yardstick by which we measure whether articles should stay or go. Bobo . 07:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It is irrelevant because the purpose of AfD is to measure the article against the yardstick, not to discuss whether we should go out and get a new yardstick. Dricherby (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep – Meets notability criteria —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid keep argument. We do not need this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NOTABILITY, right in the lead: "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". Please stop trying to make your point about sport notability criteria here. Dricherby (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep one needs to keep in mind that first-class cricket is the pinnacle of non-international cricket, not the first rung. Many players with only one or two matches have extensive careers in minor counties and high-level club cricket, or coaching etc. making the first-class appearance criteria of the notability guideline not such an extreme requirement. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now expanded it a bit and set my vote to Keep. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:CRIN. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There has to be some threshold as to when a player becomes notable. I would certainly accept that regular members of the first XI are notable, but I find it hard to justify a person being notable for having played just twice in the 1st team. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and that threshold has been set, by consensus, at one match, by WP:CRIN. Dricherby (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is a threshold. At what point does a member of the first XI become "regular"? There's no threshold for that, for certain - where would you put that yardstick? Bobo. 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it's clear that 1 and a half appearances isn't regular. The argument so far seems to be "it's too difficult to set a threshold so we'll set it as low as possible and ignore the inevitable consequence that resultant biographies are completely unbalanced and uninteresting", and rather than building cross-community consensus, we'll gang together in a Wikiproject and vote en mass to keep everything. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy to set a threshold, and as a result, it's very easy to decide whether or not that threshold is reached. That's why the threshold was decided upon, and that's why it remains the yardstick by which we work on not only the cricket Wikiproject, but the soccer Wikiproject and almost any other sports project I can think of. If we restrict it simply to "value judgements", everyone is going to start having different inclusion criteria, and that's absolutely not in the spirit of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or reference work. Bobo . 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barney the barney barney, as you contribute diddly squat to the cricket project, perhaps you should save your energy for something you do contribute toward??? Idea much? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that he has contributed an opinion, something he is entitled to. With regard to altering the inclusion hurdle, this is plainly the wrong place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are regular contributors to the cricket project who have argued against the single-match criterion. But it is the least arbitrary figure, the easiest to enforce and it accords with other team sports. By all means bring it up at the WT:CRIC page. But if you're arguing that out of all the players who've been ruled notable after one or two appearances we should make an exception of this one, then your logic escapes me. The battle, should you wish to fight it, should be at WT:CRIC. And it's been lost there before. Johnlp (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnlp as right. This is not the place to change policy. We will have to act in accordance with policy as it stands now, and if you wish re-open the debate at WT:CRIC. If the cut off was set at 10, or 5, or 3, we would be having the exact same discussion about the validity of that I suspect. And what's the crime of having 1 FC match as the criteria? There's no lack of space! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:CRIN, the relevant subject-specific guideline as per the italicised text in the lead at WP:GNG - A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

. Hack (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Barney notwithstanding, everyone here seems to be in agreement that the policy clearly supports inclusion of this. Ducknish (talk) 21:16, 2 May 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Creative[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability and references. Previous AFD in March 2011 failed for lack of discussion.

No references/sources to this for-profit company in the copyright registration business. A notability template has been placed on this article for a long time with no improvement, and no signs of improvement. It appears to be primarily a promotional piece, although much of the promotional language has been cleaned up.
The only contributor of content has been the page creator (User:Oneras, separately notified of this discussion); other editors have contributed clean-up and content removal of biased information.
All mentions of this organization appear to be in conjunction with businesses otherwise affiliated with this for-profit service, with the sole exception of Plagiarism Today, which is a blog (& business) that covers plagiarism- and copyright-related businesses.

An article might be written about this industry (copyright registration assistance) in which this content could be merged, but I don't see any notability in this company otherwise. Lquilter (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 11. Snotbot t • c » 18:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, it's been a long time since I've AFD'd an article. Please forgive delays while I re-acquaint myself with the various templates/procedures. --Lquilter (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 11. Snotbot t • c » 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also references from Creative Commons besides PlagiarismToday, and also from WIPO official study on private online registries. Also I've added new references appearing in most prominent media in Spain, including National TV RTVE, about agreements with both official Spain Registrars and Movie Producers Collecting Society. --Oneras (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. the sources are small mentions only. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 23 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, L Faraone 13:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep borderline notability ; Plagiarism Today, tho in format a blog, is a responsible publication--the deciding factor for me is that this is an an appropriate length non promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Full Armor of God Broadcast[edit]

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

Search reveals no RS to establish either GNG and WP:MUSIC. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The program has been around for a really long time and has hosted a lot of very notable guests, however that notability is not inherited from them just like a notable musician may record and release an album that is not notable. The key point that a notable source report on the subject is not met, and I don't mean in the article alone. While I listen to the prodcast version of the program, I can't agree that it meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under the title "Full Armor of God Broadcast" this article has been brought to AfD twice before. The result was 'delete' in both cases. - Dravecky (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast (2nd nomination)
Delete and salt per WP:42 and the two previous AfD results. Miniapolis 22:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No bump up in affiliations since the last deletion, nothing extraordinary about this program. Too many bluelinks trying to compensate for the want of having this article. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Walter has clearly pointed out, this article (as much as I wish it did) does not meet WP:GNG. This program is one of the longest running (if not "the" longest running program) of its kind and has acheved significant global listenership, dispite it's lack of corporate backing and publicity. That is what makes this program unique and a proverbial innovative "underdog" in radio syndication and podcasting. The show is well known in Christian Metal and the host is nothing short of the Wolfman Jack of Christian Metal Radio, but mostly in "Street Credibility", which is not a reliable source. This program's main coverage is within the Christian Biker culture, itself falling short WP:GN. I wrote this article with the hope that since The Full Armor of God Broadcast has itself been used as a reliable source that it could stand alone on this fact. However in light of Mr Görlitz's very strong points, I see now that it sould be deleted, at least until such a time that proper WP:GNG can be established. Sorry for the inconveneince folks. Blessings Armorbearer777 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Really, without that, there's nothing to base an article on. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:08, 29 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 British Columbia general election, 2013#Surrey. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhminder Virk[edit]

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

Being an election candidate alone does not make the subject notable. Fails WP:Notability Evano1van (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Surrey-Newton or suitable target article concerning the election per WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 18:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British Columbia general election, 2013 per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate does not automatically make someone notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 26 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naseman (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Possible it'll become notable after release, but not at this stage. Ged UK 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy. I performed a search using the English name as well as the Hindi name (using Google Translate), but neither brought up anything that would show notability for the film. I'm mentioning this because I'm fully aware of the limitations of GTranslate, so if anyone can provide sources in Hindi that show notability I'm willing to potentially change my argument. I have no true issue with anyone wanting to userfy the article if they so wished, but right now this just doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indie film, not a big budget studio one with huge stars. You cannot expect everyone to be talking about this film in its post production stage. It has got a facebook page and an IMDb entry as well. A place on wikipedia gives the film more authenticity. The only thing that we should check if the information present in the page is valid or not. I believe it absolutely is. Snksounak (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is really questioning whether or not the information is accurate or not, but whether or not it is notable. It lacks coverage and to my knowledge, does not pass notability guidelines for films. The film might exist in some format (unreleased or not) but existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply having a page on IMDb does not establish notability. I don't think the discussion really warrants more detail than that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Shit[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. This player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 11:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons given above. Clearly a non-notable sportsperson. smtchahal^(talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 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) 15:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Jerusalem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page violates WP:CONTENTFORKING and WP:POVFORK. Since the first AFD discussion in 2011, nothing substantive has been done to improve the article, and there are still no references. The section, Mayors of West Jerusalem, is obvious POV, as there are no Mayors of East Jerusalem. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jerusalem per WP:CONTENTFORKING and WP:POVFORK. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 26. Snotbot t • c » 10:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is just nothing to write in that article. The fact that it exists for so long and nothing substantial was written there kinda proves it. I'll just repeat what I already said at the talk page: The controversy about the occupation East Jerusalem exists, of course, but you can write about it in the articles Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, Positions on Jerusalem, etc. But there's just nothing of significance to write in this article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why to delete this ? The notion of West Jerusalem is something well known and attested by sources. The city was divided in 1948 by the war and still today there is an East Jerusalem that is expected by the Palestinians to become their capital and a Western Jerusalem that refers to the Israeli side even if Israeli annexed the whole city. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Pluto2012 says, it's a widely and commonly used name for the Jewish part of Jerusalem. For example this BBC article clearly refers to it. In fact (and I hate when other people say this at AfD, but in this case its abundantly true) if you Google "West Jerusalem" you find numerous news and book sources. Sionk (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sionk and Pluto2012 are right, it is a well-known name and it is even referenced. But according to Wikipedia rules, it is WP:CONTENTFORKING, as the subject is adequately covered in the main Jerusalem article. As the term is a political hot button, it is also WP:POVFORK. Both Sionk's and Pluto2012's !votes need to cite policy, not gut feelings. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:GNG. I say no more! In contrast, the 'delete' arguments seem to be IDONTLIKEIT. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place is definitely notable. That is not the question. The question is different: Does it constitute content forking or not? I'm not even talking about POV forking. I am not denying the controversy about the status of Jerusalem. I am just saying that there is nothing useful to write in this article that cannot be written in other existing articles. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm no expert on forking, the nominator is incorrect that there are no Mayors of East Jerusalem; in fact, they are listed here as well. The referencing in this article may be poor but there are tons of sources available and I am continuing to improve some referencing in the article. Bottom line: An AfD is not the place for an argument on Israel-Palestine politics. - tucoxn\^talk 06:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not a place for an argument on Israel-Palestine politics. And it's not an argument on Israel-Palestine politics. It's an argument that says that there's nothing to write in the article "West Jerusalem" that can't be written in other articles. The recently added references just prove it further: More than half of them are completely artificial - they are references about mayors of Jerusalem, and they are already listed in the article Jerusalem. And the rest are essentially artificial, too; for example, Israel didn't establish "West Jerusalem" as its capital in 1950; it established "Jerusalem" as its capital in 1950. It was West Jerusalem geographically de-facto, but the law didn't say "West Jerusalem". All this is already written in the article about Jerusalem.

West, East, North, and South can be found in any city. In some cases it warrants an article. In this case it doesn't. Yes, the city was divided de-facto from 1948 until 1967. Yes, its unification is very controversial. But no, you don't need this article to write about these things. They are already described in great detail elsewhere. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an argument about Israel-Palestine politics to me! Or at best a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. And Jerusalem was divided between West and East in 1948, so these entities existed, were controversial and have been widely written about. Therefore articles are entirely justified. Not dissimilar in fact to the justification for West Berlin and East Berlin articles (there's nothing on North Berlin or South Berlin). Though to be honest I was surprised to see the West Jerusalem article had remained quite undeveloped and unsourced until now. But thanks to the nominator for raising the issue because at least it has kick-started some editors to work on it! Sionk (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that this article remained undeveloped, because there's nothing to develop in it. The only way to develop it is to make a POV fork. The recent edits are completely artificial. They make the article appear to have a lot of references, but they are irrelevant. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example to support having multiple articles for multiple sections of a city is Washington, D.C.. D.C. is divided into four quadrants: Northwest (NW), Northeast (NE), Southeast (SE), and Southwest (SW). Each quadrant has its own article on Wikipedia. One can see that each of the quadrants' articles is linked in the main article by reading the main article's Cityscape section. Jerusalem has an important duocentric structure, which is referenced in academic studies and other reliable sources (in addition to unreliable, politically biased sources). - tucoxn\^talk 17:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there's an article that says that Jerusalem has a duocentric structure. That article can be referenced from the article about Jerusalem. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs an article about West Jerusalem.

Three of the four articles about DC's quadrants have very little information except links to articles about neighborhoods. It's not a very good example either. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a good reason to treat West Jerusalem differently from East Jerusalem. We shouldn't get rid of just one of those two articles. Zero^talk 04:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the reasons cited above, and even if it's simply because of the fact that it is part of the political jargon surrounding "the Jerusalem question", this article has been around since 2005 and like many good topics awaits better editing. The reasoning given for the deletion is not strong enough. On Google "West Jerusalem" scores 252,000 hits, way good enough for a WP article about it, while of course East Jerusalem has about eight times that number on Google, but even that is significant because any important "East" must have a related and connected "West" and vice versa. Just as important "Souths" have equally significant "Norths" and vice versa in history, politics, geography, culture, religion, etc. IZAK (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, does West Virginia has a connected East? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Shore of Virginia :) ...though that has little bearing on this AfD. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that saying that any important "East" must have a related and connected "West" is a wrong and irrelevant argument. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you obviously are not following my reasoning here. I am referring to the conceptual and actual political and the interconnected geographic realities between East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem in the same sense and on the same international sense of importance as the former West Berlin versus and connected to East Berlin, or South Vietnam to North Vietnam etc -- they were all eventually one entity, there are several examples like this that have entered the political and geographic lexicon, while others that are less important have not. IZAK (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid Mahmood Bhatti[edit]

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

Contested WP:BLPPROD. Subject of article appears to be a political party worker in Gujar Khan, Pakistan. No mentions in Pakistani English language newspapers; no mentions in a GNews search in Urdu. Article fails a number of tests for notability, specifically but not limited to WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. (Article also appears to be an autobiography, but this is not a reason for deletion.) Shirt58 (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't contest BLP-Prods, you can only source them. I find no evidence of passing any kind of notability on a quick G-search, and the article is so promotional that it should be deleted anyhow. Ray^Talk 18:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it can be sourced. Also, the ip and new user inserted the info in the articles it links to as well. Ryan Norton 23:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's own work does not constitute a reliable source and thus without those, it ends up failing WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 28 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) czar · · 14:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Peel Sessions (The Cure album)[edit]

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

unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article outside of an AllMusic review Lachlan Foley 06:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a number 7 hit on the UK Indie Chart. It would have been reviewed in the weekly music press at the time. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 18 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, →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 08:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Peel Sessions as whole definitely have received coverage (for example see [6]). There is currently no separate article for the sessions as whole, as it instead redirects to John Peel. I'd argue that the sessions themselves have independent notability and deserve a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 29 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 The Cure discography. Nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five Swing Live[edit]

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

unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article. Lachlan Foley 05:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Cure discography. Releases don't have to be individually notable for us to have information on them in the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 18 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, →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 08:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cure discography. There's no information on the article that would be useful to merge over to the discography list. Dea db eef 22:26, 30 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 The Cure discography#Extended plays. If anyone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them J04n(talk page) 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half an Octopuss & Quadpus[edit]

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

unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article Lachlan Foley 05:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Cure discography. Releases don't have to be individually notable for us to have information on them in the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 18 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, →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 08:47, 26 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 The Cure discography#Extended plays. If anyone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them J04n(talk page) 15:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Wishes[edit]

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

unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable/deserving of an article. Lachlan Foley 05:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Cure discography. Releases don't have to be individually notable for us to have information on them in the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 18 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, →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 08:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelors Abroad[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:TVSHOW. As noted in the prod (contested without comment by an anonymous editor), "One of the two references is the National Geographic's own web site, the other is a web site of a disgruntled person who complains that the National Geographic wouldn't show his critical comments on their web site. These sources do not constitute evidence of notability." No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just the scattered comments on non-notable blogs that you'd expect from a show like this, and zero mentions in online news search. Article's creator has been blocked as a promotion-only account and subsequent sockpuppetry. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The article seems to have been created as promotion, and subsequently attempts have been made to use it to publicise criticism of the National Geographic, but at no time has there been any evidence of notability in the article, nor have I been able to find any on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page constructed by mass spammer User:Voidz, who by this point gets the presumption of spamitude.-Nat Gertler (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ADVERT that fails WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article that would adequately describe the phenomenon of Ukrainian women's raging) popularity abroad. I mean they even have aNG TV show on that now) Ukrained2012 (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 29 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 --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Navarino[edit]

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

Reason: Since Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING, this page should be deleted (as in German, Italian, and other similar project). Not notable, no reliable sources Louisbeta (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 26. Snotbot t • c » 08:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should be about the development started by TEMES S.A. not a travel guide per WP:NOTGUIDE. TEMES S.A was formed in the late 1990s by the Konstantakopoulos shipowning family of Messinia (See Vassilis C. Constantakopoulos) to develop tourism for the area. See this article about it. However "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG do not exist. All the references for this article are connected to it or articles about what a great place it is to travel to. It is a shame, because it looks like a great project that is doing good things. (Unless you hate tourism.) Such as supporting science. It also seems to be the largest of it's kind in Greece. Deserves a mention on the Tourism in Greece page. Not a whole article. Another article to look at is Navarino Icons, but perhaps the criteria for food brand names are lower, I don't know (yet). Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is 100% spam and apepars to be copied from here. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio but I would be equally comfortable tagging it for speedy deletion as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purify (Funk Trek album)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. PROD removed with the comment: object to the deletion of this article because if the band's debut home-made album can stay on Wikipedia for a whole year, a professional studio one should be. Furthermore, iTunes is reputable and the band has this album on it. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album that seems to have no independent sources about it. (Fails WP:NALBUMS) ALH (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. — sparklism ^hey! 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Funk Trek#Purify (2012-2013), agree that it is not notable but could be a search term and it is covered in the band's page. J04n(talk page) 15:32, 3 May 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Hoefling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Hoefling

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

Very non-notable KYBrad53 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no deletion rationale. "Very non-notable" is not a valid rationale.--TM 10:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presidential nominee who appeared on several ballots in 2012 election. Also has been written about in reliable sources.--Cjv110ma (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012#American Independent Party. Subject has received some significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources therefore it can be said that the subject has passed notability as defined by WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. That being said the subject received the majority of that coverage due to a single event, and thus falls under WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES a redirect is prescribed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

20:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep subject is notable based on coverage received combined with the fact of his being a ballot-qualified presidential candiate as well as founder and national chair of a national political party.--Ddcm8991 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News and book searches bring up no reliable sources for the subject of this AfD, where the subject receives in-depth significant coverage about himself. Just because the subject founded a political party does not make the subject automatically notable per WP:NOTINHERITED.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012#American Independent Party per RightCowLeftCoast. Unless a losing candidate passes notability under WP:GNG beyond a particular election, a redirect to a page about the particular election for candidates for national office or significant subnational offices is an appropriate action. Any information in the article can be merged or incorporated into the main election-related article (in this case United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012). Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep It appears that every other Presidential candidate that qualified for the ballot in 2012 in multiple states has its own page. A keep at this point would be consistent. In general, I do think redirects are appropriate for losing candidates. Enos733 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RCLC. Ray^Talk 12:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success." Hoefling is national chairman of a registered national level party. If that does not make him a "leader" of that party, then what does? Also, a de facto consensus seems to have emerged over the past several years that being a presidential nominee - particularly one attaining any degree of confirmed ballot status in the general election - of a notable party denotes notability.--JayJasper (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If so, that's news to me, and I've been off and on at AFD for the past 5 years. I believe there's no such consensus, which is why WP:POLITICIAN makes no mention of leaders of third parties. They're notable if there is significant coverage of them in secondary sources independent of the subject. Ray^Talk 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I base that assertion on several afd discussions which have taken place in recent years regarding presidential nominees, virtually all of which resulted in "Keep" based largely on the fact that the candidate was nominee of a national party and qualified for at least one ballot. Besides, Hoefling is a national chairman of a party which has fielded candidates who have appeared on multiple state ballots (thus making it a "national level party") which would seem to denote notability based on the statement I quoted from WP:POLOUTCOMES. Note also that while third parties are not specifically mentioned in WP:POLITICIAN, they are not specifically excluded either.--JayJasper (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only was Hoefling on the ballot in multiple states in 2012, if write-in access is counted, he theoretically could have won the election. Furthermore, I agree completely with JayJasper and base this "vote" on his reasoning.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable enough. He won nearly as many votes as Rocky Anderson and is chairman of a political party that has a decent sized wiki article. - ngfan1

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC Cordova[edit]

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

Non-notable bio of CEO of non-notable company(maybe) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether she is notable or not, it's just spam for the company, complete with ® symbol, a sure give-away. I speedied this yesterday. And what's "Excellerated"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is promotional junk to the point that there is not any real legitimate content that can be salvaged. Nuke it, and if someone wants to write a neutral article, they can start from scratch. Ducknish (talk) 21:20, 2 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Dara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this for deletion after trying to find sources for his book The Crescent Directive, which is also up for AfD. Both articles were created by his book's publisher and none of the current sources on the article establish notability for Dara. A further search for articles about the book's author didn't show that he passes notability guidelines. I can see where he's written for various places, but there isn't any actual coverage about him to show that any of his efforts are particularly noteworthy. This article had previously been deleted back in 2010, but I can't see where he's really done anything to show notability since that point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete I think he's of some importance, but the only real source is the one from the Nation, and it's not from their main publication but Student Nation. I think the use of multiple quotes from unreliable sources is a promotional technique and to be highly discouraged--otherwise I would be much more positive about the article. A separate article on the book is in any case a very poor idea--and also is a promotional technique. On the borderline, of notability, we should consider other factors. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The article relies very heavily on primary or unreliable sources. I am not sure whether it has bearing on my ability to participate in this discussion, but in the interest of full disclosure I'd like to note I nominated his book's article for deletion. Stamscaney (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the fact that this article is mostly source with primary sources and the single reliable secondary source isn't enough to establish notability, this article was already deleted three years ago. Why was it created again? Seems like an issue of WP:FANPAGE. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Publisher here. The previous page that was deleted was made before Dara was an author, I believe as a prank by his friends (he would have been a teenager back then). We feel that his writing (featured on CNN.com, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post), his speaking events at a number of universities, and as someone quoted by news outlets (see recent AP story, and past local stories) warrants this page and meets notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TensileConsult1 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting published on various sites is good, but it doesn't really extend notability. He might be usable as a reliable source for other things, but being usable as a reliable source doesn't equate out to notability. Most people who post for sites (regardless of which ones they are) usually do not pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~ Third party sources: http://www.arabnews.com/node/396068, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2012/01/book-review-the-crescent-directive/, http://www.thenation.com/blog/165833/how-make-it-america-manifesto-average-american-muslim, http://columbiamsa.org/announcements/eidulfitrdinner http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-muslim-questions, http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-muslim-response, http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/local/area-muslims-react-to-9-11-anniversary, http://www.startribune.com/nation/204902851.html?refer=y, http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2007/September/Sept17/OxfordPhilibuser.htm, http://books.google.com/books?id=9-mpA2UJU2kC&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=%22khurram+dara%22&source=bl&ots=yzv_jIMkMs&sig=VS9NMyMSN_j5hOlZ5CC9dZzypE8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fomBUeuOOLSp0AGri4HoDg#v=onepage&q=%22khurram%20dara%22&f=false, http://www.nmlsa.org/leadership.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TensileConsult1 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I struck the second vote- you can only voice one argument per AfD. Arguments aren't decided on votes, but rather the strength of the arguments. In any case, I did a rundown of the links given here:

Source rundown
[7] I'm willing to argue that this could help. [8] Patheos isn't usable as a reliable source, partially because we have no way of really knowing the credentials of the person writing the piece. It's sort of a website where anyone can contribute. [9] This one is kind of debatable, so I'll run it by the RS noticeboard. [10] This is a notice of an upcoming events. Notification of events is not usable as a reliable source. [11], [12] This is a blog and besides, it's sort of a primary source in that it's essentially him answering random questions and not really something along the lines of him getting interviewed by a reliable source. [13] This is a news article about people reacting to 9/11. Dara is mentioned, but is not the focus of the article at all. This is a brief trivial mention at most and wouldn't give notability. I actually wouldn't use it as a source at all because there's nothing mentioned here that would really help out the article. [14] This is another trivial mention. The thing about being quoted or mentioned in a news article is that these don't give notability. They might help establish him as a potential reliable source on the subject of whatever the article is about, but being a potential reliable source does not give notability. [15] This is an article about him, yes, but it's about a record that he didn't really break. It also doesn't help that it's a college paper. Most college papers aren't usable as RS unless they're so overwhelmingly notable that it's a big deal to get covered by them. Considering that he attended Emory, it's sort of a moot point as to whether or not the paper is one of the exceptions to the college paper rule. [16] This is a quote by Dara about something else. Not really usable as a reliable source in the slightest. [17] This shows that he works on a student board. The thing about most organizations of any type (political, religious, student, etc) and any level (local, global, etc) is that the majority of them are not the type of thing that would give notability on that basis alone. Memberships in certain groups could help gain coverage, but holding a position in an organization is generally an "all or nothing" type of situation. Either you're in a highly notable position such as a State Senator that gives notability on that basis alone or you're in a position in one of thousands of organizations that don't give notability.

Source rundown

[7] I'm willing to argue that this could help.
[8] Patheos isn't usable as a reliable source, partially because we have no way of really knowing the credentials of the person writing the piece. It's sort of a website where anyone can contribute.
[9] This one is kind of debatable, so I'll run it by the RS noticeboard.
[10] This is a notice of an upcoming events. Notification of events is not usable as a reliable source.
[11], [12] This is a blog and besides, it's sort of a primary source in that it's essentially him answering random questions and not really something along the lines of him getting interviewed by a reliable source.
[13] This is a news article about people reacting to 9/11. Dara is mentioned, but is not the focus of the article at all. This is a brief trivial mention at most and wouldn't give notability. I actually wouldn't use it as a source at all because there's nothing mentioned here that would really help out the article.
[14] This is another trivial mention. The thing about being quoted or mentioned in a news article is that these don't give notability. They might help establish him as a potential reliable source on the subject of whatever the article is about, but being a potential reliable source does not give notability.
[15] This is an article about him, yes, but it's about a record that he didn't really break. It also doesn't help that it's a college paper. Most college papers aren't usable as RS unless they're so overwhelmingly notable that it's a big deal to get covered by them. Considering that he attended Emory, it's sort of a moot point as to whether or not the paper is one of the exceptions to the college paper rule.
[16] This is a quote by Dara about something else. Not really usable as a reliable source in the slightest.
[17] This shows that he works on a student board. The thing about most organizations of any type (political, religious, student, etc) and any level (local, global, etc) is that the majority of them are not the type of thing that would give notability on that basis alone. Memberships in certain groups could help gain coverage, but holding a position in an organization is generally an "all or nothing" type of situation. Either you're in a highly notable position such as a State Senator that gives notability on that basis alone or you're in a position in one of thousands of organizations that don't give notability.

Basically, only two of the sources are really usable and of those two, one is somewhat debatable. Two sources are not enough to give notability. The big issue with the article (which I've cleaned out) is that the sources are either almost entirely primary in some form or fashion, or they're non-usable sources for the reasons listed above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. St Anselm (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Dan Thomas[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough. Also, creator may have coi. See username. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy - fails WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, meets WP:CSD#A7, no relevant sources anywhere - pretty much fails WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:23, 26 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matter Moving at the Speed of Light[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or W:NALBUMS (although I appreciate the latter is not terribly prescriptive). Does not appear to have charted anywhere. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Metacritic has a list of reviews from multiple reliable sources including Mojo, Blender, and Pitchfork. There appears to be additional coverage in the Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel. Gong show 08:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow and WP:BEFORE. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow. Meets WP:NALBUMS. — sparklism ^hey! 08:46, 30 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. Although I understand DGG's arguement, the other "keep" argument that because an article exists on another language that it should exist here is a false argument: we have different notability guidelines than others. I am convinced by the delete !votes (and the sources) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Livshits[edit]

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

I do not see any notability, and, additionally, this is a BLP without a single reliable source. Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:MILL. No evidence he passes WP:GNG, nor WP:PROF specifically. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual has a an article on the Russian Wikipedia (see Google Translate version here) and the references section there leads me to believe that enough foreign-language sources exist for this article to meet both PROF and the GNG. Perhaps a Russian or Belorusian speaker could help to verify. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Russian speaker, and I checked the Russian article before monimating. Could not find anything significant.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 26 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These accomplishments are not run of the mill. Writing one or two books might be. Looking at a separate google translation of the references that were untranslated, he seems to be covered in the appropriate specialized biographical dictionaries for his country. I'm aware of the tendency of some WPs to apply a lesser standard of notability for people in their own culture area than the standard of notability that we apply, but I think this qualifies. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see evidence that he's anything other than run of the mill. According to the translated version of the article, he never rose above the ranking of associate professor. That he appears in various specialized versions of Who's who in Belarus does not, in my mind, rise to the bar for notability absent solid information that it's not a straight vanity press. Ray^Talk 00:43, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Biofuels[edit]

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

I am nominating this for AfD as it appears to be entirely very close paraphrasing from the sources linked to after each section. I would CSD it, but I am not completely sure it is an unambiguous copyvio and have made mistakes in this area before. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CORP. Close paraphrasing is definitely a problem, but lack of in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources is a more serious issue. A GNews search finds lots of passing mentions. Coverage with any depth appears to come from this company's IPO. I can change my vote is someone can show better independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Coverage by Bloomberg Businessweek or The Los Angeles Times, although related to the IPO, seems to satisfy WP:CORP. However, if kept, it needs to be totally rewritten. Beagel (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to keep as the article is rewritten. Beagel (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would rather see the article developed than deleted. It's an important topical area. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company seems to meet WP:CORP pretty easily, with coverage in the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. If close paraphrasing is a problem, the best option is to cut the article down to a stub and start over. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:32, 26 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite apart from the fact that it would need almost complete rewriting to remove the copyvio and the promotional explanation of the technological background that should be handled just by hyperlinks, almost all the accomplishments are either minor, or in cooperation with other companies. Both articles cited above are just routine reporting of ipo price movements. Paraphrasing this close should be dealt with as copyvio, unless someone is immediately prepared to fix it. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I totally rewrote this article using sources provided during this AfD. I think that the close paraphrasing and corporate promotion issues are resolved now. Beagel (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved by Beagel. Sufficient notability for an article. Good work! DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 26 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. Clear delete - I would not be averse to userfication, but this does read as an essay of OR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating[edit]

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

Proposed deletion contested by creator; originally proposed by me: "Reads more like a scientific paper than an encyclopedic article, possible original research/synthesis". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it's not WP:OR, it's almost certainly a copyvio of something. Very poorly phrased and lacking in any unique encyclopedic content; also a totally useless search title. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one of those several points that is likely there is that it's a copyright violation. I've not found it, if it is. However, I don't have Buss' book to hand. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't original research; it isn't poorly phrased; and if the page title is "useless" that isn't fixed with the deletion tool as we should all well know by now. It's fairly easy to open a book on evolutionary psychology and see that far from this being original research, this is a fairly reasonable attempt to write up the view of David Buss on the subject. It is, after all, mainly sourced to one book, written by Buss. This article is in fact better written than much of Wikipedia, and Wikipedians are exemplifying the oft-made mistake of seeing prose that is written in an academic style (in contrast to the badly-flowing broken English with bare URLs that one finds in so many Wikipedia articles) and mistaking unusual for bad.
The real problem here is the one book. This is clearly someone at Loyola Marymount University with Buss' book to hand, writing up the subject of evolutionary psychology of mating and reproduction based on that book. Not reading around the subject is a well-known undergraduate failure, and this is possibly an example of it. EP doesn't have just one view on this, as reading just Simpson & Oriña 2013 would reveal.
It's risible to suggest that this isn't notable, by the way. Thankfully, no-one yet has. But in case anyone says anything so foolish, I point to an entire chapter on "Mating and Reproduction" in Palmer & Palmer 2002 — which its jacket explains to be one of the "major topics within the field". There are plenty of other fair to good sources dealing with this subject in depth, including an entire chapter in Workman & Reader 2004. We have evolutionary psychology#Mating and, with the title fixed as per the suggestion above (if no-one comes up with a better one), this is a reasonable, albeit one-sided, narrow, and incompletely researched, breakout sub-article on the topic that is in need of some attention from someone who has read the rest of the literature on the subject. It goes alongside evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family (a break-out sub-article of evolutionary psychology#Family and kin), evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions (a break-out sub-article of evolutionary psychology#Interactions with non-kin / reciprocity) and the incorrectly speedy-deleted evolutionary psychology of kinship and family (broken out of evolutionary psychology#Family and kin and not a verbatim copy of it).
The only reason for deletion would be if this class project at LMU turned out to be taking the easy route all-too-often taken, and copying word-for-word straight from the textbooks. That's an unequivocal no-no here at Wikipedia, even if it isn't at some university courses. If anyone here has Buss' book available, which I have not, I recommend checking for copyright violation.
To the students: You need to read some encyclopaedias, to see how encyclopaedias generally entitle articles. You also need to read Wikipedia, to see the existing conventions here, including the avoidance of capital letters in article titles for things that aren't proper nouns, the use of substantial introductions to introduce an overview of a subject in an article, and the fact that we don't use level-one section headings. And you also need to read around your subjects a lot more. Your teacher should also be aboveboard about your class project, which xe has not been. Refer xem to Wikipedia:School and university projects, please.
By the way: minor changes in formatting to use the correct markup for Wikipedia make a huge difference. Wikipedia editors are, unfortunately, influenced in their content decisions by the superficial visual appearance of an article. I've seen editors start the "original research" hue and cry simply because a new article used Harvard-style citations without our handy ((harv)) template, before now.
Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Simpson, Jeffry A.; Oriña, Minda (2013). "Strategic Pluralism and context-specific mate selection in humans". In Sterelny, Kim; Fitness, Julie (eds.). From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology. Macquarie Monographs in Cognitive Science. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781135432126. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Palmer, Jack A.; Palmer, Linda K. (2002). "Mating and Reproduction". Evolutionary Psychology: The Ultimate Origins of Human Behavior (2nd ed.). Allyn an Bacon. pp. 106 et seq. ISBN 9780205278688. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
- Workman, Lance; Reader, Will (2004). "The evolution of human mate choice". Evolutionary psychology: an introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521805322. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Q: is evolutionary psychology really as sexist, reductionist, and essentialist as this article suggests? I suggest that the author(s) temper(s) the rather generalizing statements found in the article ("This is one of the reasons why men are a lot bigger and stronger than women" is just one example) by perhaps more correctly summarizing their source, and involving more sources. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but this article is centred around two people's views at best, and is clearly not written neutrally. I'm not buying Uncle G's general argument (or his enormous wall of text), anything encyclopedic will almost certainly be already here, this is a duplication at best, and given its language, I strongly suspect copyvio. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue working on it. Not bad as a start, and superior to most coursework here. Uncle G has correctly pointed out many of the faults, and suggested additional sources--and the title needs to be changed. I appreciate his detailed analysis, and so should the author. I wish we saw more of it here, rather than snap judgments. Much of this is here to some degree in various places, true, but this is a very broad topic that needs to be looked at in different aspects. It's relatively difficult to cover subjects like this systematically with zero duplciation. This can take its place as a relatively general article. (The main problem I see is the tendency to jump to conclusions without giving sources for them--this is caused by the mismatch between writing for WP and writing a normal term paper, in which one is expected to come to a conclusion. It's a recurrent problem in the ed program. ) Whether E.p. is sexist is a much discussed topic, ; some consideration of the views on this aspect really do need to be included, tho not a full discussion, which would overwhelm the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to something less unusual (since that causes quicker judgments like formatting does), and keep working on it, hopefully adding more sources to reduce POV. If it doesn't improve (as it is classwork after all) I'd consider deleting. Ansh666 21:55, 24 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- Well, it's an ESSAY, and many whole paragraphs remain uncited. The tone is rambling. The long title gives a clue that the topic is basically part of sexual selection, in which it could frankly form a single crisp paragraph, if deleted and rewritten. I'd be happy to support Uncle G in the TNT strategy, though clearly it could be rewritten in situ (i.e., the hard way) or better, we could userfy it and await a rather better-edited article. It's great to see students learning all kinds of things but perhaps this example is rather too publicly hanging out the laundry before washing it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor undergraduate essay posing as a wikipedia article. It is a fork of Evolutionary psychology#Mating and was previously deleted in February as Evolutionary psychology of sex differences. There is no need for this type of inadequate fork article written without providing a proper context. If somebody wants to improve their grades in Psychology 452 at Loyola Marymount University, they should do so within the framework provided by that Jesuit College instead of placing their essay on Wikipedia as has happened here. Mathsci (talk) 00:04, 2 May 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 B! Machine#Discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Falling Star (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM Uberaccount (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to B! Machine#Discography. I can find no coverage about this album. The article is a bare track listing without even bothering any narrative text. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 29 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) czar · · 05:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanning No.3 High School[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG Uberaccount (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing consensus that high-schools are notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per:

Secondary schools typically qualify on English Wikipedia for a stand-alone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see this as a valid nomination. Where is the WP:BEFORE eg a search for sources in Chinese? We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 30 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. L Faraone 02:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12bet[edit]

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

Online betting company. Do the refs establish notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I believe that the page on 12bet.com is notable because they were the shirt sponsors of two major football teams in Europe. Also, 12bet has sponsored the 2010 edition of the 2010 UK Championship (snooker), which has a Wikipedia page. Also, 888.com’s Wikipedia page has similar content. If this is allowed to stand, why not 12bet?--KevinKM (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — KevinKM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : In my point of view; "Online betting company. Do the refs establish notability?" ; My answer would be Yes, after I read this article and the references, it matches Wikipedia's criteria for notability. This site/page shows property of being worthy of notice, it also gives significance for Sports News. The references,reports and news that appeared in Reuters and ESPN Sports News were already evidences for 12bet's Significance and Notability. And I can say that the references are qualified for verifiability, for the information that were given was based on facts. This can still be improved for the better. --VivzBurch (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — VivzBurch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Not reviewing the article yet, but the presence of two brand-spanking-new accounts arriving to defend it worries me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has 3 types of references:
1. Those that won't pass WP:RS: References #1, 2.
2. Those that might pass WP:RS but have trivial coverage: Reference #8
3. Those that won't pass WP:RS but have extensive coverage in the form of press releases: The rest

That means this fails on WP:GNG on each of its 5 bullet points. –H T D 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : How can sources such as Reuters and ESPN not be reliable for sports news? Also, there are links to the football clubs’ respective official websites, and these are some of the most reliable sources of information about the teams. Reference number 1 is the Isle of Man government’s website and the official list of all online gambling companies registered in their jurisdiction (Same reference goes with 188BET, SBOBET, Fun88 and more, So if you are saying it won't pass, then how did the same page using that reference passed? ). I believe that this passes most, if not all, of the general notability guidelines. Still, " KEEP " for this page. --KevinKM (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference #1 is what you said it is: a list of all online gambling companies, and nothing else. There's no company profile. So fails WP:GNG.
- The references from the club's official websites do give "the most reliable sources of information about the teams". It doesn't not give an in-depth coverage to 12bet, unfortunately, just statements such as "12bet are the official betting and gaming partner for Newcastle United FC" which could very much be a press release, violating bullet #4 of GNG explicitly.
- The source from ESPN is just like the one above announcement, a press release. Explicitly violating GNG #4. In this reference, 12bet wasn't even mentioned in the prose!
- The only way this can be saved is if someone can come up with a real news article about 12bet, not press releases, not announcements and not a list. A good way to look for it is if somebody interviewed the company's CEO, or probably an in-depth discussion of the company's finances, etc. –H T D 17:23, 3 May 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. Fails consensus of WP:NMUSIC (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AllStars[edit]

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

Non-notable group of session musicians. Not notable collectively, no individually. Cited references all fail to mention this group by name (or even by implication). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from and can see what you mean about the references cited to date. I am in the process of inserting updated references which make specific mention of the collective and demonstrate notability directly and not by implication. Thank you for your help in making sure the article is correct and diligent. Please let me know shortly if the updates bring the article more within the Wikipedia requirements and if not, perhaps you could give examples of where I have gone wrong. With thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfanlondon (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone who closely follows the London funk, soul and blues scene, and having followed the AllStars since around 2006, I'd like to add to this discussion. How notable artists are is highly subjective, especially if you haven't personally encountered them, however The AllStars have a significant following in their own right in London so personally I'm surprised to see their article being considered for deletion. As well as being notable artists in their own right, it says something of their credibility when they have undeniably notable global artists like Jocelyn Brown and Nile Rodgers performing with them at venues such as the Royal Albert Hall. The content of the article appears to give an objective description of the group so I recommend keeping it. Nicksthompson (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability of a band is not highly subjective; Wikipedia has clearly defined guidelines to assess their notability, and there is no indication that this band has met those guidelines. I'm glad Nick is a fan, but that doesn't make the band notable. Nor does their appearance with notable artists such as Jocelyn Brown or Nile Rodgers; they appear to be merely the local pickup band available to support an artist in a one-off performance. Yes, they are probably good, great maybe even, but not notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 23 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bombarding an article with bad sources does not make this "band" notable. Yes they are talented and have played with some notable artists. Notability is not inherited from them. No independent notability shown. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert 'Skins' Anderson[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Competed on a TV show. (No indication if he won, or even did very well. Actually, no verification from independent sources that he even appeared.) Played with this artist. Toured with that artist. Notability is not inherited. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the point of this entry. This is not a faceless, nameless musician who entered a talent contest (not sure where you got that from) - this is one of the most established and in-demand session musicians on the scene in the UK and a globally respected musician. The reference to artists Skins has collaborated with were merely to fulfil the wikipedia requirement for references and a comment made previously that he had to be seen to be 'noteworthy'. Please explain what I can do to improve this entry and to avoid this ambiguity in future as I am very new to Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicMan123 (talk • contribs)

Comment I will admit to misreading the text of the article. It says "He completed an MTV special." I thought it said "He competed in an MTV special." The difference is immaterial. There is still no significant independent coverage of this artist to be found. (If there is, please provide.) YouTube videos of his performances are not reliable sources to establish notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage from independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Haneef Muhammad[edit]

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

Article has been up since 2005 but comprises three sentences. Not sure if this person meets WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:50, 13 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 19 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His potential notability appears to lie in him having been an actor who appeared in a small of number of minor children's roles in TV and movies. However anyone interested in him can find his info at IMDB, but his roles are not notable enough for Wikipedia (per WP:NOTDIR). Seaweed (talk) 12:19, 26 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. Fails WP:ARTIST quite clearly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Slease[edit]

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

Serious notabillity concerns here, I am failing to see how this biography passes WP:ARTIST. The article is well structured, with numerous references, but the reliability of those is of concern to me. Some are clearly unreliable (blogs, youtube, self-published). Others look to me like third party, but low visibility. Sources which may be reliable include interview at 3ammagazine, bio at parasol-unit.org, and book review at handandstar.co.uk. Feel free to double check if I haven't missed anything else, and I am open to being shown that there are some reliable references here, in which case I'll be happy to withdraw this nom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As currently written, article fails WP:ARTIST. The reviews are from sources with a connection to the subject (printed or solicited by the presses that published his books), or an online website of uncertain reliability and provenance. Googling in Gscholar and Gnews failed to find further significant coverage, so fails the standard WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 18:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Links to a few of the videos on youtube may be considered reliable. "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed." For example, a recent edition to the external links is a video from a reading as part of the Bristol Poetry Festival at Arnolfini Gallery in Bristol. The organisation is Camarade. Camarade is supported by the Jerwood Charitable Foundation and Arts Council England (link here: http://www.arnolfini.org.uk/whatson/maintenant-camarade). Of course we need to look a little closer before blindly dismissing youtube content as outright unreliable. This same kind of wholesale dismissal is often levelled at wikipedia. In terms of notability, I can see some of your points in terms of significant coverage. However, in terms of precedent, there are quite a few poet stubs that have significantly less coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Rohrer and full articles of poets that have perhaps similar coverage. For example this article of an American poet also has two reviews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Dickman

I do agree that two reviews meet reliability criteria from Hand+Star and the interview in 3AM Magazine. Would it be a good idea to delete the other critical responses because they may have been solicited by the publisher of the poet/author?

However, the coverage of this article does extend to reliable festivals and quite prestigious art galleries. This kind of coverage, while not a traditional book review, is significant in demonstrating that the writer has some importance in terms of both poetry and art.

Again, see other articles on contemporary poets for comparisons in terms of significant coverage. Some may have more of course, but quite a few have a lot less significant coverage.

One solution could to make this article a stub? I would propose either keeping the article with the rationale that it on par in terms of a majority of other articles on contemporary poets or changing it to a stub. It would be a shame to delete the article completely as it seems like it could be a useful source of information on contemporary poetry in the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewa rasala (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note that existence of other articles sharing similar problems is not a grounds for keeping this one; rather - it is grounds for considering the deletion of those others: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 1 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optare Rapido[edit]

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

Non notable, Again It seems this bus was never built, or If It was there's no info. –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not useful. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USELESS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. simply being a manufactured product is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Forest (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND - a search doesn't find anything to match any of the criteria. I note that the 2 albums are released by firm called "Bleak Art Records", the name of the article's creator. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the article's creator, advising him that he can have a new name containing the name of the company such as "johnatBleakArtRecords" and advising him/her about COI. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::Keep I've added some reviews of the band's work that should make the article notable enough now. SimonMagus666 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — SimonMagus666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sock of Paul Bedson (talk · contribs), here because of me I'd say. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only sources available were blogs (like BLOGS, standard footers and all), all of which not RS by any means. Perhaps Loucifer and Hellbound could be barely passable if the genre was really obscure, but it isn't. If they were notable metal, they'd pass WP:BAND and either be on a notable label or have reviews from at least one notable source. As it stands they're not listed on Metacritic either. Side note: will the OP have time to defend himself before the AfD's close if he needs to change his username first? czar · · 23:31, 25 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources pretty much sum it up that the subject fails WP:BAND, and perhaps WP:GNG as well. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIGNY award[edit]

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

Notability in question since 2009. Could not find reliable source coverage about the awards. Sources are from the defunct awarding organization. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Robert EA Harvey (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more or less per nom. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How can the article's notability be "in question since 2009" when these awards basically became defunct in 2005-06? If anything, this article should be moved/merged with a new article about the awards that basically replaced these awards, the Bondage Awards, which have apparently been around since 2008 or so. Guy1890 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read that template below the afd notice in the article, can you? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can...you apparently added it back then, and then you apparently proceeded not to try and improve the article since then. So? Guy1890 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can your misguided assumptions. I actually looked for independent reliable sources before I put the template up. The template was to notify other people to find them. Still can't find any now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if the awards in question stopped being issued around 2005, you're not going to find much in the way of any sources in 2009, 2013, or 2075 for that matter. That's my point. So you put a template on an article almost 4 years ago, again...so what? Guy1890 (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's this thing called the Internet that existed in 2005 that didn't magically disappear in 2009, with sites, like google news, archive.org, avn, xbiz, documenting articles between those two periods. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't be serious here. Of course the Internet "didn't magically disappear in 2009". If what you're saying is that these awards were never noteworthy in the first place (when they were in existence from 2000 to 2005), well then...that's one opinion. My point is that those awards, whether they were notable or not, have obviously been replaced by another set of awards, which have been in existence since 2008 and which are discussed on this article's main page and talk page. That info has been available on these pages since at least 2008. In other words, it was available in late 2009 when you apparently decided to slap a tag on this page to "notify other people to find" sources for this article. Guy1890 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. As for the argument above, RS coverage apparently wasn't there when the award existed and coverage hasn't emerged since the award folded. Therefore not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of RS supporting any claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Internet is not the only place one can look for reliable sources. There are books, too. And newspapers that don't have their own websites. Happily, Google has a ton of old newspapers available and searchable, and Amazon has a similar function. Lot's of articles are based on reliable sources other than things that can be web linked. There's no requirement that a reliable source be accessable on the web. No one's found any reliable sources for this one since 2009 at least. I can't find any now. Deletion four years after the tag was put up is quite reasonable. David in DC (talk) 11:02, 2 May 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Turk Awards[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability of this particular award. Kelly ^hi! 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:33, 19 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 26 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. withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac Traffic Control[edit]

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

Potomac Traffic Control does not exist. Needs to be Potomac TRACON. Rojas.jorge96 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominatorRojas.jorge96 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC) FAA's page on the TRACON http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/tracon/pct/ Rojas.jorge96 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you suggesting a rename (page move) or deletion? (Because AfD listings are for the latter.) I can help with the move if you'd like, but you should withdraw this nom in that case. czar · · 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Withdrawing the request. I will request a page move to Potomac Consolidated TRACON. Rojas.jorge96 (talk) 14:35, 26 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. Certainly needs to be fixed/cleaned up of promo and puffery, but appears to meet notability and obviously meets sourcing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ranger[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment. Obvious autobio. Very promotional. Another editor added sources, but they don't seem to be assertations of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although this article is so dreadfully promotional that it's almost like a personal advertisement. Coverage does exist for this guy. [18], [19], [20], [21], are some examples from the abundant search results in a google news search. The article does need a severe pruning though. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all passing mentions at best, verifying little more than that he exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - So what are the first two articles about if they are simply passing mentions of Ranger? -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short made me think passing mentions. I'm clearly out of it right now and need caffeine or something. akjldhflakjflkas Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should remain as it is for the good of public knowledge. If anyone disagrees with its content then the facility exists to amend it. To remove it completely would be wrong as it would mean you are removing information which may be of use to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.192.223 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the first two articles listed are so short that they don't appear - at least in this editor's eyes - to help establish any sort of significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* The guy was made "Director of the Year 2012 last night.I was at the event. Its got to be right that the page is kept so people can find out information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you were there last night then it does make it look as though you have a connection to the subject. Since you're the creator of this article, it does look like a COI problem and rather than supporting notability, seems (at least to me) to hint at possible WP:ADVERT problems as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Surely the principal point is that it is in the public's interest for the information to remain. The right to amend any entry is not being removed so if the information stated is incorrect then it can be amended. The style of writing may not to be one's taste but the information being supplied is factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.192.223 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a poor article, and there are other objections, but he looks notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject has failed the notability test. -- Karl Stephens (talk) 12:11, 25 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets point #1 of WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Source examples: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should not be deleted as per his article, he is role model for young generation and in Asian Community. There is a lot of evidence of this on the internet in general too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdarji19 (talk • contribs) — Hdarji19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hendersons[edit]

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

Unexplained prod removal. The band does not appear to meet WP:BAND:

Could not find any WP:SIGCOV in conducting WP:BEFORE. Due to the commonality of the band name, variations were tried such as the band + (their album names) and band + (musician names).
Their assertion to notability, winning the Fort Worth Weekly Award is only supported by the Fort Worth Weekly. Due to the lack of independent coverage, it suggests this award is not notable.

If someone is able to find multiple and independent sources that accredit their award as notable, or that the band itself has generated enough coverage to meet WP:BAND, then I am inclined to delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I read the notability guidelines for musicians and thought that this band met the criteria. Otherwise I'd not have created the article. Here are multiple independent feature articles discussing the band. http://www.fwweekly.com/2011/03/09/the-hendersons-back-to-the-future/ http://www.fwweekly.com/2012/11/21/hello-again-to-the-hendersons/ http://www.fwweekly.com/2013/01/30/way-to-go-euphio/ I don't believe there to be subjective matial contained within the article. [[User:GlobaldawnGlobaldawn]][[User talk:globaldawn^talk]] 06:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globaldawn (talk • contribs)

Globaldawn, no need to apologize. You have done nothing wrong. In fact the opposite, you created and contributed to Wikipedia, which is a great thing. The XfD process is a part of Wikipedia. We have guidelines that show us what types of articles relating to bands should be kept, and which ones should be deleted. Based upon my interpretation, I had flagged the article with a prod template, which after five days, would have been reviewed to see if the article meet WP:BAND or not yet. Because you removed the prod template, I nominated for XfD which is some times the next step in making this a community discussion. For starters, you are more than welcome to put forth your arguments as to why the article should be kept, which you have. In regards to the two sources you provided, they are somewhat primary in that they also gave the band the award and are now connected to the band. To assert notability, both in that they received a notable award, or that the band has received coverage making them notable, you will need to provide multiple and independent sources. Don't get me wrong, the two you have are a good start, but not enough at present. I did a preliminary search myself but did not come up with anything conclusive aside from one run-of-the-mill coverage about a performance they had. Mkdw ^talk 06:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the listed references in the proper full format and done a bit of work on the article. I'm leaning in the direction of keep but I'd like to see article(s) from a second reliable source. - Dravecky (talk) 17:55, 8 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 00:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Not on a major label, or notable indie label. No nominations for awards. No gold records. No press outside the Fort Worth area. Grande (talk) 00:47, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is only from the FW Weekly. There aren't a diversity of reliable sources covering this band. It seems like they've gotten some local fame, and are an up and coming band. No prejudice to recreation in the future with more success and coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 29 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 merge into List of diplomatic missions of Colombia. Note that Warsaw was withdrawn; Bern, The Hague, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Abu Dabi were actually never AFDéd and thus can not be a part of this closure. They have to be renominated again. For Cairo, Pretoria, Beirut, Jakarta, Stockholm, Brussels and Lisbon, whereas opinions are diverse, the consensus is that they are not individually notable. List of diplomatic missions of Colombia, as suggested, seems to be a good place to merge them into. Help with merging will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Cairo[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. those wanting to keep must show coverage. all these series of articles have the same generic text of what the embassy does and lists its address. also nominating:

*Embassy of Colombia, Warsaw

LibStar (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same filler text with the address, name of the two countries, and text describing what any embassy is supposed to do. Nothing notable about any of the embassies: nothing newsworthy, no citations asserting notability beyond mere existence. Richard Ye^talk 08:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I disagree. While the articles may effectively be stubs at the moment, that's not necessarily a reason to delete them. Certainly some on that list (Tokyo, New Dehli etc.) will be major embassies of the Colombia and should be retained. I notice that a similar deletion proposal has not been made for US/British Embassies, and I think that sadly reflects some sort of bias on the English-lang wiki. In my opinion, they have enough info to make them distinctive (they're not full copies after all) and, judging by the articles on other country's embassies on wiki, there is certainly precedent for them being "notable".---Brigade Piron (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Many embassy articles have been deleted which shows no inherent notability. You haven't even supplied one source to demonstrate coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree on that first point, but this is far too arbitrary. I do not speak Spanish; I do not know anything about Colombian diplomatic relations. What I will say is that, while a hypothetical embassy of Colombia in Monaco might not be the most notable embassy, some of the ones in that list are major postings. In that light, I'm not sure that you could point to any WP guidelines to say that, once their existence is established, other sources are needed too. Embassies, after all, are rarely written about and I imagine that little exists on these anyway outside Spanish. By the way, a piece on the talk page of WP:Colombia might be nice too. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies rarely written about may mean they do not mean WP:GNG. the onus is on keep voters to find sources. LibStar (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I agree with the argument that, because recent AfDs have resulted in the deletion of embassy pages, they are presumed to be not notable. Other recent AfDs for embassies have resulted in 'keep' decisions (here for example). Since this is a mass nomination, it might be worth bringing up first the the International relations wikiproject, or discussing on Wikipedia talk:Notability. TheBlueCanoe 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the main reason for deletion is lack of third party coverage. if someone can provide evidence i will happily withdraw my nomination. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question LibStar, have yiu yourself check in sources from the two countries involved in every case to make sure there is no available sourcing? DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes and no significant coverage of individual embassies found. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All - to the relevant "Colombia-X relations" pages. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 25 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Polish embassy is at least briefly mentioned in Jan Patryas; Henryk Szczepaniak; Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych (1979). Stosunki dyplomatyczne Polski 1944-1981 r: Ameryka (1944-1978). Pań. Wydawn. Naukowe. Retrieved 29 April 2013. and Krzysztof Szczepanik; Anna Herman-Łukasik; Barbara Janicka (2007). Stosunki dyplomatyczne Polski: informator. Ameryka Północna i Południowa 1918-2007. Wydawn. Askon. ISBN 978-83-7452-026-3. Retrieved 29 April 2013. (books on the history of Polish diplomacy). I can see snippets only so I am not sure how extensive the embassy is; what I found would definitely merit a strong keep for the relevant relations article. I'd like to see a comment from a Spanish speaker about whether this embassy is mentioned in Colombian sources (Spanish name may be "Embajada del Colombia en Polonia"?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the Warsaw embassy but believe all others qualify for delete. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps nobody else who can read the relevant non-English sources have bothered to do some research... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Individual embassy is rarely notable. Oviously we have cases that have been newsworthy (ie the US embassy in Iran) which therefore merit articles of their own, but these are merely extensions of Columbia-country x relations and should not have individual entries (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Bwilkins. Miniapolis 12:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment many people have suggested merge to the relevant bilateral article. But in most cases, this does not exist. Therefore, merge is not a feasible option. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if bilateral relations page exists, Delete otherwise. All of these pages are boilerplate and have no indication of why these embassies are notable. Of course, if something notable about these embassies were to be added to the articles, I would change my vote to Keep. Transcendence (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge those without notable sources per Transcendence - or maybe merge to List of diplomatic missions of Colombia? I think most of them exist there already anyways. Ansh666 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of diplomatic missions of Colombia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 4 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket pet[edit]

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

Article has no citations, and my attempts to add some only found a few sources which contradict both each other and the article ([28][29][30][31]). The topic seems to meet WP:NOTNEO, and point 6 of WP:DEL-REASON.

I suggest replacing with a redirect to Pet#Domesticated. —me_and 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect I second Meand's suggestion. content does not merit its own page but would merit a section in a larger article on pets if it had reliable and verifiable sources. Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a recognised classification, for example see An Illustrated Guide to Veterinary Medical Terminology. Warden (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I can see enough content there for a definition (ie, something that really belongs on Wiktionary), but not enough for this to have a Wikipedia article in its own right. That source does make this considerably less clear-cut than I'd originally thought, however. —me_and 19:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books and Scholar searches linked by the nomination procedure find plenty more potential sources that can be used to expand this article. Those links are there to inform the discussion, not to be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 13 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, —Darkwind (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now a recognised term. Google books have several entries, this is the first entry [[32]]. There is several dozen more. Google scholar has a few citations for the term. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 16 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer WP:DICDEF. It is a dictionary definition: A pocket pet is a pet someone might keep in his pocket, like the big guy did in "Of mice and men." In fact, it seems almost obvious enough to not require saying. Edison (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per various sources found, the topic exceeds a mere dictionary definition. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Source examples: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep per addition of sources. I love how everyone's digging them up, but no one can ever be arsed to add them to the damn article. Good thing I did that for you, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to be a little more civil and a little less sarcastic. AfD is NOT a forum to force sources to be added, rather it is a place to discuss the exclusion of an article from Wikipedia. If an article is notable yet is not sourced guess what it is still notable! Mike (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable based on the Google Book search above. Mike (talk) 21:48, 30 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. L Faraone 02:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akello Light[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted at AFD. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability, and the reason for the first nomination still stands. Whpq (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki, I tried to get in contact with some of the people who looked over this "Akello Light" submission maybe 3-4 weeks ago. I did not get any feedback. Akello Light has received two more coverage write-ups from establish sources. 1st: http://www.urb.com/2013/03/27/72-soul-fools-play-ep-download-limited-edition-vinyl-contest-inside/#more-86087 Quote- URB said, “the Akello Light produced track, Broken Hearts Club is easily one of our favorite tracks of the year, this track sounds like the Daptones, Lee Fields, ... This is a MAJOR magazine. 2nd: http://thefindmag.com/videos/video-72-soul-fool-is-blind-prod-luigi-of-monkeyrobot/ Quote-he was mention as a producer In total, there are three major established media outlets that have given coverage to "Akello Light", plus the enormous amount of coverage from websites with a Alexa Traffic Rank of more than 9,000-468,191 US Traffic (http://www.alexa.com/). Okayplayer.com, Dublab.com, URB Magazine All the sources are cited and website traffic can be checked for each (http://www.alexa.com/). If the information was to be compared to other indie artists, it is a no-brainer that "Akello Light" is actually gaining more coverage every 6 months (Many of the artists listed on Wiki only have one Pitchfork write up or really no constant internet coverage). Have a great day. Sirleak (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirleak (talk • contribs)

Comment - What is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Being ranked between 9,000-468,191 in alexa traffic listings does not make a web site a reliable source, and the referencing provides no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the nominator of this article for it's previous AfD, and although I see that there has been some additional coverage, I still believe that Akello Light fails WP:MUSICBIO. At this point, there simply isn't enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 10:11, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 26 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. Although there is a potential to merge, the name (and sources mentioning it) are not significant enough for even a redirect. Fails notability requirements at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Cardwell[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this person seems to fail WP:MOTORSPORT. It appears that NZ Super Saloons is fairly unremarkable. Seems to fail GNG as well Gbawden (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly know the person. JacobyEasox (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — JacobyEasox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That is not a reason for deletion. There are 1000 of 1000s of bio aricles on WP about people we don't know! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. My suspicion is that this article was created as self-promotion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to pass notability. Not sure what sources were looked for to say Cardwell passes WP:GNG. Would like to know more about their search. In the meantime, sources that support WP:GNG, which I content he passes, include [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] This took five minutes of searching. --LauraHale (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:MOTORSPORT trumps WP:GNG in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dirt track racing in New Zealand. Cardwell is significant within that field in NZ. NealeFamily (talk) 20:01, 25 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 26 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. Obvious fail of WP:NWEB, no matter how useful the site might be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Ubuntu![edit]

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

Pretty much everything on the page is only sourced to the blog itself and there is little to indicate any wider notability. Heronglen (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Heronglen (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable blog. I don't know if the parent company Ohso is any more notable (though I don't see much online). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Graner ref from Ubuntu User cited in the article (ref 3) is an independent third party news site and paper magazine that published an extensive profile on the subject and references a large part of this article. As such the article meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one reference - multiple references are required, so maybe you can nominate another 1 or 2. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete Certainly one of the most notable and influential news blogs in the field.[53] It interviewed key people in the Linux community (Jono Bacon [54], Mark Shuttleworth [55], Linus Torvalds [56], Jeff Waugh [57], etc.), it is regularily used as a source by established tech websites (Linux.com [58], SlashGear [59], EFYTimes.com [60] PC World [61], LifeHacker [62] PC Gamer [63], Engadget [64], DistroWatch [65] etc.), and has been covered by other news sites (MakeUseOf,[66] , Dailynews.com [67]). There is also coverage of its move to Canonical’s JuJu service by Ubuntu.com [68]. --Iketsi (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Iketsi above. Google Books Search also shows published guides recommending OMG! Ubuntu! as a source of Ubuntu-related news. — daranz [ t ] 18:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So no one is doubting that the site isn't very good at what it does, if not the best, but it doesn't pass WP:NWEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I've checked all of the sources, and the closest to a contender is ubuntu-user.com. The sources from Iketsi are either SPS interviews (don't help with notability) or casual mentions from other sites (which may prove a reliance, but OMG is never a subject of a non-trivial work). It looks like it's worth mentioning its influence in some Ubuntu culture article, but it doesn't pass the criteria for its own article. czar · · 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the fact that OMG! Ubuntu! is the primary source of information for a substantial amount of news pertaining to Ubuntu, it would be a mistake not to have an article about it. Besides, there are more published works about the website, including coverage of it's recent move to JuJu, [69] as well as various books and articles, including The NTNU article Transfer of Ownership in Open Source Projects - Eric S. Raymond Versus New Media: The Case of Pinta by Robert Nordan, which writes about OMG! Ubuntu!'s involvement in the development of Pinta, or more specifically, how the website's social impact made Pinta's revival possible.[70]. OMG! Ubuntu! is also presented in Beginning Ubuntu Linux: Natty Narwhal Edition (1430236264) as a "site to check on a regular basis for news about future releases of Ubuntu and upcoming applications [...]", where one can find "the most up-to-date information about the development of new software, new trends in the development of Ubuntu, and analyses of the future of Ubuntu". All 3 are "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Iketsi (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right—I don't doubt that it's a boon or notable for the Ubuntu community. This is about inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, many of the best sources on experimental music do not make the cut for inclusion as articles. The GNG says articles need significant coverage, so the passing mention in Beginning Ubuntu Linux or the tech websites above wouldn't help there. Canonical's announcement of involvement with OMG (ref17) is a self-published source and doesn't help to establish notability either. Ref18, that NTNU article, comes a bit closer (along with the ubuntu-user.com ref, if that source is reputable) to being a secondary, reliable source, but as you can see, we're struggling to prove notability. Once OMG graduates from a blog to a news source at the subject of others' articles, it'll have what it needs for WP notability. czar · · 20:17, 23 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Despite the website's notability, there are not enough sources about it to write a full article. Iketsi (talk) 03:31, 26 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) czar · · 02:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Pleasures[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of full-length professional reviews, charting or awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It isn't released until 7 May, so how could it have charted or received awards. It already has one review in a reliable source and a few other pieces of coverage. I think we can wait a few weeks until after it's released to judge whether it's a notable musical release or not. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Michig states above the album is not released until May 7th. It has been added to the Upcoming Release category and members of WikiProject Albums will keep an eye on it. I have added three more reviews that I dug up through a few internet searches. These reviews can be read and more about the initial reaction to the album can be added to the body of the article. We should wait and see and decide after the release of album. -- Beckmanse (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2013 (PDT)
KeepQuantoAltoPossoVolare (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was delete. L Faraone 02:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

The result was soft delete. L Faraone 15:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schlein[edit]

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

Has some mentions in a couple of reliable articles, but the subject is the project, not him. The BW bio and others are boiler plate. The advertisement style could be fixed, but I think we are still left with a bio on someone short of notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 18 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stoker: Battle of the damned[edit]

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

Student film; fails WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to fall under any CSD. Ish dar ian 00:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP: GNG. Also, since there are no sources, I believe WP: CRYSTAL would apply as well. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as per WP:NFF. --Drm310 (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. If only A7 applied to non-professionally-produced future films. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being far TOO SOON. As the director has a trailer up, I'd be okay with this being userfied for a short while to anyone interested in adding sources if/when they actually become available. Allow in article space only when WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not meeting the general notability guidelines at present. No issue with revisiting this topic if it ever attracts significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. If the Polish I Liga is in fact fully professional, evidence of that should be presented to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to gain agreement to update the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nnamani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he did not understand the delete rationale. It's pretty simple. Mr. Nnamani has not played in the Ekstraklasa, the only fully pro league in Poland, or in a fully pro league elsewhere, and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails the two relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I understand, participation pro league like Extraklasa is required for footy notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Polish I Liga is fully professional since 2002 ("Od 2002 do udziału w jej rozgrywkach zostają dopuszczone wyłącznie kluby posiadające status profesjonalny (tj. działające w formie spółki akcyjnej), które – po spełnieniu wszelkich niezbędnych kryteriów – otrzymały roczną licencję na występy na tym szczeblu."). I don't understand what's going on. Sources will be added soon. --marekchelsea (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are they? – Kosm1 fent 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, no evidence the league they play in is fully-professional. Giant Snowman 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 11:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of these players has played in a fully pro league or represented their country at senior level, which means that they fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 00:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cuyahoga Land Bank[edit]

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

Highly promotional. I attempted cleanup, but it was too difficult for an articles about a subject with only borderline notability. Almost all the references are press releases or about the general problem in the US. The others are local, , and I doubt they show notability DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another one of those recent articles that was approved by the AfC process when it shouldn't have been, and the current text fails Wikipedia standards in all sorts of ways. But the organization is a legitimate quasi-governmental agency serving a significant role, and it has received substantive attention from Bloomberg Businessweek [71][72], NPR [73], USAToday [74], and Associated Press [75], among others, as well as extensive coverage in Ohio media.[76][77] Acknowledging the article's problems, I would prefer to stub and keep it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll take responsibility, I'll withdraw the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else doesn't get there first, I'll try to do some heavy whittling on this over the weekend. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a shot at a much shortened (and, I hope, more neutrally worded) version. Needs work, of course, but I think it's a start.[78] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Arxiloxos! --Orlady (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable topic, but prune and/or clean up. I have heard this land bank identified as a model being emulated elsewhere. Additional sources regarding this land bank include MetroPlanning.org and National Public Radio. --Orlady (talk) 05:09, 26 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.