< 28 April	30 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) 11:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mairbek Taisumov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and all coverage appears to be routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD is transcluded to the April 29 log. Did you mean to transclude it to the April 30th log? Ping me if you want a hand. czar · · 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Despite knowing how contentious MMA discussions are, here we go.....First, WP:MMANOT is WEAK in itself. While it does establish some guidelines, they are not defined as well as they should be as other guidelines such as WP:BAND or WP:AUTHOR. Saying that he doesn't have any top tier fights is NOT a reason to delete the article. In fact, he fights for a notable organization and has won numerous boughts (looks like he has a decent record) which would qualify him under MMA. However, I cleared the MMA cloud away from head for a moment to look at the basics which is (WP:GNG). Although he would qualify under different criteria of WP:MMANOT, he still has not received significant coverage from WP:RS which is the first hurdle he needs to get over. All the press I see is passing mentions, fight records, and recaps or announcements of fights. Based on WP:GNG alone, my opinion would be delete. If additional WP:RS can be found, that is a different story. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. Mdtemp used WP:NMMA with is the MMA notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). That has only 2 criteria and they're quite objective--1. at least 3 fights for a top tier MMA organization (defined at WP:MMATIER and 2. have fought for the highest title of a top tier organization. Which of these do you claim he meets? Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry, getting confused happens to everyone now and again. :) If you read above, you will see that I am saying "IF" they received more coverage. The issue with the guidelines is that they do not define clearly enough what constitutes notability (is it ALL of the criteria, some, at least one, etc.? Should have a little more meat to be clearer). I see many MMA articles recommended for deletion based on them not having a top tier fight. Having a top tier fight has NOTHING to do with notability until they FIRST pass WP:GNG. As stated above (maybe I could have been a little clearer for you), they would pass IF they received significant coverage from WP:RS. As it stands, he falls short of such coverage and fails notability. I'm saying the same thing you are, except sticking in my opinion about the guidelines. Glad to talk more on my talk page if you want so I stop cluttering this AfD up with opinion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject clearly fails WP:NMMA and I agree with the previous editors who say he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:11, 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. J04n(talk page) 11:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Academy[edit]

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

This is a non-notable school with very few sources that talk about this school. The article was originally created by someone who thought the school was a high school (see this screenshot I took for proof the creator thought the school was a high school: http://gyazo.com/2952915ee002d35405eec958ab7f56ac) Andise1 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing but incidental mentions in the press. I see not features detailing this subject. I see no points of notability. Most elementary schools are non-WP:N. N is not established for this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TonyTheTiger put it best. There is no notability. Based on WP:OUTCOMES, this article could pass AfD with a keep if it showed notability. However, all of the coverage that I see is local to the Chicago or surrounding areas and say nothing that would make it notable. The WP:RS that are available (although again, they are still local) simply verify its existence. Unfortunately, I believe this needs to be deleted or redirected to a school district where it is located (even though it is private I would lean towards a redirect to preserve the article).--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The short age of the school makes it unsurprising that notability can't really be proven. The article should be deleted now, but I would not be opposed to recreation if something changes in that regard. Ducknish (talk) 21:17, 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. I would be happy to move it into userspace or the incubator if someone wants to work on it outside of mainspace. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Hsuin Urlic Chu[edit]

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

There's no notability. The url given in the reference bibliography point to an index of little worth to tell otherwise (use the search term "Chu, Chi Hsuin Ulric" to get hits). The topic is not mentioned in the links of the external links section. There is no sources found through google or googlebooks. Cold Season (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Search on GS gives zilch. Perhaps I am searching wrongly. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete Um. I can confirm he exists, and after contorting (searching under author:"CU Chu" on Gscholar) I can get a single uncited hit - his career was early enough that Gscholar may not have the citations properly indexed. I think this is a case of failing WP:BIO in the classic sense - there simply isn't enough coverage in RS independent of the subject to write a decent article about him. This is a shame, because people with the length and prominence of the career presented in the article today would have enough sourcing and citations and the like to pass WP:PROF, but due to the older era the subject hails from, we don't have enough. If the original author wishes, userfication would be a good idea - eventually, the indexers will work through the digitization of older source materials. Ray^Talk 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, Ray is correct. There are no WP:RS which is what is needed to support the notability of the subject. This is too bad as the subejct is interesting, just needs to be cited. Maybe there is something in print that we do not have access to that can be cited?? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Incubate. As per others, probably a notable person but unfortunately we currently don't have the references to prove this. 1292simon (talk) 12:42, 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) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourway Media[edit]

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

Non-notable web design company, looks like a COI with company founder being a Spencer James and User:Spencerjames1979 as the main contributor. Le Deluge (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found that this firm meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADVERT by User:Spencerjames1979 for the business that he founded at the age of (probably) 20. I would not be surprised if he was not a one man band. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't matter who created it or if there is a COI, what matters is does it read neutral and does it meet WP:GNG. The answer to both is "no," but my !vote for delete comes from the failed notability. There is NOTHING that I can find outside of Facebook (which is not a WP:RS) that would show notability. Probably could have went speedy A7 on this one. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:31, 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) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Ivlev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable fights and poor sourcing. Being a champion in a second-tier organization per WP:MMATIER does not indicate notability. Luchuslu (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as my opinion for Mairbek Taisumov deletion discussion, subject would pass WP:MMANOT, except for the fact that there are no WP:RS. As such, delete is the only thing to do here. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. 1292simon (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No strong assertion to notability, does not meet the criteria for fights at WP:NMMA, and lastly no other WP:SIGCOV to suggest notability above and beyond MMA guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 03:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep M-1 Global Lightweight Championship. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is not the M-1 Global Lightweight Champion; M-1 Global organizes between 100 and 200 events per year, and this fighter won the M-1 Challenge semi-final fight for his team. His teammate Yura Ivlev fought the final round and won the team the lightweight title. He is not the champion, his team won the title which arguably isn't even a championship since it was a season. Mkdw ^talk 22:52, 5 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) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. Dudley[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA with one top tier fight and the article's only sources are to his fight record and his personal social media accounts.Mdtemp (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poor sourcing and not enough notable fights to pass WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is it with all of these MMA articles? Get passed WP:NMMA and look at WP:GNG FIRST! There has to be significant coverage in WP:RS which there are not. What tier they have fought or their overall record doesn't count for anything unless there are WP:RS. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. 1292simon (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(refactored) i am j.a. dudley and am trying to create a mma page on my self i am reading and trying to understand the guidelines to keep my page relevant and up todate reading through the arguments because i have not fought in the ufc i am not eligible? is this correct? i have fought in bellator and have fought ufc veterans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullmetalartimis (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regarding Dudley's comment, there is a list of top tier MMA fight organizations at WP:MMATIER. You have one fight with Bellator but you are required to have 3 top tier fights for notability if only per your fight record. You would need too more. The fact that you have fought UFC fighters, but not in top tier fights, generally makes those fights not meet the policy. Notability is not inherent in that because you fought famous people you are henceforth famous. While a contributing factor, it cannot be the basis for notability because it's likely most people have at one time in their life done something with someone famous. Finally, the most common form of notability is established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. I did not find anything conclusive to suggest you met WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:19, 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 speedy keep. Deletion nomination withdrawn by nominator and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bendy Casimir[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA and all coverage of him is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination--Keep I missed his Shooto fights and would agree he's notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article meets WP:NMMA. He has fought twice for World Extreme Cagefighting and twice for Shooto in Japan, top-tier organizations per WP:MMATIER. Of course, more prose and sources are needed. Poison Whiskey 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Poison Whiskey's rationale. Does need more sourcing. but passes WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 15:47, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Remedios[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG since he has only one top tier fight and the article's only source is a link to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and seems to fail WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, only one notable fight. Luchuslu (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMMA for starters. 1292simon (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a look for references for the cn templates and did not find anything conclusive. Of course it's possible I missed some sources but as it stands now the article does not meet our MMA guideline and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 03:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:18, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Batten (fighter)[edit]

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

This article's source is a link to his fight record (fails WP:GNG) and his record shows no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, no notable fights. Luchuslu (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMMA. 1292simon (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One non-top tier fight and lacks WP:SIGCOV for notability. It seems like this athlete might have a promising career, but it's way too soon. Mkdw ^talk 03:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. NodachiFury (talk) 21:17, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kavanagh (MMA)[edit]

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

He's an MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA. None of the sources show significant independent coverage so he also fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 14:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little to no sourcing to verify notability, no notable fights. Luchuslu (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. 1292simon (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His strongest claim to notability is actually his coach of the year award, but because no other information, whether this was given to him at his gym by his members or some sporting governing body, is not mentioned then it has to be discredited until a reliable source is found. In terms of being a fighter he does not meet WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 03:17, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debdas Acharya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not indicate the notability of the subject and I cannot locate any sources that are WP:RS. All this while ignoring the obvious formatting issues and cleanup needed if there were reliable sources. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly-written crap which seems like an attempt to promote the subject. I wouldn't even expect any disagreement on this one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have performed a small bit of clean-up, including stub sorting, as this article should stay or go based on the notability of the subject, not its formatting. - Dravecky (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the cleanup. I shouldn't speak for others, but I believe MezzoMezzo means "poorly-written crap" to include formatting AND notability. Stating that it is written in an attempt to promote the subject leads me to believe they meant that it is written to make it look notable while it is in fact not notable. Articles definitely should not be deleted based on formatting (trust me, we would have twice as many in AfD if we did). Regardless, thanks for the cleanup. Based on your edits, what is your though on the notability of the article which is the reason why we are here now? Thanks. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Still support deletion. It's unsourced and based on searching, I don't think it's notable at all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Even trying to decipher the intended topic of the article was a struggle! 1292simon (talk) 12:52, 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) 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot (2012 film)[edit]

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

WP:NOTFILM. No sources in article indicating significance. Searching for Reboot "Martin Copping" (first star listed in article) gets zero gnews hits, the ghits are a small handful of self-published reviews, material on the film's official site and sites of those involved, and databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The same person who created this article also recently created several other articles about films with Martin Copping in them, including Rise of the Lonestar Ranger, Forbidden Ground, Victory Blvd, and Sheep Impact; as well as at least one TV series (The Violent Earth). Alphius (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not relevant to this discussion, but it also seems highly questionable that he played "Baby in Hospital" when he was at least 20 years old. Alphius (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and probably delete at least most of the other articles I mentioned as well. After looking around some more, it seems that the majority of the contents of the articles created by this person have been copied directly from IMDB summaries. Alphius (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here is that while indie films aren't expected to have as much coverage as the big Hollywood movies, they do have to have at least some coverage. I found a review and an interview, but most of what else is out there tends to be of the non-usable blog type. There's a picture of a brief bit in SFX magazine on the movie's Tumblr page and I do see where Geeks of Doom reviewed the film, but I don't really see either as entirely usable as a RS at this point in time. I'd like to find some mention of the SFX bit on a non-primary source (ideally the SFX website) but am unable to find anything and I'm not really sure that Geeks of Doom is usable as a RS. If someone can verify that both can be used somehow then this might be enough, but until that comes I'll have to vote delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I've done some cleaning and correcting on the main article for Clopping and there is a serious issue of notability for the actor and many of the films created that he starred in. While I can't automatically state how notable or non-notable all of the film articles are, I did notice that at least one of them (Elegy for a Revolutionary) doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines for films, giving me the impression that this might be a walled garden for Clopping. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are interviews at TekGabber and ScreamingByte. While the content is good, I am not sure if they can be considered reliable sources to help establish notability. I think that the SFX source identified by Tokyogirl79 is reliable and a point in favor of the film's notability, but it would help to find similar such sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Find sources:

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

Question: How many reviews in genre sources reflect a cult following or cult notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the key drawback of these reviews is that they do not have a real publisher. As for the "Context matters" caveat, I do not think it operates on that kind of sliding scale. It seems most applicable for specialized topics like history and the sciences. I do not think we would consider these reviews reliable to use if it was a clearly notable film that already had some mainstream reviews. The absence of these mainstream reviews here does not mean to me that these other reviews are suddenly able to step up. It is a bit of a tough call because we can see people talking about these kinds of movies, but that's also the case with a lot of other media, may it be certain books or YouTube videos. It is media that gets reputable attention that crosses the threshold to have an article on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a quantity of reviews situation as much as a sourcing of reviews. Certainly, there are cult film sources that achieve sufficient import in their field that they can be credible indicators of notability (Video Watchdog, for example, or perhaps the late Psychotronic Video, although that had problems as an WP:SPS.) I don't have time at the moment to dig through those and figure out if those are just unread blogs or if some of the carrying enough respect to confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability; there is not sufficient coverage from reliable sources for this film. It is clear that this film has been covered in amateur circles, but besides the brief interview in SFX, I am not seeing coverage that puts it across the threshold of notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 7 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) 17:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:NOT. Dea db eef 19:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't see, really, what part of WP:NOT this falls afoul of. I can only see potential issues with WP:NOT#DICT and WP:DISCRIMINATE, and given that the article goes beyond the level of a simple definition and establishes notability for the subject (with two notable sources quoted directly in the body of the article), I don't think that it has particular problems with either. It needs some clean-up to fit the style of the wiki, but other than that, I think that this is a legitimately encyclopedic (if odd) topic and an attempt to tackle it. Article was also rescued after a previous AfD, with the Deletion Review Log here. Reasons given there are pretty good for maintaining the article on this wiki. Chri$topher 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, relatively notorious linguistic phenomenon with a documented history, proper fare for an encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Wiktionary, then redirect to Nuclear as useful redirect. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Wiktionary, then redirect to Nuclear as suggested by Beagel. Although the misspelling Nucular has been used in multiple non-primary reliable sources, does the subject of the misspelling of Nuclear, and its use, received significant coverage? That is more debatable. As a compromise a movement of the content to the Wiktionary appears to be a good solution, with a redirect to the correct spelling with a Template:R from misspelling tag would be appropriate, as the majority of the content actually talks about content which is within the scope of the Nuclear article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a misspelling, but a mispronunciation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be enough coverage to establish notability by the standard usually applied on Wikipedia, and the content presented here is an exploration of the possible origin of the term and of its prevalence in society rather than a definition, so a Wiktionary move wouldn't be appropriate. Chri$topher 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surely this qualifies, doesn't it?Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No argument for non-notability has been made to date. The dictionary comments cited are sufficient evidence of notability. (They are "reliable" "sources", "independent of the subject", providing "significant coverage". [The same goes for the Slate article.]) Note that each such comment goes beyond the usual dictionary entry in that it discusses pronunciation, not spelling, and does so at some length. The article does so at even greater length and depth and thus does not belong in Wiktionary. Frappyjohn (talk) 18:44, 5 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom (me) (non-admin closure) —me_and 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allan and the Ice-gods[edit]

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG —me_and 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I wasn't expecting to find anything, given the time period it was released in, but I did manage to find two brief reviews and two mentions of the book in scholarly texts. One of the two authors even mentioned the work twice in two different books/essays she'd written about evolution and eugenics. This isn't much and I'm not opposed to this information being merged into the larger article on Allan Quartermain if someone were to find a way to do so. This does, however, give us just enough to where it could warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~, now sources have been added by Tokyogirl79 (thanks!). I still think it's borderline (hence not withdrawing the nom), but it looks like there's useful information to impart, and I can't see an obvious way to merge it into Allan Quartermain or H. Rider Haggard. —me_and 10:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given Deor's comments as well, I'll withdraw my nom. —me_and 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly meets criterion 1 of WP:BKCRIT (I have several books on my shelves that include substantial discussion of this novel; there's a whole world apart from what's online) and arguably meets criterion 5 as well: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Deor (talk) 14:46, 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. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjib Pramanik[edit]

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

fails WP:AUTHOR Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 19:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forget WP:AUTHOR, it could never make it that far as it fails WP:GNG in the first place. A blog and passing mentions that do not support the content do not a Wikipedia article make. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While we're also at it, we can throw in WP:Notability (people) as grounds for deletion as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:06, 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 withdrawn. —me_and 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Jaiswal[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; only sources I could find are akin to the only one in the article, ie summary statistics and nothing else. —me_and 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Meets WP:NFOOTY having made five appearances in the fully-professional I-League. Dricherby (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it does. Withdrawing now… —me_and 19:54, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 18:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Millennium Deck[edit]

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

Non-notable commercial item, online search reveals no relevant items (aside from Wikipedia entry itself), text reads partially like promotion copy --Craw-daddy | T | 17:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMADEUP. It's not just that this is non-notable: only one other website on the entire planet mentions it. Even the wikipedia mirrors haven't picked up this article. Dricherby (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above---Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's essential an advertisement for somebodies idea. There's no notability at all to speak of. Ducknish (talk) 21:24, 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) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Ng[edit]

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

WP:Vanispamcruftisement with no indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions and quotes. Speedy deletion for spam declined by admin. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:02, 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, czar · · 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable WP:BIO. Dea db eef 20:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanispamcruftisement indeed. 1292simon (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this one passes the general notability guideline. News sources from numerous countries and secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfflictedNow (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — AfflictedNow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you explain how you think it passes WP:GNG please? 1292simon (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete On the surface, it seems possible this person is notable, but I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person by reliable sources. Transcendence (talk) 20:08, 6 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 deleted by admin Peridon (G8) and the redirect target, Partido Laban Navotas, was deleted as the creation of a banned user by admin INeverCry. On that basis, I'm non-admin closing this AFD. Stalwart111 06:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party (Navotas)[edit]

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

There is no Liberal Party of Navotas (as the article implies); there is a Liberal Party in Navotas though. This means the Liberal Party in Navotas doesn't have any juridical entity. Since the Philippines is a unitary state it makes no sense to create municipal (or even provincial) "chapters" of national parties. –H T D 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there is any useful content that could be taken to the general Liberal Party article. Otherwise, delete, since the Liberal Party in Navotas isn't a unique local chapter. Chri$topher 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only salvageable part of the article is its list of leaders in the infobox but the Liberal Party article doesn't list each and every leadership info on every city and province so there's nothing to merge it with. The supposed foundation of the Liberal Party of Navotas in 2013 is not found on the cited webpage nor it is accurate: there had to be a Liberal Party in Navotas as early as the late 1940s when the Philippines was in a supposed two-party system. –H T D 03:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liberal Party (Philippines) per WP:BRANCH. Subject of this AfD has received several mention in non-primary reliable sources, however none of these mentions give the subject significant coverage, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, most of those mentions are local to the subject of this AfD and thus does not meet the requirements set forth in BRANCH for the subject to have an independent article from its parent organization. Therefore, a redirect to the parent organization should be the chosen outcome.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name, Now Closed[edit]

It is now clean, It is a local affilliate of Liberal and Called Partido Laban Navotas. -Angelo1345 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this is not how it works. You can't close discussions. In this case, this would now be like "Team Lani Cayetano", the Nacionalista Party slate, in Taguig is, which is quite different to the Tinga slate there which is actually a local party recognized by the Commission on Elections and actually has a juridical personality. No one has come up with anything saying that the Liberal Party in Navotas or "Partido Laban Navotas" has a juridical personality. –H T D 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus the references of the article don't mention a "rename". The mediangbayan.ph website uses the COMELEC mirror saying that the slate is under the Liberal Party. –H T D 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed[edit]

It is called Partido Laban Navotas in our place. and in our sample ballot (PLP). -NavotenoAngelo (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't use level 2 headings. Use level 3 if you want to.

Second, that really has nothing to do with anything. In Taguig as stated above, sample ballots show "Team Lani Cayetano". In Cebu, the Liberal slate is called "Team Rama". Partido Laban Navotas, Team Lani Cayetano and Team Rama have no juridical personality are considered "chapters" of the LP (for the 1st and 3rd) and the NP (the 2nd), as stated in the official ballots. –H T D 09:01, 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) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Teen Camp[edit]

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

Article is about a summer camp with no established notability under WP:N nor under criteria WP:ORG. The article exists primarily as an advert to promote the summer camp. The majority of the sources used are primary sources; the only secondary sources are an online obituary for a prior owner, a multi-camp directory listing, and the remaining references support that Zack Weinstein was a counselor at the camp, but only mentions the camp in passing as the articles are about Zack. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations from secondary sources, hopefully showing its status as noteworthy.Binky3000 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones would those be? Eeekster (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all primary sources, leaving only secondary sources.Binky3000 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the primary sources were removed; but the new sources are only a personal wedding blog, a dog-travel news story with a trivial mention, and a news story about the "Curtain Bluff Hotel Tennis Academy for youngsters" with a mention that six players will be attending Maine Teen Camp. None of these are providing the significant depth coverage needed to meet Wikipedias notability guidelines linked in the AfD nomination above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — doesn't appear to be notable and as written leans too far to the promotional side. Eeekster (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I have edited the article to remove promotional leanings. The article is just as notable as any of the other camps in the Summer camps in the U.S. state of Maine category and has been rejected for an AfD nomination on a previous occasion. Binky3000 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Other Stuff Exists is not a generally accepted argument for keeping (or deleting). What matters is if the article meets the notability criteria defined within Wikipedia for organizations at WP:ORG (or the general notability guideline at WP:N). Also, I cannot locate anywhere that a prior AfD existed for Maine Teen Camp - can you provide a link as you seem to believe the article survived a prior AfD? While a prior AfD would not result in this one being closed, it would be a good reference for those commenting here to have full visibility to any prior discussions and reasonings on both sides. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the article has the text "The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Maine Teen Camp" with "page=Maine Teen Camp (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination." Leading me to believe it was submitted on a previous occasion. Would you be able to tell me what exactly you are looking for in regards to WP:N)?

I feel like it's inclusion on the ACA website, the national accreditation site for American Summer Camps, makes it notable as a camp. According to the Other Stuff Exists there is a precedent set for the inclusion of all high school on Wikipedia under the good faith they are all notable. Could the same not be said of Summer Camps, as they are both educational facilities?Binky3000 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It's just confusion from the timing. I saved the creation of this page prior to saving the addition of the AfD tag on the article, so that's why it saw this page already existed - so no prior AfD.

For the notability guideline, details of how to establish an organization as notable can be found in the section WP:ORG#Primary criteria, while details for meeting the general guideline can be found at WP:N#General notability guideline. In both cases, at a basic level, they require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For clarification on what qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia, see WP:RS#Overview.

Regarding high schools, that's a very specific and targeted exemption (which occasionally gets disputed itself, but has thus far held), it is not applied to all schools - for example, schools below high school do not receive that same exemption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation nameing Maine Teen Camp one of "The Best Camps" by Boston Magazine.^[1] Although the article is about other camps also, there is a section specifically about Maine Teen Camp and the details of it's summer sessions which I believe coincides with the guidelines on notability.Binky3000 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable topic. If notability was established, it would still be in desperate need of rewrite for encyclopedic tone and trimming of the indiscriminate trivia. These aren't criticisms of the camp, just a comparison between the article and wikipedia's policies.1292simon (talk) 13:05, 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. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Gay[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 on the grounds that she has signed but not played for a fully pro club, which is explicitly excluded as a source notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the the deletion of Adelaide Gay, several teams have players on rosters who have not yet played in the new league, or have professional experience being fresh out of college. If they are signed players i would imagine that they should be allowed that opportunity to be known regardless of playing time. When current Portland Thorns FC keeper Karina Leblanc is away on National team duties i imagine Gay to be the keeper that is played in a game. KTthePEREZident

I don't know why you're coming on Wikipedia to speculate whether or not Gay will make her debut soon. The fact is we don't know that yet. Right now is what matters. As for the near future, at least two things could happen. One would be that she does make her debut, which would make her notable. The other would be that she suffers a season ending injury in training before having any chance of making her debut. WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's listed as #23 on the Portland Thorns roster, so it is completely appropriate to have a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.54.150 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's absolute rubbish. – Michael (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN and SB Nation don't seem to think it's rubbish. See also: [1], [2], [3] Hmlarson (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. What I meant was just being listed as #23 on the roster doesn't count as notable. – Michael (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Possibly being notable in the future is no reason to keep. Giant Snowman 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and GiantSnowman. – Michael (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Articles could use expansion and additional citations. Players are on rosters of highest level division of women's soccer in the United States. Clearly meets guidelines provided by WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated having signed but not played for a fully pro club is explicitly excluded as a sources of notability, and the sources listed on these articles are nothing more than routine sports journalism which do not constitute significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all until the nominator as demonstrated they complied with WP:BEFORE. That is a requirement of the deletion process, and there is no evidence the nominator did such a task. Instead, it appears the sole nomination criteria was that it "fails" NSPORT and thus must be deleted, which is simply incorrect. Per NSPORT: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." As in, failing NSPORT just means you don't get the basically free ride and instead have to meet the GNG. These athletes may or may not, but the deletion policy requires the nominator to check first. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly do not meet NSPORT nor GNG so BEFORE has been met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, nope, don't see anywhere in the deletion policy anything about if the topic doesn't meet those two "guidelines" that BEFORE has been met. In fact, it is really the opposite, as I see "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and I'm pretty sure notability is the main concern here. As in, unless you actually search for sources, you do not know if the topic meets the GNG. Remember, BEFORE is part of the Deletion Policy, and as such, needs to followed. That's why I personally do not take too many articles to AfD, as I don't have the time to do the required "basic due diligence before nominating". Aboutmovies (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement not deletion.

"C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." --SirEdimon (talk) 18:27, 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, czar · · 17:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom; no significant media coverage and no debut in a fully pro league Recreate when at least one of those requirements are met. – Kosm1 fent 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Players do not meet football/sports notability nor do they appear to meet general notability guidelines. Clear cases of WP:TOOSOON. If an editor believes that these players will become notable and doesn't want to have this work deleted, perhaps that editor could step forward and request that the articles be moved to their user space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adelaide Gay who just nudges GNG based on the sources supplied by Hmlarson (talk). I'd procedural keep the others per Aboutmovies (talk), with no prejudice to relisting each in turn if Sir Sputnik (talk) carries out WP:BEFORE. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of May 4, 2013, the following players have also played in a fully professional league per WP:NFOOTY: Meleana Shim [4] and Mariah Nogueira [5] Hmlarson (talk) 17:02, 5 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 · · 21:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sailendra Nath Roy[edit]

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

Non notable man known just for one suicidal event. damiens.rf 17:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user appreciates this article -- since hearing of this man's death I wanted to learn more about how he used his hair in feats of strength (and danger). If this wikipedia article ceases to exist then I will find it difficult to find other reference (primary sources) to this information. 24.168.45.239 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" The topic of the article has received international media coverage.--Racklever (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, Keep" Sailendra Nath Roy have registered his name in the Guinness Book of World Records. So please keep this article.--The Shaan (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. This is a bizarre subject but I'm seeing coverage which does scrape by WP:Notability (people) by a hair. No pun intended because the man died, but I can't think of any other expression to use. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prone to keep This one is difficult. It may seem he was covered just for one event, but before that he was in Guineas records. He may just meet notability criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, world record holder, even if in a bizarre disciple. Widespread, international coverage. Not a BLP1E: he is not what we define as a low profile individual. Cavarrone (talk) 05:53, 5 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. If someone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington City Schools Distinguished Alumni[edit]

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

This article , copied (with ORTS permission from the web site), partly duplicates the list of notable alumni in the individual schools and the WP articles on them for those people who have WP articles (or are obviously qualified for one), and is inappropriate content for the ones who would not meet our standards of notability (which is about half of them).

In both cases some of the content included here is promotional or puffery or unsourced judgements of value, or otherwise what we would not include the ones that do have WP need checking whether it's included there., The few we don't have that we should , such as T. Harding and J McConnell, I will start if I can find 3rd party sources other than the high school site, DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly doubtful that this award is notable, as it was only given for three years and any coverage is going to be purely local (Worthington is one of many suburbs of Columbus, Ohio, so its school district is not even the largest or most prominent in its metro area). At best this is something to note in the recipients' articles (if they have one) and in the alumni lists of the two Worthington high schools. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge - The title of the article would imply that it's about an award but for the most part, it's about the people whom have received the award. The award itself does not seem to be notable on its own which is why I !vote delete. Some of the people listed do appear to be notable and warrant their own articles. The rest don't appear to be notable. The merge portion of my !vote comes from my belief that the information about notable people should be merged into their already-existing article or into a new article about that person. I considered assessing the notability of each person listed the article, in this AfD, but I don't feel that it would be productive to water down this discussion into arguments about the 22 subjects in this article. I would like to know if someone plans on creating articles for the notable people who don't already have articles. It would be a waste to lose everything but I'm not sure that Jenibynes, the article's author, is willing to create those individual articles and I won't ask anyone to do that work before this AfD ends. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at them in sequence as listed, McConnell is certainly notable,as CEO of a major company. Bonnell is not notable, unless there is more to his career than stated; Foster & Snouffer are not notable. Wick isn't unless the award is actually major. George Harding might be notable, depending on publications; H, Harding probably not. Fields not. Dambach probably not, unless his organization is more notable that it seemed to be. Kessler maybe--journalists are hard to tell; Ball probably not, Fagerstrom definitely not; Sawyer, Knight, both maybe; Stanley, maybe--despite what this article says, he did not actually play for the Dolphina,. This articles covers only a few years--there are undoubtedly notable graduates before and after, but a/c its website, the list is no longer being added to. If deleted, all the info is on the web site from which this article was copied, except the added references, most of which are live and usable--which I will email to anyone who wants to work on any of them and needs them. As I said, I will myself do a stub on Bonnel, & possiblu G Harding. s on the ones I'm sure of. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 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. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrong Guys for the Job[edit]

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

spam from Voidz. non notable web series, awards are not major, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of pr and non reliable sources. nothing independent or substantial. prod removed by new SPA without real improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. article updated with more substantial references including reviews of series, interviews with creators, and articles written about the series from reliable sources. Series is notable in web series world and most of the references should now be independent and reliable 66.9.12.194 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage of this comedy series. — Cirt (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE WP:PROMO/WP:SPAM/WP:SOCK tainted article with possible WP:COI. PeterWesco (talk) 02:51, 28 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, czar · · 16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete brand-new web video show with only 4 episodes, no notability yet. Article is also created by a known spammer. May be possible to re-create if it becomes notable later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time, I could not find RS covering this show. Transcendence (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against another article on the same topic being allowed in after a review. I would be "on the fence" but I think this particular version is "tainted" by the very real possibility that this was not contributed in good faith. I say this based on the primary editor's recent block for promotional editing and apparent sockpuppetry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:00, 7 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) 01:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seelan Gunaseelan[edit]

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

English actor who has played minor television/film roles. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The only sources provided are IMDB or self promotional. Funny ^Pika! 16:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete 3rd party comment, not self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a very minor bit-part player. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. (Not also that the article text has a WP:COPYVIO issue as it is a duplicate of the subject's IMDb biography. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 5 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standing up to gendered violence[edit]

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

Contested deletion. WP:ESSAY. We already have Violence against women Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 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 redirect to Toronto Catholic District School Board. J04n(talk page) 01:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Albert Catholic School[edit]

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

unnotable primary school. Half the article is about "St Albert the Great", the rest is just blah. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the only option (process of getting photos), otherwise merge it with Bendale.FreshCorp619 (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the consensus is that most primary schools are NN. It could be merged into an article on the governing board. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to the neighbourhood article would do as well. The main point is that the article should not be retained except as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect -- Instead Peterkingiron, the primary schools could be merged into the Toronto neighborhoods rather than the board. If it's not settled, this artice and St. Rose of Lima Catholic School (Toronto) - belongs into the Bendale Article. Both schools are in the neighborhood. FreshCorp619 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unless the promotional content is removed, deletion is called for. Deb (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Deletion is not clean up. We don't delete whole pages just to get a couple of paragraphs of spammy text removed. If you want promotional material removed, then you just click the 'edit' button and start re-wording or removing spammy-looking sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto Catholic District School Board, per standard practice in Canada for non-notable schools. PK T(alk) 14:59, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Sahai[edit]

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

Nomination made on behalf of subject. (VRTS ticket # 2013042810004046) L Faraone 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. Multiple awards. In addition, there is the fact that the subject has plagiarized in her habilitation thesis. This is sourced to a reliable source (Labjournal is a well-respected German magazine covering the life sciences) and confirmed by a statement from the University of Heidelberg itself. Although not yet mentioned in the article, the subject has also frequently been interviewed on German radio and television, in newspapers in India and Germany, and Indian TV stations. There have been repeated attempts recently to remove the information about the plagiarism from the article, but as far as I can see, the information presented is not a BLP violation (in fact, the article in Laborjournal is much more negatively-worded than our article). As Laborjournal writes, the subject is unremarkable as a scientist and would never pass WP:ACADEMIC. However, this is a clear pass of WP:BIO and unfortunately for Dr. Sahai, we cannot only present positive information, nor should we delete biographies of obviously notable persons just because they don't like what we write about them. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Randy gets this one right on the nose, a clear pass of WP:BIO, and there are many sources available that are not being used (so one should not judge solely by what is currently on the article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People who pass the GNG because of plagiarism or other scientific misconduct are still notable, even if they otherwise would not have been. The article in this case is from a RS, and discusses the subject's misconduct in depth and at length, as well as the significance of the plagiarism in the context of her relatively prominent role otherwise. Subject may well have passed WP:BIO without this controversy, this simply guarantees it. Ray^Talk 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above. I would also suggest that the subject read WP:PROUD to help understand some fundamental concepts that Wikipedia uses in writing about people; we're not here to whitewash, we're here to document. Dea db eef 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from anything else the Padma Shri gets the subject through WP:ANYBIO. That is a highly selective award that has been given to only 2577 people in 60 years in a country with a current population of over a billion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even without going deeper into the specific notability guidelines for different kinds of articles, I think this one passes the general notability guideline. Respectfully to the subject, I just don't see how this can not be considered notable and the subject's objections aren't a basis for deletion as far as this editor knows. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability exists, so the question here seems to be over the negative content in the article. The content is presented in a fair and factual way, and I see no problem with maintaining it, and with it, the article itself. Ducknish (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is snowing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been pondering over this for some time. From the above keep !votes, it is clear that there is no question about the notability of the subject. I understand that if the article is to be kept, it has to be written in a balanced way highlighting both positive and negative information. But, let me ask a question to the fellow editors: Who are we to propagate negative information about a living individual? True, the adverse information is already available somewhere in the net, in this case one of the issues of the 'Laborjournal' and Wikipedia is merely stating whatever the journal says. The problem here is that once the information is available in Wikipedia it becomes highly visible in the net, thanks to Google. I feel that the Wikipedia should not be a party to enhance the visibility of adverse information of a living individual, especially when the subject object to it. We may be able to justify it, to some extent, if the such information is taken from higly visible newspapers. Salih (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your reasoning, but I think that it doesn't apply here. To start with, even without the plagiarism case, the subject is plenty notable. For this, the Padma Shri alone suffices, but there are also numerous TV appearances in Germany, etc. Given that, I think that deletion is just out of the question. And once the article is kept, it is not up to us to decide that we won't mention negative information sourced to a well-respected German magazine. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware that the subject is notable even without the plagiarism issue. You say, once the article is kept, it is not up to us to decide that we won't mention negative information sourced to a well-respected German magazine.. True, I fully agree with it. But, I am against keeping this particular article which can do more harm to a living individual. Salih (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, read WP:PROUD. We're not here to list only the warm and fuzzies about article subjects. We're here to build an encyclopedia. That means reporting the positive and the negative, in proportion to their volume. The procedure for negative information on living people, especially relatively unknown people, is to keep only the information that is well-sourced and relevant, and even then to not belabor it (see WP:NPF). As far as I can tell, everything from NPF and WP:AVOIDVICTIM has been followed. We're not here to do harm to the subject, but we're not here to protect her, either. The best way for her to have avoided the plagiarism section would have been to not commit it. But she did, it's notable, relevant, and well sourced, so it will be kept. Dea db eef 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding WP:PROUD is not applicable here as it is an essay primarily aimed at the people who want to create their own biographical article in Wikipedia. Here this is not the case. Salih (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't refer to that article so much as to address this specific issue; it is primarily aimed at those who want their own article written and/or write it themselves. I referred to it for the fundamental principles of Wikipedia it lays out concerning neutrality and our mission not to whitewash. However, I am very confused by your continued insistence on trying to defend the subject of the article (speaking to your other new comment, below, now). I count three sentences in the "Controversy" section. All three of them are well sourced, completely neutral, and completely unspeculative. There is no "judgement" being handed down on the article's part. If she had her "reasons and defense", it would be included in the article. We're also here with the goal of being "fair", as you questioned, but not to skip over unsightly parts. Fair is, after all, fair. I fail to see why, by your logic, you think Wikipedia as a whole should never include anything that might be harmful to or be negative of a person, and perhaps abolish the "controversy" section altogether. That would completely upend the WP:NPOV point of Wikipedia. Dea db eef 05:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it clear, I came to know about this person only through this AfD and I have no intention to defend this particular individual. It seems you haven't got my points. There is no doubt that if the article is to be kept, both positive and negative information should be provided so that it doesn't violate WP:NPOV. I say delete this article for the following reasons: (a) The subject of the article has requested for the deletion of this article, probably because she may not want to get publicized the controversy. (b) It it not fair on the part of Wikipedia to publish negative material, which otherwise, in this case, would have been limited to a life science journal in German language. However, I am not suggesting to abolish the "controversy" section altogether. My point is that if negative materials are already available in highly visible and reliable sources, such as widely circulated newspapers, a section on controversy may be appropriate in a BLP article. I strongly feel that Wikipedia should not have any role in greatly enhancing the visibility of negative materials related to a living individual, especially when the subject of the article object to it. Salih (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laborjournal is distributed to tens of thousands of life scientists in Germany. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to English Wikipedia its readership is only a small fraction. Salih (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but compared to enWP any journal/newspaper has a small readership. The information is available, we are not censors. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the right to propagate the negative information of living people either. Salih (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get your point. Are you proposing that any negative information not published in The Washington Post should be removed from BLPs? Or only negative information published in English should be included? How is that compatibel with NPOV? --Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply to Deadbeef. You will get the answer to these questions. Salih (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this person went around claiming to be/have been a professor at Heidelberg University, although she never was one. And as the article in Laborjournal documents (and this is not even mentioned in our article), she liked to flaunt her awards, suggesting they were much more than they actually are. This strikes me as someone who enjoyed attention, except suddenly when some skeleton came out of the closet. Search on Google for recent mentions of this person online. She still very much seeks the spotlight (but now, of course, avoiding any mention of her "professorship" and this plagiarism case). Somehow this all makes it difficult for me to feel much pity with her... --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to judge the person. She may or may not have her reasons and defense for the plagiarism case. We do not know. If I am correct, all the negative commentary about the subject appeared in German language. Now, here we have a situation in which Wikipedia has translated all those negative information into English language and increase the visibility thousand folds. Is it fair on our part? Will it be a violation of BLP. That's my fundamental worry. Salih (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to judge the person. That means providing a neutral article, i.e. providing the bad with the good. She is known for her academic work, and if that work includes plagiarism, then that needs to be reported. Plagiarism is one of the worst sins for academics. If we don't include negative aspects, then we might as well give up writing an encyclopedia.Martin451 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the repercussions (the adverse effects on the individual in this case) I have mentioned if such an article is kept. Salih (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an obligation to be neutral. That includes propagating the negative with the positive. If wikipedia does not keep negative information along with positive, then it becomes worthless. The negative effects on this individual could large as it will affect her reputation, but that reputation is built on her academic work, and if she has plagiarised and lied, then her academic work is worthless. The negative effects on this individual are entirely of her own doing, and it is not wikipedia's place to protect her.Martin451 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The plagiarism case is too recent to have the long-term attention needed to pass WP:PERP, so I don't think she's notable for that, but the Padma Shri is enough. And, while not the basis for notability, the plagiarism case should certainly be kept in the article; it is well sourced and not mentioning it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per randykitty. It would be a bad precedent if we started deleting BLPs because they contain negative information on the subject. This negative information is entirely of her own doing, and effects what her entire reputation is based upon.Martin451 (talk) 20:04, 6 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 · · 21:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Campaign[edit]

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

Nomination made on behalf of Suman Sahai (VRTS ticket # 2013042810004046) L Faraone 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organisation does not establish notability based on its one-line description and passing mention in a RS. L Faraone 15:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking on the "news" link above renders dozens of sources. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nom does not appear to have complied with WP:BEFORE, which would have obviated the need for this AfD on a clearly notable organization. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because, as far as I know, requests on part of the subject of the article or in this case the inventor or theorist behind the subject aren't a basis for deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:00, 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) 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1978 Nashville Sounds season[edit]

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

Also included:

1979 Nashville Sounds season
1980 Nashville Sounds season
1981 Nashville Sounds season
1982 Nashville Sounds season
1983 Nashville Sounds season
1984 Nashville Sounds season
1985 Nashville Sounds season
1986 Nashville Sounds season
1987 Nashville Sounds season
1988 Nashville Sounds season
1989 Nashville Sounds season
1990 Nashville Sounds season
1991 Nashville Sounds season
1992 Nashville Sounds season
1993 Nashville Sounds season
1994 Nashville Sounds season
1995 Nashville Sounds season
1996 Nashville Sounds season
1997 Nashville Sounds season
1998 Nashville Sounds season
1999 Nashville Sounds season
2000 Nashville Sounds season
2001 Nashville Sounds season
2002 Nashville Sounds season
2003 Nashville Sounds season
2004 Nashville Sounds season
2005 Nashville Sounds season
2006 Nashville Sounds season
2007 Nashville Sounds season
2008 Nashville Sounds season
2010 Nashville Sounds season
2011 Nashville Sounds season
2012 Nashville Sounds season

Minor League Baseball seasons fail notability guidelines. They have been deleted in the past. Here[6] and here[7]. Other AAA seasons were deleted per this AFD[8] and 2009 Nashville Sounds season was prodded.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC) ...William 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I didn't realize there were more of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:ROUTINE. Dea db eef 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable minor league baseball seasons per WP:ROUTINE and failure to satisfy general notability standards with sufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all.. I thought we got rid of all these last time, these still arent notable. Spanneraol (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them, per previous consensus. Ducknish (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, due to previous consensus. No debate here. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 19:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nashville Sounds p b p 15:41, 5 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. Dea db eef 03:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012-13 Evansville IceMen season[edit]

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

Unnecessary duplication of content from Evansville IceMen. In fact, it is presently a copyvio as an unattributed copy-paste of one paragraph from the main article. Probably a tit-for-tat creation in response to this AFD. In general, we have avoided creation of unmaintained team season articles below the NHL level. Reso lute 14:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copy-vio. Either way should be deleted as its standard to not create season pages for teams below the NHL level. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reso lute 16:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (Action taken) Nominated the page for CSD A10. Dea db eef 20:58, 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 · · 14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan Thiruchelvam[edit]

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

He was a prodigy once, but not anymore. Shame. Do prodigies even get included just because they're good for their age? One reference to article from 11 years ago. Mendoza2909 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we need a moratorium on sarcastic AfDs on UK chess players while OGBraniff/Wikibrah is still active, and Mendoza2909, normally editors build up a history of contributing to articles instead of, as brand new users, throwing themselves straight into deleting them. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am concerned that matter is closed. Please can you provide a more cogent reason for keeping this article. No AfD is under discussion but this one. If you believe that this AfD is just a waste of time then I'm sure there will be consequences for me. Thanks. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He did well briefly, presumably as an amateur, but no longer plays. Surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, fails GNG. This man is no "Mr. Belvedere." Brocktoon Belvedere (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Brocktoon Belvedere has been blocked indefinitely. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid debate to be had while there are obvious socks of banned editor involved. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the chess WikiProject has been trolled by socks or gangs (aka "meatpuppets") since we deleted the Chess.com article. Anyway, regarding the subject of this article, I found this article from the Birmingham Evening Mail that appears to be largely about Mr. Thiruchelvam, and combined with the ChessBase reference, GNG does seem to be met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree, using a comment from DGG in the Peter Lalic debate 'we have normally been very reluctant to accept notability on the basis of being a prodigy-- at having attained a respectable level but not one which would have qualified an adult for an article...It would be a significant change in our interpretation of notability in many areas, and I am pretty sure there would not be consensus at this time to broaden it to that extent'[9]. If we are to follow this thinking (but you may disagree!), then this player has reached a respectable level, but has not reached FM standard (2300), which should be an absolutely minimum standard for notability for modern chess players. There are a lot of socks, but to be fair that doesn't necessarily mean an article is not a good candidate for deletion. Mendoza2909 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not quote selectively from my comment. I also said about youth notability "I could probably make a good case for doing otherwise, and accepting such notability, and similarly with youth awards and youth competitions of all sorts, and in fact I tried doing so when I came here 6 years ago. I didn't get anywhere then, and I doubt I would get anywhere now" I therefore gave a comment only at that AfD, not a delete--but certainly not a keep either. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 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, J04n(talk page) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no policy-based argument for deletion made by the nom, whom is almost certainly a sock of an indeffed user anyway. One of the previous Delete voters was also indeffed as a sock. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason for an AfD was provided by the nominator and the article could be easily improved. Julius Caesar was an Consul-prodigy once, but no more nowadays. Shame. Do Consuls even get included in Wikipedia just because they were good for their age? Few reference to proses from 2000 years ago!, sorry for the gratuitous sarcasm, but now you can clearly see the fallacies of the nominator's logic. Toffanin (talk) 18:04, 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) 02:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon Chip![edit]

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

This fanzine is for a club that no longer exists. Of the six references, only two mention this magazine and they are very insignificant mentions at that. All in all, this fanzine fails to reach noteworthy status other than being "the longest running Scarborough fanzine" which doesn't amount to much outside of local interest. v/r - T P 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - difficult one, but I tend to agree that notability has not been demonstrated.Deb (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scarborough Athletic F.C.; not independently notable but a possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Very short-lived as a publication for the Scarborough F.C., which was a League side 1987-99 only; then continued irregularly for the barely notable Scarborough Athletic F.C., claiming to be its successor. This was all after the club ceased to be a League club. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Walczak[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not received enough significant coverage in any other aspect. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SurvivorFanHH (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)— SurvivorFanHH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, considering the 2010 news article which is quite comprehensive. There's also this 2012 article in the Boston Globe. There may be other coverage, considering this is not a local council election, rather it is an election for mayor of a major city and Walczak obviously has some importance in the area. Okay, we all know this article needs to avoid becoming a platform for his current election campaign, but I think the non-political coverage creeps him over the WP:GNG threshold. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that he's not notable as a politician, but he does meet notability in other areas. HillbillyGoat (talk) 01:38, 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, J04n(talk page) 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve fails WP:POLITICIAN but meets WP:BIO with extensive coverage in multiple secondary WP:RS online. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:42, 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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arco Progresista[edit]

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

Entirely to promote party - created by single use account, no other contributions, deletes tags. Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article about an alliance between three social-democratic opposition groups in Cuba. Coverage of opposition political developments in one-party states is an exceptionally important part of Wikipedia's mission. My comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Arco Progresista (Social-Democratic) Party apply here as well. See also WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am less certain about this article than I am about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Arco Progresista (Social-Democratic) Party, but WP:NONPROFIT should offer guidance. If this is verifiable in multiple sources, and exists as an "organization" (as opposed to, say, the 3 groups getting together one-time), then it should be kept. --Lquilter (talk) 15:08, 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) 13:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: relisting to give time to see whether more sources can be found. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 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. Despite impassioned opinions to keep this page the policy-based arguments are firmly in favor of deletion. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda DeLibero[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- mostly per WP:PROF#C7 -- subject is treated as an expert about films and film studies in many significant film fora. In addition she holds the top academic position in a significant program at a top institution -- that in itself is not enough to satisfy WP:PROF, but with the C7 support, I believe it does pass the Average Professor Test with room to spare. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see evidence of meeting WP:PROF#C7. reddogsix (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- for reasons above; she holds the top academic position in a significant program at a top institution. Much of her work is archived in ways that does not lend itself for internet searching but she has published film reviews and commentaries for 15 years. http://www.unz.org/Author/DeLiberoLinda DeLibero, Linda. "< i> English Filming, English Writing(review)." The Hopkins Review 4.1 (2011): 138-141.Critic11 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: Subject's Education background verified here. And here is a partial list of Newsday film reviews and articles going back to the 1990s.

IDEAS / "Summer Movies Come Steeped in Contempt": [ALL EDITIONS]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is the film critic for the biweekly magazine In These Times.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 29 June 1997: G.06.

IDEAS / "Great Explosions AND Small Expectations:" [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero teaches writing at Johns Hopkins University and is a regular movie critic for In These Times magazine.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 21 July 1996: A.38.

CULTURE WATCH / "Summer Movies Are Locked in the Comfort Zone": [ALL EDITIONS]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a freelance writer based in Baltimore.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 19 July 1998: B06.

LETTER FROM BALTIMORE / "Of Sporting Morality Plays and Urban Decay:" [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a freelance writer based in Baltimore.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 13 Oct 1996: A.54.

IDEAS / "Epidemic of Irony: A Cold View of the World "/ `To place the action of ``Primary Colors on higher moral ground would cut readers out form the illusion that they're in on the joke: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is a film critic for the biweekly political magazine In These Times and teaches cultural criticism at Johns Hopkins University.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 17 Mar 1996: A.44.

CULTURE WATCH / "Looking at Oscar Night With That Sinking Feeling" [ALL EDITIONS]DeLibero, Linda. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 22 Mar 1998: B06.

"Pop Goes the Weasel: The Larry Flynt Revival / Why have pundits and critics hailed the biopic of a thuggish pornographer as a blow for freedom?: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]Linda DeLibero. Linda DeLibero is the film critic for the biweekly political magazine In These Times.. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 05 Jan 1997: A.36.

Keep -- DeLibero is Director, promoted last month. Websites lag. She is notable Fatpedro (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Fatpedro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While this contribution may have been Fatpedro's first contribution as a registered editor, xe has gone on to contribute in other areas related to the coverage of women (specifically women authors) at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think that's particularly relevant to this AfD. First account edits on AfDs are usually socks, especially when posts show obvious insider knowledge on the subject, as is certainly the case here (i.e. DeLibero was promoted last month). Agricola44 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO! Isn't there something about Good Faith you are supposed to assume? Critic11 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently have not read WP:FAITH2, as I respectfully suggested and you appear to be unable to distinguish what you perceive as a personal agenda versus what is really actually just logical argument based on WP policies. Once a debate gets to this point (i.e. special pleading, AGF disruption, ad hom attacks, and such), it is usually a very good sign that all the information/sources that actually exist have already been found – which in this case is very little. You were able to get this article relisted after the original AfD ended in delete and I think all this will have accomplished in the end is for all of us to have spent another week to arrive at the same result. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- The comments of Agricola44 are not valid. Clearly Agricola44 has a bias against this subject. Indeed I know the subject's work; I am a Harvard grad and Stanford prof and I have read her work for years. She is a substantial contributor to the cultural discourse. Yes I am a new editor, provoked to edit based on the accusations that Wikipedia is anti-women and I am seeing first hand that it is true. I would like to report the actions of Agricola44 and others who do not understand academic websites or how information from the pre-internet age is archived. Highbeam research does not capture non-digital archived writings. This debate should continue until others (who are indeed working to bring things online per Wikipedia's rules) finish. But the bad faith here is astonishing. Wikipedia claims it wants the public to edit but now that I've done so, the accusations of bias or "socks"? is ugly and unseemly.Fatpedro (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your oblique accusation that the panelists here are anti-woman is nonsense and you should cease with this line of argument. There are well-established guidelines for assessing notability that have been used for many hundreds of cases and it is clear that DeLibero does not meet any of them. You're essentially pleading that DeLibero is a special case and that these guidelines do not apply here. This is a gimmick that also has a long, but overwhelmingly unsuccessful history here at AfD. My advice to you would be to find reliable sources that document her expert status, her contributions, or anything such like. Absent that, there's no basis for keeping this article, especially because the person is living. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Duplicate !vote by Fatpedro has been stricken. Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mscuthbert, would you care to elaborate on which fora? Because, as the nom says, citations are unremarkable, and then clicking through to her program's website I discover that she is not the director, but the associate director [10], and that the Program in Film and Media Studies is a strictly undergraduate (teaching) non-research program, without people holding titles like professor, so the prestige of being associated with a research university is undercut, somewhat. Ray^Talk 16:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray, thanks for your insightful questions. I think that doing an introduction for an IFA film is a significant citation in the field (the others might be debated but there were at least four I found), but definitely the many hits for Linda Benn put her over the top. I also wouldn't correlate "strictly undergraduate" with "non-research," particularly in the arts and humanities. I am on the faculty of a strictly undergraduate program and research is by far the most important point we're evaluated on (with several Pulitzers, Macarthurs, Guggenheims, etc. in the department to show for it.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a bit embarassing, but I'm not finding these publications. I get at most a publication or two when I go looking in Gscholar, under both names. Could somebody link these for me? I usually pride myself on my ability to find sources when properly pointed, so ... Thanks, Ray^Talk 21:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- subject has also published as Linda Benn Delibero, which has substantially more GHITS than Linda Delibero, particularly for a fashion article on Twiggy that is cited regularly. Wikipedia's policy on GHITS seems biased against women who marry and change names, IMHO. Balloftwine (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in question, "This Year's Girl: A Personal/Critical History of Twiggy", has all of five citations in Google scholar. This is far below the usual standard for academic deletions here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- yes, now that I search under "Linda Benn" I see that she has in fact been publishing for over 30 years -- her first essay, "White Noise" in the Voice Literary Supplement (December 1990) is frequently quoted and cited in subsequent books on Television. I agree that the GHIT standard is biased against people who change their names or use different names at different times in their life (not always women but certainly more frequently). Critic11 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Critic11 has posted two !votes. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, but my posts are a matter of conversation and responding to your concerns. Website now says Director.Critic11 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

struck second !vote, discussion OK. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I see various WP:OR assertions in this AfD, but WP:V and WP:BLP require that information be verifiable. These assertions might combine together to be a wp:notable topic of interest to readers, but combining these pieces without sourcing is indistinguishable from a WP:FRANKIE. For example, the radio station source uses the same name as the university source, but what reliable source ties the two together? The radio personality is interesting, but we have no article on Serene Branson, who was already well established as a local TV personality on a major TV station before receiving national attention for an on-camera migraine aura episode. While it is credible that the topic has been promoted and the website lags, the reliable information we have about this topic says "Associate director", equals a low-profile individual. Where is a reliable newspaper article with a bio that says that the topic has published under two other names? The unz.org source doesn't appear to do any fact checking. The words "noted" and "lectures widely" mark the article as failing WP:PROMOTE. The alleged educational credentials have no inline citation and are useless. Fails WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:PROMOTE. If the radio station has posted a bio, I haven't seen it. Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - THE UNZ.ORG source is an archive of articles from In These Times. Archives don't generally fact check. I don't know what Serene Branson has anything do to with anything. Not sure what is prejudicing Unscintillating against Subject, who undoubtably has a presence in her community. Critic11 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Subject's Education background verified here.

WP:Verifiability requires WP:RS (reliable sources). That new source has a copyright date of 2011 ("© 2011 Johns Hopkins University, Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences"), and says that the topic is a director, but the WP:OR above claims that the promotion came within the last month, not in 2011. There is a sentence fragment and a grammar error ("Linda DeLibero the Director of the Film and Media Studies program at Johns Hopkins University, where she teaches courses on film history and aesthetics, including Hitchcock and Film Theory, Films of the ’70s, The Actor in Hollywood, and Critical Approaches to Contemporary Film." and "Linda DeLibero is regular contributor to WYPR 88.1 in Baltimore, MD."). This material does not verify the claim in the article that the topic graduated "Magna Cum Laude". The phrase "published widely" is the same kind of self-serving hyperbole that appears in the current article ("lectures widely" and "noted"). On the plus side, there is a credible assertion that the radio personality and the JHU director are one and the same. I also did a web search for the reference that states, "James Franco at Hopkins Baltimore Sun March 9, 2012." This ref turns out to be a photo of three people, the caption of which identifies the topic as a "faculty member". Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to assume good faith but your hostility ("self-serving hyperbole") is mystifying to me. I have created several pages for scholars, all of whom have "published widely" and are "notable." There is nothing "self serving" about this, particularly when the subject isn't involved. Clearly the subject has been publishing for 30 years and had a change in name for some reason (possibly marriage). The webmaster in her department is not responsible for the "publication date" of a website. Everyone, even scholars, makes grammatical errors. I think you are not in good faith.Critic11 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating is arguing points on the article itself, is making no ad-hom attacks, is not questioning your motives, etc. There seems to be no basis for an WP:AGF slap-down here. In fact, it might be good to take a look at WP:FAITH2. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I think there are, in fact, significant notability issues here. Her publications seem mostly to be short reviews in a single, small-circulation periodical called In These Times, which probably explains lack of GS citations. (There's nothing in WoS.) I found the "English Filming, English Writing", mentioned above, but WorldCat shows this to be held by just 1 institution. The standard academic databases don't show anything else written by her. None of the other sources that mention/discuss her seem to be mainstream publications, e.g. this one is from the campus newspaper of her institution. The article's sources are all either webpages, or text written by the subject. There are some short quotes by her in a few news sources, like The Baltimore Sun, but nothing that could satisfy WP:RS. The "top academic position" argument above goes to WP:PROF #6, but this is also spurious. It is actually quite difficult to discern her position at JHU, since she seems only to have a non-faculty title of "associate director" (i.e. not listed as Professor), but she is certainly not Provost/President/Chancellor, etc. that WP:PROF #6 considers "top academic position". I think Michael Scott Cuthbert makes the strongest argument here, based on WP:PROF #7, but the notes there state "quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark". So, I'm afraid I'm left with the conclusion that her notability status is nothing more than personal assertion at the moment. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

In These Times and the Village Voice are serious publications, not to be slighted. Subject is clearly faculty (many faculty members to not have the title of "professor" and is the Director of a serious program at a major research university. Her name has appeared in the Baltimore Sun as a Johns Hopkins faculty member for over a decade. The subject regularly appears as an expert on a public radio program. The subject lectures regularly as an expert. The subject's book reviews appear in Bookforum, also a serious publication. If the subject's writings appear in publications that Wikipedia deems notable, is that to be swept aside because she isn't just an "academic" writer at Johns Hopkins? Also Baltimore Magazine refers to subject as Director of Film and Media Studies. Critic11 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll ask you not to change the text of my comments anymore, not even to link. Your formatting mistake changed the whole tone of my post to make it seem like I was yelling. Second, please get rid of your defensive posture. Third, here's the confusion. All the things you just listed (lecturing "as an expert", publishing, etc.) are the normal activities and fodder of all academics, so, yes, these things do not render her notable per se. The bar is much higher. It must be shown that these works have been significantly noted by others, which can come in various forms, e.g. lots of citations to her work, lots of institutions that hold her books, etc. The trouble is that none of the standard academic databases or mainstream news sources demonstrate that this is the case. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether In These Times is a "serious publication". What are needed are citations, and those don't seem to be there. So again, your statement that she is commonly known as an expert remains a personal assertion on your part. Agricola44 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
BTW, her title isn't really that important because she clearly does not qualify under WP:PROF #6. Agricola44 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
But sweetheart, she isn't a prof. Nobody ever said she was except you. She's the Director of a program. You are holding her to a "citation" standard that is not applicable for some strange reason. Google "Benn Delibero" in Google Scholar and you'll get plenty of hits for her chapter on Twiggy. Critic11 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the exact search you specified in GS. As you can see, there are no citations. If I search "Benn Delibero Twiggy", I do get about 10 citations. Is this what you mean by "plenty"? Your remark about holding the subject to a "citation standard" suggests that you don't understand WP:PROF. Delibero is obviously an academic and it seems increasingly clear that, in terms of scholarship, she is a very average one. The "keep" arguments, including yours, all assert recognized expertise and lots of citations, but so far nobody can seem to find these. BTW, best to drop the patronizing language. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
My point is that there are many academics who publish outside of "scholarship." Poets for example. This isn't a tenure committee it's a discussion of notability, and clearly she is known to the Baltimore area public for her radio appearances and lectures, while at the same time running a major film program in a major university. Is Wikipedia not flexible enough to see this?Critic11 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those folks usually pass on WP:GNG because there are substantive secondary sources about them, which are sufficient proof of notability. That does not appear to be the case here. The property of being a "local celebrity" is not notable per se, nor is running a film program at a university, which again is completely routine academic-type work. It has nothing to do with "flexibility" and everything to do with demonstrating notability according to any of the many WP notability guidelines (WP:WHYN). She might be notable if she has lots of citations to her "Twiggy" article, but neither I nor Ray can find this. Agricola44 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I agree with Agricola44, and he explained my trouble finding serious sources by or about the subject. Ray^Talk 18:25, 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, J04n(talk page) 13:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Unusual Procedure. AfD was closed by J04n(talk page) and then bot-moved to the archive, after which relisting was both requested and granted. I've restored the listing to the academics-educators board, but there is still some manual cleanup required that I presume will be taken care of by J04n(talk page). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It looks clear from the discussion above that she is not a great fit for the academic standards of WP:PROF, and that we should consider her notability as a film critic and public figure instead, per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. But I am just not seeing the depth of coverage (in Google news archive and Highbeam search results) that would justify a pass on those grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after considering the arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Linda DeLibero holds the top position in a significant program at Johns Hopkins, a respected institution. Like many academics, most of her work is organizing and lecturing. This is clearly the case. She is respected in her field as evidenced by her academic position (JHU must have some reason to have promoted her) and by her public presence in the community. Troutbagel (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Troutbagel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's already been established that she does not hold the top position for the purposes of WP:PROF and neither is her academic position notable per se (despite JHU having their reasons for promoting her). Might you please point the panelists here to any reliable, independent sources that furnish proof of notability? Several of us here have scanned the standard venues for such information (journal citation databases, book holdings, news archives, etc) over the past week, but have found close to nothing. Without such sources, all the "keep" testimonials are nothing more than personal assertion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
A quick search shows that the subject was mentioned in a 2002 New York Times article for her academic contributions ("feminist theorists like Linda Benn Delibero"). To be singled out as a representative expert of an academic field in the "newspaper of record" implies wide public recognition of academic notability and clear fulfillment of WP:PROF #7. This is not "personal assertion." Troutbagel (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the mini-skirt and the sum-total of her mention is "feminist theorists like Linda Benn DeLibero, among others, have...", which is the archetypical WP:TRIVIALMENTION. If the article were not about the miniskirt, but instead about Linda Benn DeLibero's opinion/analysis of the miniskirt, then that would be a singling-out as a representative expert and would consequently imply notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I have requested WP:DR Dispute Resolution on the basis that Agricola44 has been dominating the discussion. It is true that most of the subject's most cited articles are not available online, including "White Noise: The Long, Sad Story of TV Criticism," (1990) in the Voice Literary Supplement 91 because the Voice archive is not online. Neither is the subject's Twiggy essay. But clearly the author of scores of cited works who still actively writing (for outlets like Bookforum) and who is the top academic at major program in a major university is notable, despite the harping of one sole voice: Agricola44. Balloftwine (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do that, of course. Although I've been debating article/notability and have not responded to AGF disruption above, I've also been trying, as gently as possible, to correct misunderstandings of policy – speaking of which – there's absolutely no requirement that any of her work be available online. Apologies if it seems I am "harping", but please consider that to be a response to the ongoing assertion (which you have just repeated again) that DeLibero is a "top academic" or holds a "top position", which renders her notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It is indisputable that subject holds the top academic position in the film program at Johns Hopkins, so please stop disputing it. It is Johns Hopkins's business, not Wikipedia, what kind of title she has. For Wikipedia's purposes she holds the Top Position in a Serious Academic Program at a Major University. Please let that go. Critic11 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indisputable that for the purposes of WP:PROF, "top academic position" means head of the entire university. She is not close to that. This has already been pointed out multiple times within this AfD; please pay attention this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said "In the film program" please pay attention this time. Thank you. And I am certainly understanding Wikipedia's hostility to women more every day!. Critic11 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your broad-stroke accusations have been excused up to now because you're a newcomer to AfD, but it's time to stop. You should understand that the guidelines are quite clear that being "top academic in the film program" is not sufficient. As I mentioned above, when the debate reaches this point, we can be almost certain that there is no more substantive material to be found. (Individual radio shows on a local NPR affiliate run by her own institution are now apparently being put-up as sources, see below.) I think the closing admin now has more than enough information to render a verdict. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Not to dwell on what is evidently one citation among many of the subject's work, but to respond to Agricola44: I respectfully disagree that this is the archetypal WP:TRIVIALMENTION. That page provides the example, "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" - where "Three Blind Mice" is obviously trivial. The reference at issue here certainly does not constitute "significant coverage," but it is nevertheless an assessment in the New York Times that says, essentially, "this person is a notable academic." Troutbagel (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)— Troutbagel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How preposterous is a claim that a statement in the New York Times that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" implies "this person is a notable academic." Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I don't even understand why whether DeLibero is a worthy subject is being debated. SHE IS. She is a well known feminist theorist, as several people have noted. Her renown goes far beyond that of the Average Professor. It seems that some in this discussion are not acquainted with feminist theory so don't really know the field and can't see that the extensive citations of her work, her leadership in a program at a top university, her radio presence as a public intellectual. So this seems to me obvious: KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnellsmith (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she is so well known then let's see some significant and reliable sources. The ones found so far are not impressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

WP:SOC alert -- I think you are Agricola44 . This is not the first time you have been suspected of being a sock puppet of each other. Critic11 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre claim. When have I been accused of being a sock of Agricola44? Please take your claim to WP:Checkuser. You don't improve your case by making personal attacks on other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Uh, go to Agricola44 talk page -- you have "discussed" it so it isn't bizarre, is it. Critic11 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mathsci/Archive[reply]

As I said, take your claim to WP:Checkuser and when you have got the result refrain from personal attacks on editors who disagree with you. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I've disagreed with Xxanthippe and Agricola44 plenty of times on AfD (and agreed with them more; but those times don't tend to get heated. :-) ), and I disagree with both of them here. But I highly, highly doubt they're sockpuppets of each other Critic11, so please refrain from saying that. They sometimes come to the same conclusions, but tend to use very different evidence and methods in coming to these conclusions; which is why they're very strong proponents of their cause when they agree. I still maintain that WP:PROF does not do a good job for adjudicating positions outside of science and esp. the mainstream arts and sciences. Start with the average professor test: is the average researcher in film studies anywhere close to the head of a Johns Hopkins research program? Do non-notable researchers tend to head programs where named chair faculty are on the committee? It seems that the main argument against comes from her title, which is not professor, but are people voting on those grounds taking into account that many arts programs forbid giving the prof. title to artists and to programs that are considered primarily in the arts? Critic11 has given a very impressive list of film discussion fora that have been organized by respectable media outlets. These things don't get cited the way science research papers do and any attempt to judge them by those criteria is taking the standards of one field and applying them where they never apply (outside of WP). The NYTimes citation of her as a feminist theorist goes beyond trivial mention, because there's no reason she should be cited unless she were considered by them to be notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "are not impressive" is an opinion, not a fact. Books and articles are cited above and in the subject's page that refer to the subject's writings, her title, her position, and her public notability in Baltimore. Contradiction is not argument. Every single person here arguing "KEEP" has seen these sources. Where would you like them to be listed so that you will be impressed?Critic11 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only evidence we have about the topic's wp:notability in Baltimore is two words in a photo with three people that identifies the topic as a "faculty member". Yes, two words is more than nothing, but as per the nutshell of WP:N, notable topics are, "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". What we need to satisfy WP:GNG is loosely considered to be two "good" articles about the topic, and then you have to face down the deletion lobby who have shown the ability in one case to get an article deleted with more than 60 sources. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC) That is untrue. Look here to see her list of recent appearances on WYPR.Critic11 (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC) In case you don't want to click on the link, here they all are: Linda DeLibero on WYPR (partial list)[reply]

Midday on Film: Friday April 5, 1-2 p.m. Film critics Linda DeLibero and Christopher Llewellyn Reed look back at the career and contributions of the late film critic Rober Ebert, who died this week of cancer at the age of 70. Also, an appreciation of three stars born on April 5 -- Gregory Peck, Bette Davis and Spencer Tracy.

Midday on Film: Friday December 7, 1-2 p.m. From "Anna Karenina" to "Hitchcock" to "Killing Them Softly," a look at the current cinema with Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at The Johns Hopkins University, and filmmaker Christopher Llewellyn Reed, chair and associate professor of the Department of Film and Video at Stevenson University.

Is Film Dead: Friday November 2, 1-2 p.m. The digital revolution marks the biggest change in movie-making since the advent of sound, and anyone who loves movies should know what's at stake. This month's edition of Midday on Film: How digital has affected not only movie-making but the viewing experience, with Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at The Johns Hopkins University, and filmmaker Christopher Llewellyn Reed, chair and associate professor of the Department of Film and Video at Stevenson University.

Tags: Christopher Llewellyn Reed digital film Film Linda DeLibero Midday Friday February 24, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film: Oscars edition The Oscars! With Midday critic Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at The Johns Hopkins University.

Friday January 20, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film -- China, Sundance, Documentaries, the Oscars, 'Dangerous Method' and "Incredibly Close' It's Midday on Film with Linda DeLibero, director of film and media studies at the Johns Hopkins University. Today, Linda takes us to China for a look at the challenges that independent filmmakers, including documentarians, face in westernized Communism. Meanwhile, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has created a new challenge for filmmakers here: It announced that only documentaries reviewed by The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times will be eligible for Oscar nominations. Dan asks Linda if that new rule is as dumb as it sounds.

Tuesday December 13, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film It's Oscar season! The films and actors expected to receive nominations and what an Academy Award campaign looks like. With Linda DeLibero, associate director of film studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Monday September 5, 1 - 2 pm: Midday on Film An appreciation of Bernard Hermann, the acclaimed American composer noted for his Academy Award-winning work in motion pictures, particularly those of Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho, North by Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Vertigo). Hermann also composed the music for Citizen Kane, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Cape Fear, and Taxi Driver.

Wednesday August 17, 12 - 1 pm: 'The Help' -- as film, as historic and cultural narrative A look at the movie The Help, based on the best-selling book of the same name by Kathryn Stockett, about African- American maids working in white households in Jackson, Mississippi during the early 1960s. Tags: DAN RODRICKS Hollis Robbins Kathryn Stockett Linda DeLibero

Midday with Dan Rodricks 6-7-11 Hour 2 Summer Movies Summer is when Hollywood releases an endless series of films with superheroes, slapstick comedies and sequels but it wasn't always this way. We’ll look movie blockbusters of summers past with Midday film aficionado Linda DeLibero, associate director of film and media studies at Johns Hopkins

This does not contribute to notability. It's stuff she's done, not stuff that other people have said about her. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"Stuff"? Since when is contributing to the public discourse "stuff"? Since when is publishing for 30 years in notable journals "stuff"? Notable publications and a public radio program hosted by a notable individual indicates that NOTABLE individuals have noted her qualifications. This debate is getting sillier every moment.Critic11 (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People can contribute to public discourse as much as they like. Notability only occurs if other people are recorded as taking notice of their contributions. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

WYPR's series is other people taking notice of her contributions. How do you think figures in this field are evaluated? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Those !voting to keep seem to be conflating the standards for notability and reliability. DeLibero is the author of peer-reviewed scholarship and the news articles, which makes her a reliable source for information in Wikipedia articles; it doesn't make her notable subject of a Wikipedia article.

As for WP:PROF, the standard for #6 is top academic position "at a major academic institution," not at a program within a university, so she seems to fail that test. For #7, her contributions outside of academia don't seem to meet the "substantial impact" criteria, and they seem to be primarily in local media, so that doesn't cut it, either. No evidence of satisfying GNG, so I'm at a loss for any grounds to !vote keep. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense -- A regular guest on a notable radio station with a notable host is notable because of her opinion, not because she is a source of reliable information. It is verified that the subject's opinions and views have been sought by hosts of public events in Baltimore and DC for years. The subject is not merely a conduit for reliable information, she is a public presence. Critic11 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely wouldn't make sense if you're confusing the dictionary definition of notability with the Wikipedia definition of notability, which may be what's happening.

To be the subject of a WP article, you must meet the WP definition of notability, not the dictionary definition. WP uses specific criteria to determine whether someone or something is notable, and those criteria are the ones you should be trying to satisfy.

It's not enough to just say that you think that she, a radio station and a radio host are notable, because then I can say they're not, and then we're stuck in an endless argument over subjective criteria; you have to establish that she meets the WP criteria for notability, which are laid out in relevant part here and here. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has the creds, she has the expertise. She has written and lectured on film and culture for decades and food as well, though not as long as the other two subjects. I'm really confused by how heated this debate has become (both against AND for). The subject is clearly not just a local fluff celebrity, her writings and activities span DC to NYC. The lack of hits on searchable online resources has been brought up, but that seems to stem from a bias against publications and media outlets that aren't completely digital/cloud/interweb type outlets. She obviously (to me) meets WP:PROF C7, but even if that is in question she should be able to pass with PLENTY of room to spare WP:CREATIVE criteria. She seems legit. I really don't understand the why or how this AfD thread got so heated - once again, on both sides. (Also, while I've contributed to Wiki articles for a while now, this is my first AfD post. Please don't bite B Hastings (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— B Hastings (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. Wizardman 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Miners in Hindi Fiction[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable theme (could we have "coal miners in fiction?). No reference, haven't found any either. Possible advertisement for the bolded books listed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTDIR "non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization". Dricherby (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No comment as to this article, but in response to the question of whether we could have coal miners in fiction, the existence of [11] and [12] as reliable sources suggest that yes, in fact we could. JulesH (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK but what about Fiction in coal mines? :-) Dricherby (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How Green Was My Valley. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's Coal mines in fiction. But I was being facetious. Dricherby (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lack of content that is likely to continue, and there's no notability for the subject. Nothing makes coal miners in Hindi Fiction special compared to coal miners in any other sort of fiction. Ducknish (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Mining in fiction/Mining in pop culture. I don't see a reason why specifically coal miners (let alone only Hindi ones) should be singled out, but miners are a stock character/recurring theme in literature and other media. E.g. Hunger Games, Timbuk3's Daddy's Down in the Mine, Coal (TV series). And that's just off the top of my head. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article would be of little use for such an article, although I agree that a more general topic would probably be notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 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 redirect to Democracy Now!. J04n(talk page) 02:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Thomas Conteris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. First off, I agree with the user who redirected this to its own page, instead of having the page automatically redirect to Democracy Now. That makes no sense. I do, however, question the notability (a notability tag has been on the page since 2009) of Conteris and thing maybe he should just be mentioned in the Democracy Now article with maybe some information added. The only source for this article is the [DemocracyNow.org Democracy Now] website and the bulk of the article (which seems to be way too long for its notability) is quotes from him. Something needs to be done: Either deletion or major cleanup.DoctorHenryHowardHolmes (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested. By opening this discussion, you recommend deleting the article entirely and leaving nothing at the title, not even a redirect to Democracy Now!, correct? —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I fail to see he is notable, in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHenryHowardHolmes (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Democracy Now!, this article is huge (and hugely promotional), doesn't establish notability, but it is a sensible redirect. Protect the redirect from being turned into another article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:59, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjid Mitha[edit]

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

Not notable businessman, the sources are either unreliable/self published or barely mention his name. WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:ADVERT issues. I can't find any substantial, reliable and independent sources confirming that Mr. Sajjid Mitha meets our notability requirements. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. However, this source and this source, which name Mitha as some kind of "honorary trade adviser" to Thailand make me think there may be more here than meets the eye. Nonetheless, from what I can see, Mitha still lacks the coverage to get notability, and the article as written is virtually unrecoverable from a WP:NOT perspective. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of these sources like Free Press Release aren't reliable. Those that are mention the company in passing, but I don't think this individual passes WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:56, 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) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chester F.C. players[edit]

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

PROD contested by an IP, who appears to be a local football historian (?) who is using Wikipedia as a personal record-keeping website, which is obviously not acceptable. As for the article itself, while list of a club's footballers can be notable, that is usually only professional clubs in fully-professional leagues (which this club is not) as playing for the club does not make one notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the topic of 'Chester F.C. players' has received significant media coverage, so it also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of players for Chester City F.C. might be notable, but this is a different team, formed in 2010, that's never been in a professional league, so it's hard to see how it meets notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chester F.C. for now, until this newer team has been around a bit longer. This appears to be good info; why throw the baby out with the bathwater when it's entirely reasonable to expect this list would be appropriate later on? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chester F.C. does not meet the criteria of WP:NFOOTY. However, the formation of the club from the ashes of the former Chester City F.C. generated substantial non-routine media coverage, which demonstrates notability of the new club under WP:GNG (see the sources of the Chester F.C. article for examples of this coverage). Since the club is notable, its body of players as a whole is notable since they are an intrinsic part of the club, even though the players individually mostly aren't notable. Under WP:CSC, it is reasonable to have a list in which most or all of the entries are not sufficiently notable to have their own article. Dricherby (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to conveniently ignore the part of CSC which states "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." It is NOT reasonable at all to expect any of these red-links to turn blue anytime soon. Giant Snowman 12:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to the case where all the elements of the list are individually notable. In this case, they're not so the redlinks should just be unlinked. Dricherby (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be more red-links than blue-links. You're also forgetting the topic itself isn't notable. Giant Snowman 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many lists where all or most of the individual entries are non-notable, per WP:CSC. You can't use the non-notability of the list's entries to argue that the list as a whole is not notable. What is your reasoning behind the assertion that the list of players of a notable football club is not itself notable? Dricherby (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because neither the topic, nor the players that make up the topic, meet WP:GNG - it is very simple. Giant Snowman 17:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chester F.C.. I am doubtful on whether we should have that article, but the club claims to be a successor to Chester City F.C. and is rising fast up the minor leagues. The list of 1st team players in the article has many blue links, which probably justifies its existence. However, lists with a lot of red-links encourage the creation of articles on people who are probably NN and thus should not have an article. With weekly gates of under 3000, it is doubtful if the club will rise to a level where it would normallyu be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chester F.C. is notable because of the large amount of coverage given to the creation of the club. That notability is not temporary, regardless of the club's future performance. The question here is whether the list of players meets the notability criteria. Dricherby (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which it doesn't. Giant Snowman 17:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list of this type should list players who have competed at a notable level of football. Once the club reaches a level that would confer notability on its players, that is when we should create a list. – Pee Jay 13:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of Chester City F.C. players would be fine because that club competed in the Football League. Chester F.C. has not. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel they have a significant following despite any comments on the level. In the future they will be professional and also this list will be useful, plus surely it is excellent to have complete records available, this not being the case with most clubs! 94.9.212.245 (User_talk:94.9.212.245), 17:19, 6 May 2013‎ This comment was left, unsigned, on the talk page associated with this AfD so I copied it here. Dricherby (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:LISTN tells me that there is no requirement that every entry in a stand-alone list should be notable if the list should be regarded as notable, and I don't think we need to look hard to find sources that discuss "Chester F.C. players" as a group or a set to make this list pass the notability guideline for stand-alone lists. The red links to non-notable players should be removed though. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know where these sources are. Giant Snowman 11:08, 7 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. Courcelles 07:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Veenstra[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. None of the cited references provided even mention him (except for the ~~review~~ yellow pages-style listing of his dental practice). Note that the article about the band of which he was allegedly a member has also been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diverse). If anything, this appears to be a WP:COATRACK article related to Rocket Records and its founder, and attempts to make an assertion of notability through association with other boy bands of that era. Kinu ^t/_c 07:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not notable PeterWesco (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not individually notable. (Or redirect to Diverse as per norm for music biographies, if that article survives AfD, though that appears unlikely.) AllyD (talk) 18:20, 5 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. Courcelles 07:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Prescott[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. None of the cited references provided even mention him. Note that the article about the band of which he was allegedly a member has also been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diverse). If anything, this appears to be a WP:COATRACK article related to Rocket Records and its founder, and attempts to make an assertion of notability through association with other boy bands of that era. Kinu ^t/_c 07:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above comment mirrors my thoughts. In fact, I made a comment on the Diverse AfD discussion putting forth the same argument as I make here. I found nothing about this person on an internet search. If someone can find notable coverage on the internet or in print media, I would consider changing my vote. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. One of many articles created and crosslinked in an attempt to create notability. PeterWesco (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally authored the article in good faith and I will now say DELETE because the article has caused a small uproar here over notability. Consensus seems to be delete this article, which I will even agree with based on valid points raised, with the exception on PeterWesco's notion that it was created to garner notability which is completely untrue. I always respect community consensus, even on articles I have contributed directly or worked on a lot. I contributed a historic-based article with the limited references available for WikiProject Music, but if consensus is that this article fails to meet notability, than I respect that. Zachtron (talk) 03:40, 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. Courcelles 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this band meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. None of the cited references provided even mention the band. There appears to be a rapper of the same name whose albums are listed on Amazon (see [13]); this is not the same subject. If anything, this appears to be a WP:COATRACK article related to Rocket Records and its founder, and attempts to make an assertion of notability through association with other boy bands of that era. Kinu ^t/_c 07:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Diverse (rapper) back to Diverse; that article should not have been moved to make way for this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing about this band on the internet. If this article is to stay, someone must find notable coverage somewhere on the internet or notable articles in print media. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Diverse (rapper) back to Diverse per Mendaliv, since this Diverse fails WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Part of a series of promo articles all cross linked. None, that I have found, have any sort of substantial coverage in the references listed. PeterWesco (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally authored the article in good faith and I will now say DELETE because the article has caused an uproar here over notability. However, this is certainly not part of a series of promo articles as incorrectly stated by PeterWesco. The articles in question are historic based, with zero promotional value. They were fully neutral in both facts stated and tone from the limited references found, and were written for historical purposes and only inter cross linked when there was an indirect connection made to current notable entities. If consensus is to delete this article, so be it, but I must defend the full neutrality of this historic-based article and clearly let it be stated that this is no way is a promo article. Consensus seems to be delete this article, which I will even agree with based on valid points raised, with the exception on PeterWesco's promo article notion which is completely untrue. I may not be the world's greatest Wikipedia editor, but I certainly adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I would never go against those policies and purposely contribute to Wikipedia in an unproductive or agenda-based way. I always respect community consensus, even on articles I have contributed directly or worked on a lot. Zachtron (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For this and the other articles in question, can you point to sources you can use to establish notability? I know how difficult it can be to find sources sometimes. Do you know of magazine articles , newspaper articles, reviews, etc.? Articles on Wikipedia need verification of facts. As I said, I would vote to keep this if someting notable could be found and used. Bill Pollard (talk) 07:26, 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 speedily deleted by User:Sergecross73 under criterion G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi code[edit]

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

Subject of the article is not notable by itself. Of the three sources cited, one is within Wikipedia, one is to an outside Wiki, and the third is to Yahoo! Answers. None of these sources is considered reliable per WP:RS. Andrew³²⁷ 06:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That type of content is more suitable for Wikia.com Toffanin (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:IINFO. Perhaps it's time for a WP:NOTGAMEFAQS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mendaliv. Iketsi (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3: clear and obvious hoax. No similar coverage via ghits. None of the refs (bare links) support article's assertion. Article is malicious, encouraging removal of game progress. Furthermore, this cheat code lacks the significant coverage to be worthy of its own article. It would go in SMW if anywhere, which it won't, since it's a hoax. czar · · 16:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 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 keep. The consensus is leaning towards a keep, with the obvious nature of the subject making the article increasingly appropriate as time goes by. While plans for this season are obviously still fairly fluid given the time gap, a valid argument is made that (a) the season is overwhelmingly likely to occur and (b) sufficient sourceable information has been published to warrant a stub article. There's therefore no egregious violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and, providing our editors remain vigilant to badly-sourced speculation, the article does more good than harm existing at this point. ~ mazca ^talk 13:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Formula One season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is too soon to create the article. Although the Formula 1 WikiProject has created pages up to two years in advance in the past, there is nothing to substantiate this page. Its existence hinges on two references that are specious at best:

[www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/04/26/thailand-grand-prix-track-route-confirmed-2015-race/ This] reference describes the creation of the Thai Grand Prix, a race that is expected to join the championship in 2015. However, the content of the article itself makes it quite clear that this is only a plan, and there are no sources that suggest there is a contract between the organisers and the sport's commercial owners to hold the race in the first place.
[www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/03/12/f1-fanatic-roundup-1203/ This] source centres on Honda's supposed plans to enter the sport in 2015, but even the title of the article makes it pretty clear that this is unconfirmed for the time being. Neither Honda nor the team they are said to be joining has announced any plans for them to enter the sport.

Without either of these, there is nothing to substantiate the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Unless the FIA confirms that it will occur for one reason or another, there's still a possibility to cancel the series. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems overwhelmingly likely that there will be a 2015 F1 season so I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is a problem for the existence of the topic. There is, however, the question of whether we can say anything now about the 2015 season that is not itself WP:CRYSTALLINE. There are concrete plans [14][15][16] for a Thai Grand Prix so this seems notable already; likewise, the McLaren–Honda tie-up is being reported widely [17][18] albeit more speculatively since neither party has confirmed. Dricherby (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As their is solid infomation on the 2015 Formula One season like the Thailand GP and Honda returning as a engine supplier I think we should keep it and keep adding to it once new infomation is released. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't describe Honda's return as "solid" — Honda haven't confirmed it and McLaren are refusing to comment. Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think we should keep it how it is and just keep adding to it. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment:' But there is nothing useful in the article as it is. There is no point to having it, because there is nothing substantial to keep in the article. If and when more information becomes available, then we can create the page. But until then, it's just going to be a worthless stub lying around serving no purpose. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is simply too soon to create an article for this season; there is nothing but a few contracts which are never certain this far out. The 2014 season article at least had new regulations to write about. QueenCake (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. This article was deleted per an AFD here[19]. In fact this article has been speedy deleted somewhere between 4-6 times in the last year....William 14:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was when the 2015 season was five years in the future and there was absolutely nothing to say about it: not a comparable situation. Dricherby (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been speedy deleted as I said 4-6 times. The most recent of which was February of this year....William 17:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing to the fact that an article has been deleted in the past only makes sense if the circumstances now are the substantially the same as they were when the article was deleted. In February, it was apparently WP:TOOSOON to have this article; on 31 December, 2014, it will obviously not be too soon. Therefore, at some point between those two dates, enough information and sources must have accumulated to have a proper article. The question, which your comment does not address at all, is whether that time is now. In particular, note that all five of the sources I pointed out above are more recent than the last speedy-delete. Is there enough now (not two months ago) to start an article that will clearly grow with time, or should we wait a bit longer? Dricherby (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have restored all versions - so that editors may view the original page that the original deletion discussion refers to - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Formula_One_season&oldid=396563450, otherwise one is arguing in the dark. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears that the major change is that the new article refers to sources that talk specifically about the 2015 season, whereas the recent deleted articles contained only inferences of the form, "In 2008, Ruritania signed a 10-year contract to hold Grands Prix, so there will be a Ruritanian Grand Prix in 2015." (And the old pages, saying just that 2015 would be the 66th season, are clear deleters.) Dricherby (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You cannot apply a deletion discussion from 2010 to be current for this page - are you going to speedy it next year and the year after because of G4? There is 2015 specific data now available for this article. The previous year (2014) was created 13 months ago at 12:32, 18 March 2012‎ - so it's not as if it's being created way ahead of normal practice . More 2015 data is bound to be generated this year (the teams have to know well in advance what rule changes might happen), now is the ideal time for the article to start. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You created the article and per WP:CSD, you can not remove the speedy deletion tags. As a WP administrator you should know that....William 22:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I did not delete the speedy - it had already been deleted (see the logs) - I was sorting out the re-creation of all versions to show the article as was at the original deletion discussion - I just missed forgetting to uncheck the last edit on the undeletion (which had the speedy). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you shouldn't be applying Speedy tags to a page that's already at AfD so I removed them. Dricherby (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You're wrong. Articles that are at AFD can be CSD also if they meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Sockpuppets, copyright violations, articles previously, any of the criteria....William 22:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - And WP:G4 manifestly doesn't apply here, because it explicitly "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" (which excludes the previously AfD'ed version) and "excludes content... which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion" (which excludes all the others). Dricherby (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The article is referenced 4 times, all articles concerning the Thai Grand Prix. It doesn't constitute an article right now, just a perfect case of WP:BOMBARDMENT. You still don't understand G4 either....William 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        G4 says A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion - the new article is nowhere near identical to the version that was viewed in 2010 - that was a very simple one liner. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Bombardment is the placement of a large number of references - I would hardly call 4 large. Each has a different style, and I was attempting to show it was not just based on one solitary site. I was going to stop at three and then I saw the Wall Street Journal's piece from Bernie Ecclestone, so you got four. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It is bombardment. Not counting the naming of the article, it consists of exactly 31 words. That's 7.75 words for every reference. 4 references all about the same GP, 3 of which are on the same sentence and nothing else about the season. The article is a joke, your taking off the G4 a violation of WP policy, but nothing will be done. There are two sets of rules around here one for administrators and one for everyone else. I've said that around here before. Show some smarts and delete the article....William 20:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You did not read my reply on my talk page - I did not remove your active speedy - your speedy was actioned by User:INeverCry, who deleted the page. Therefore your speedy was completed. Here's the timestamps again...
        Speedy added at 14:50, 30 April 2013‎
        
        Article deleted at 17:46, 30 April 2013 - the speedy was actioned and not deleted - its job had been completed.
        
        Article re-created at 18:52, 30 April 2013 to allow full discussion at AfD.
        
        Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If for no better reason than to avoid having to go through this process again (probably several times) between now and 2015. Also, per Dricherby I think it's overwhelmingly likely that there will be a 2015 F1 season so I don't think there's an issue in terms of WP:CRYSTAL and this is typically how far in advance F1 season articles are created (e.g. 2012 Formula One season was created in February 2010). DH85868993 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We had the same discussion last year, with the 2014 Formula One season. As far as I'm aware, there's roughly around the same amount of imformation about 2015 than there was about 2014. Therefore, why should this be a problem for deletion? Are we going to keep having the same arguements next year when someone creates the 2016 Formula One season? Pch172 (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At the time, the 2014 article was substantiated by details of the new engine formula, which had been decided in August of 2011 and published shortly thereafter. Given the nature and the extent of the changes to the engines, keeping the 2014 article was justified. The 2015 article is not currently justified, as it has no real content to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON. The Rome Grand Prix experience teaches as the relative value of Grands Prix confirmed at such long lead times. The race has yet to be formally confirmed by motor racing authorities. One of the cited references is even titled "as good as confirmed". So if the Thailand sentence is removed there is insufficient content to carry the article. --Falcadore (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Noted, and the offending content removed as being speculative. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where's the speculation? The article said that Thailand is making preparations in the hope of hosting a Grand Prix in 2015. It did not say that Thailand would host a Grand Prix. If it's speculation to say that Thailand is trying to hold a Grand Prix before the contract has been signed, we shouldn't have mentioned that either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was standing for election in 2012 because the electorate hadn't confirmed who would actually be president of the USA. Dricherby (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article implies that the race will be going ahead, given that it has four separate sources to substantiate it and is being used to justify keeping the article afloat. We did have some content on proposed races in the 2013 season article until very recently, but that was all removed because nothing ever came of it. If anything, confirmation of the Thai Grand Prix might be the point where we can reasonably create the 2015 season article, but not before. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article didn't state it would go ahead and one could argue that the deletion of that text is being used to justify sinking the article. If you feel that the phrasing sounded too much like "Thailand will host a Grand Prix", why didn't you rephrase it, instead of deleting it? You still haven't explained why mentioning the proposed race is speculative or why it's a bad thing to talk about proposed races. Dricherby (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that if we can get enough information and references we should keep the page, however the way it is now is not enough. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's not forget that it's a page that will naturally grow - Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - but only if the page is created. It's well known that plenty of edit are done by IPs, but only if someone gives them a start page, they can not create a new page directly. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure about this one yet, but on the F1 Wiki, I intend to create this article on July 1, when it is 18 months (and one and a half seasons) away, due to the fact it follows the 2014 season, which will be less than six months away. I suggest deciding upon a date on which the season-after-next's article is created, to stop this issue from recurring every year. —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look back shows creations at 21; 14; 22; 18; 36; 30; 24; 15 months in advance (2104 back to 2007), average of 22 months - if you like averages. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently 20 months away, which rounded down is what you get when you exclude 2012 from the sample. I think we are close enough to it here. —Gyaro –Maguus— 01:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep: per reply to my above comment, and comments below. —Gyaro –Maguus— 01:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's all well and good to say "the page should be kept because the 2014 page was created this many months before the 2014 season", but have you actually looked at the 2015 page? It has no content. To my mind, it's impossible to justify keeping the page around because it is so many months away when there is nothing on the actual page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There's no content on the page because you believe that it's too speculative even to say that Thailand wants to host a race and is making preparations to do so. That is an unreasonably high bar. Dricherby (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I looked but maybe didn't apply brain as well as I should have. Anyway, I'm sure there is something to be written about drivers contracted for 2015 (such as Alonso) and races actually contracted (a good few I assume), so there is room for expansion (but I don't have the time to do that right now). If you could suggest a suitable time in which the creation of the season-after-next should be discussed (this applies to future years), maybe at WT:F1, then this won't be needed. —Gyaro –Maguus— 12:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - There can't be a specific date because there's no guarantee that there will or will not be enough material to make a worthwhile article by any particular date. But I'll kick off a discussion about what level of information should be available before articles on future seasons are started. Dricherby (talk) 12:19, 7 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. Michig (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cola[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability fail. Jschnur (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this CEO of a firm which does not in itself have a Wikipedia article is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 18:25, 5 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 housekeeping non-admin closure: 07:13, 29 April 2013 Vejvančický (talk | contribs) deleted page 301655722 Angels (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/11/us/beliefs-023493.html, The Encyclopedia of Angels, p. 37) czar · · 07:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closing statement: The numbers were mentioned in several reliable books and newspaper articles; it could be mentioned in our article Angels in Judaism. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

301655722 Angels[edit]

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

Page is mostly-sorta a copyvio of this (only one sentence long, though); I don't feel comfortable tagging it as vandalism, but we really don't need it... Ignatz mice•talk 04:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12: unambiguous copyvio. (I'm comfortable tagging it as it is.) It's a direct copyvio, and the topic doesn't pass GNG via ghits, and if it were to be a subpage of Kabbalah or Angels or whatever, it would be phrased differently than a number of angels. The specific "301655722 Angels" isn't independently notable. Waste of our time: speedy it. czar · · 05:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the event that the speedy is rejected, I support deletion per nom. Andrew³²⁷ 06:19, 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 Student life at the University of Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University Television-13[edit]

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

Non-notable student TV channel. Doesn't seem to even be accessible off campus. GrapedApe (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 14 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, czar · · 05:06, 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, czar · · 04:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge to University of Pennsylvania. There may come a time when this subject is notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The external links appear to be dead (here is a link to an archive.org copy from 2011): [20]). The article asserts that this station was founded in 1974 and is " the oldest college television station in the country" and if that were verifiable, I'd think it an assertion of notability, but I couldn't find any third party verification for this claim. One counterclaimant is Ithaca College Television, which was founded in 1958 [21]; CitrusTV at Syracuse (1970) also apparently made this claim [22]but (according to our article) has now dropped it. Anyway, assuming that no one else comes up with third party independent sources, this one doesn't merit its own article. A mention at Student life at the University of Pennsylvania might be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Student life at the University of Pennsylvania. The only possible notability is the article's claim that it is the oldest college television station in the country. However, there are no references to support this. --Crunch (talk) 23:33, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Canada[edit]

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

advertisement for a subsidiary company of AT&T. Partly copyvio of this page The Banner talk 13:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 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, czar · · 05:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have deleted the copied section and will look at what has been left. Thincat (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After removing more copied material (some attributed, some not), I have not found close copying in the reduced article. Most of the corporate puffery is gone but I can't make much sense of what remains. I don't know whether it is deletable and I don't have the energy to try and improve it. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 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, czar · · 04:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Very likely to be notable, though the article content is neither comprehensive nor particularly informative. This might be a candidate for a merge/redirect somewhere, but I don't know where. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember when Unitel was formed and what it meant to Canada as an early challenge to the Canadian regional phone monopolies. A Google News archive search reveals many feature articles. This a rather snowy keep imo, whatever the problems with the article now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 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 Arri. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Richter (film producer)[edit]

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

Has been an unreferenced and mostly orphaned stub for years, with no indication of importance. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 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, czar · · 04:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've not investigated his notability, although as the co-founder of a famous corporation there may be sources about him, but a redirect to his company Arri would be better than deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arri. This Robert Richter was a film industry pioneer and (based on the results at GBooks[23]) there probably is material out there about him, but until there is more to be said about this Robert Richter's other activities, redirect to Arri is the best alternative. Also note that IMDb has ten different entries for people named Robert Richter, notably including a documentarian who began working in the 1960s and who has 2 Oscar nominations and assorted other awards [24][25], so confusion will need to be avoided. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Arri article which covers the joint work of his partner and himself; not individually notable. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 5 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 Bob Ferguson (politician)#Arlene's Flowers lawsuit. J04n(talk page) 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene's Flowers lawsuit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. A yet to be filed discrimination case that happens to have hit the news recently. Funny ^Pika! 12:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the lawsuit hasn't been filed, it does not yet exist. That which does not exist cannot be notable. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this website the lawsuit has already been filed, although I do think that it's a little premature to assume that this court case will achieve notability. Sadly enough, this isn't the only such instance of a person refusing service due to some bias against a person (sexuality, gender, ethnicity, etc) and while many do get coverage, most never reach the level of notability needed to warrant an article. I'll try to do a cleanup, but I'm leaning towards delete or userfication if anyone wants to do it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some cleaning and I'm still somewhat undecided. This is a pretty recent thing. The news really only picked up on this around the 10th and while there have been some coverage, it hasn't been so overwhelming that I'd say that I'd guarantee that this would continue to be in the public eye and gain coverage. It has the potential to be big, which is why I'm hesitating and will probably wait to see if there is any coverage further in the AfD time period. I do see a potential compromise though- since one of the lawsuits has been filed by Bob Ferguson, I think it'd be worthwhile to create a subsection in his article and redirect there if there isn't enough coverage once the AfD ends. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage from multiple different WP:RS references that all satisfy WP:V and are non-local in nature. — Cirt (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, filed lawsuits are not really notable in and of themselves. People file lawsuits all the time about a wide variety of things. Often times, these lawsuits are found to be frivolous. To say that this case has brought "worldwide" attention is, I think, a misnomer. The articles appearing around the world, and, in fact, even just across America are simply selected copies of news stories that are local to Washington state. If this gets to the level of court proceedings, then an article might be more justified, but only if we see a wider variety of non-Washington-based news. JayHubie (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob_Ferguson_(politician)#Arlene.27s_Flowers_lawsuit. This has definite potential to become a notable lawsuit. I'd waited because I was hoping that it'd gain more coverage. Is it there right now? Not really. The lawsuit got a reasonably large amount of media attention, but it's died down fairly quickly. Until this goes to court, this is probably best summarized in Ferguson's article since he was the one who initially filed the lawsuit. I do see where a senator is trying to pass a bill that would allow for people to refuse service based on their "religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience", although I'll be completely blunt in that I doubt very, very seriously that something like that would ever get passed. (Or at least I hope it won't.) In any case, there are multiple things that show that this has the potential to become notable in its own right. It's just not there yet and this is just slightly WP:TOOSOON to really claim notability right now. I say that we redirect with the history for now and just watch the proceedings. If/when it becomes notable, we can always un-redirect it and flesh it out some more with the newest proceedings. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would normally not say keep, or the basis of it being premature, but it has been reported nationally and by Reuters, and the Seattle Times a said it "will undoubtedly become a cause celebre for opponents seeking to highlight what they refer to as the negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage." That quote justifies having the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 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, czar · · 03:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79. It's definitely notable based on the coverage I'm finding, but the subject of the article, namely, the lawsuit (or lawsuits: there seems to be two), has not materialized as yet. Wikipedia is not a newspaper: this incident just has not developed enough to merit a stand-alone article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate At the risk of trying to predict the future, it seems this lawsuit will eventually become notable enough for its own article, but as others have already said, isn't at the moment. Transcendence (talk) 20:20, 6 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 procedural close; proposal was for a merge and not deletion. (non-admin closure) – 296.x (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Armstrong[edit]

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

I would suggest a merge into her husband Ant McPartlin's article, unless it can be shown that this Lisa Armstrong is notable enough for an article. I think she is pretty borderline, although she has worked on many notable shows. If the consensus is to keep, I would suggest a page move to Lisa Armstrong (makeup artist) and having this page as a bio for the significantly more notable UK fashion editor/journalist also called Lisa Armstrong (who, from a quick scan/search, seems to have rather a lot more reliable sources on her than the make-up artist). Mabalu (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close -- This is not an AFD nomination. See WP:MERGE for the correct procedure, which an editor can do without the need to bring it to a forum. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Basically, what I am suggesting is whether the existing page should be overwritten with another article, which would effectively be a deletion unless the existing subject has sufficent notability for an article (I don't think she is the primary Lisa Armstrong by a long way...) - surely something that merits discussion? Mabalu (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the merge needs discussion, there are steps for proposing a merger rather than simply carrying it out, but I don't believe you need to bring this to AfD unless you actually want the article deleted. – 296.x (talk) 17:17, 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 merge to Palau#Culture. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palauan cuisine[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. unreferenced for 6.5 years. admittedly Palau is likely to hit mainstream news. but web searches only yield travel reviews. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Palau. I do not think WP:N applies to this topic given it is more of a fork or subarticle of Palau than an independent topic like a single work, a person, a group, or similar. Nonetheless, WP:V does apply, and the lack of readily accessible sources suggests this article should not exist at present. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Palau#Culture and turn this page into a redirect. There's some decent information on this page, but not enough to stand as its own article. Ibadibam (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article on Palau. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - split it back out eventually if enough sources are found. The Potato Hose ↘ 22:22, 5 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 · · 04:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasuben Pizza[edit]

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

The article/organization fails Wiki Notability guidelines as per Wikipedia:Organizations. Also refer WP:NOTNEWS. The only claim to fame is Narendra Modi stopped by to eat from the joint, the news report about which are cited as the only references. Jethwarp (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 03:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 03:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG by the sources in the article, specifically this one and this one. Both are substantial pieces on the restaurant, and do not primarily deal with the Narendra Modi endorsement. Even if the articles were inspired by Modi's endorsement, this does not damn the subject to deletion under WP:NOTNEWS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vide user above. AshLin (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still disagree. Going by the same news article cited [26], if this article passes Wiki organization critertia then I or someone would like to make article page on Induben Khakrawala, Derani-Jethani's ice creams and Maasi's Panipur, which are also cited in news article referred above. Every city in India has several such famous names. I still have doubt it passes WP:ORG Jethwarp (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, because the mentions of those three businesses in that article are trivial, whereas the coverage of Jasuben Pizza in both the above articles is substantial. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) - The women Narendra Modi extolled, and one he did not cited as source mentions also Induben Khakhravala in as much details as Jasuben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethwarp (talk • contribs) 04:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That has no bearing on the fact that this subject meets WP:GNG. If you think WP:GNG is incorrect, I respectfully suggest you instead work towards reforming notability guidelines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please place this on WP:INB also. AshLin (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per [27], [28]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets noteworthiness criteria. ALSO, I was *actually* going to create an article for Induben Khakhra because it is an Indian local business akin to any other famous local food business in other parts of the world. I have still not created it because English Wikipedia is restrictive in terms of sources (India is not so well documented online and offline). I am willing to play by the rules and scout for enough references in order to illustrate the popularity and magnitude of the topic. This is precisely why I looked for substantial references before creating this article. I urge the members involved to also have a look at the conversations between User:Jethwarp and I at the Nirmal Baba article. I hope this is not a vendetta AfD because his edits were reverted there. Noopur28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 29 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Another thought, the fact that Wikipedia is accused of gaps in knowledge about things outside the West means that we need more extensive coverage of local cultures outside of America and Europe. I am disappointed that a user who seems to belong to the State and culture (in that sense a local expert) has actually gone and nominated the article for deletion. This was an attempt at bringing in more knowledge but by playing according to Wikipedia's rules. Noopur28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 29 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Noopur) - Afd is not the forum to vent out your feelings about some other article like Nirmal Baba. In fact it was my conversation with Admin User:Bishonen, led to semi-protection of page and blocking of several vandals/sock-puppets over there. (In fact you reverted version, which was okayed by above Admin, [29] pl look into you faults before pointing finger to others.) I have to reply it here out of compulsion as you raised issue here but please resolve any issue at talk page of Nirmal baba not here.

As far as this Afd is concerned, I do not have any issues if article stays, if Wiki community decides it is noteworthy as per guidelines. In fact, this may lead to creation of articles like Induben Khakrawala, Derani-Jethani's ice creams, without any iota of doubt. It would be blessing in disguise for anyone who wants to create such articles in future and one can always cite this AFD as referring point.Jethwarp (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that this AfD was started to illustrate how people could debate noteworthiness and then having established it on a written page with obvious citations from Wikipedia policies, go and archive it so as to flag it in the face of someone who *might* come and contest more such articles in the future. I am not venting but if I see a pattern I call it one. I am glad you are not motivated by revenge or bad faith and I wish you reflected upon the implication of putting a "deletion tag" on an article and how readers perceive that information to be. Noopur28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 30 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Take it someplace else, guys. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm shocked that I ended up voting this way because when I saw "pizza parlor" my initial reaction was "what the hell." Looking over the sources - which are reliable - there does seem to be enougn mainstream coverage designating this parlor as significant in the sense that breaks social ground due to the ownership and popularity. As far as this editor can tell, it does pass the notability guidelines for businesses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.- A notable and well reported example of female entrepreneurship based in Ahmedabad. certainly passes WP:GNG... I am wondering why this discussion is still going on?--Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:25, 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 Redirected to Michigan State University. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Studies Center, Michigan State University[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable university department -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge to Michigan State University. Probably not notable, and the present article has a promotional feel. Nonetheless, it would be beneficial to retain the page history in the event this subject becomes sufficiently notable to warrant a full article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to speedy this as spam/nn, but the redirect makes sense, so I've done that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 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. Michig (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heal[edit]

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

Unsourced biography for seven years, I found a few people of the same name (a nice obit of an Illinois farmer, for example), but no in-depth secondary coverage at all. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable author. Given this is a WP:BLP, we need some sources. Finally, given the content of the article, WP:NOTCV is another relevant point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A G-search turns up a student from Utah, a fugitive in Thurston Co., VA, and a man from Devonshire - otherwise, nothing about the author - fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. I'm also not finding him listed among lists of prominent dog judges (and there are 1,000s of those); he did judge Great Danes at Crufts in 1998 but that doesn't make him notable! SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the importance of the subject is as great as the article seems to claim, then we would be able to find sources. Since they don't really seem to exist, that makes the claims a bit dubious to say the least. Ducknish (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons stated above (fails a standard WP:SET) and as WP:SNOWBALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikuko (talk • contribs) 13:58, 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. Michig (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Collings[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified BLP for six years. Appears to have some bylines [30], but no coverage that would evidence notability under WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. and uncited. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CREATIVE. While the Orlando Film Festival and Grierson Awards nominations are interesting, I don't think these rise to the level of conveying notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I suspect that this is a piece of autobiography. Its creator user:Richardco appears to have made one correcdtion in 2005 and written this; possible one other article that was speedily deleted. Just another NN journalist. I observe no link for the two alleged awards. We have an article on Grierson Awards but it only covers the 2006 and 2007 awards, suggesting that it is a NN award. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 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.