< 14 February 16 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Secret account 16:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colts–Jaguars rivalry

[edit]
Colts–Jaguars rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think that this article should be deleted because it has very little information and I don't even think that this is a moderately significant rivalry. This article has no contents on why it is a rivalry. But if you want to convince me that this is a rivalry go ahead. User:clecol99

Note: This AfD was not started correctly. I have added it to today's log. I have no opinion in this AfD. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 00:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 February 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 Lotus (Christina Aguilera album).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)

[edit]
Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly the author has done his best at writing this article. But if this is all that can be said about "Best of Me" (minus the Background section, which does not have direct relevance to the song), we probably do not need this article. The information -- of which there isn't a substantial amount -- is all based on sources that focus on the album as a whole, so a merge is probably the best solution. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No mention of "Best of Me"
  2. No mention of "Best of Me"
  3. No mention of "Best of Me"
  4. No mention of "Best of Me"
  5. No mention of "Best of Me"
  6. No mention of "Best of Me"
  7. Album liner notes is a primary source → not indepdendent of the song
  8. Gets a tiny paragraph (like all the other songs) as part of the album. No significant coverage.
  9. Gets 2 lines as part of coverage of the album. No significant coverage.
  10. Music retailer → no coverage at all
  11. Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
  12. Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage. And "Popcrush" could hardly be considered a reliable source.
  13. Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
  14. Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
  15. Gets one trivial sentence as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
  16. Merely verifies a mediocre chart position, no coverage at all. Till 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What position a song charts at has nothing to do with it. No one said anything when "Dance for You" was created and had only charted at 200 on one chart did they. Well in that case Till, all critical reception sections are trivial, as they are all made up of album reviews. An album review reviews the songs. Think about it.  — AARON • TALK 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archon III: Exciter

[edit]
Archon III: Exciter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan-made, counterfeit computer game which by the article's own admission never attracted any press reviews. No notability. Psychonaut (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Thibbs (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GenMyModel

[edit]
GenMyModel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable product Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 February 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 2nd Weather Group. Will perform merge. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Combat Weather Systems Squadron

[edit]
2nd Combat Weather Systems Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This squadron is not notable enough given the guidelines at WP:MILUNIT and precedents such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43d Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24th Transportation Battalion (United States). There's virtually no independent references to anything referencing with the unit besides USAF articles. I think the information in the article could be merged into the parent unit, the 2nd Weather Group, as a section explaining the squadron. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree— - dain- talk    03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 17 February 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JetGreen Airways

[edit]
JetGreen Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just riddiculous. This "airline" was around for only one week. I doubt that this was an airline at all, rather a tour operator which leased one single aircraft from Icelandair. Anyway, there is no significant coverage of this company itself, so the article should be deleted per WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 February 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. After three relistings and a couple of maybe maybe not comments, this debate isn't going anywhere. No prejudice to renomination. Secret account 05:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John A. McNeice Jr

[edit]
John A. McNeice Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman and philanthropist. Neither being chairman of a non-notable company Colonial Group, nor the, admittedly generous, donation are enough to create inherent notability. No third party sources, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 8 February 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) 18:46, 15 February 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. While there is some doubt on how the sourcing is used on this context, there wasn't much further commenting on it, thus the result. Secret account 05:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic terrorism

[edit]
Economic terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not provide the sources to establish the notability of "economic terrorism." I searched around with Google and most of the sources that use the expression seem to be conspiracy type websites and books. I am sure there could be instances of actions which could be called "economic terrorism", but there does not seem to be a consistent definition of what exactly that is in the mainstream. Borock (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Scholar does look better. I still get the feeling that the sources are mainly talking about things that might happen, not something that can be pinned down in the here and now. Borock (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 February 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, MBisanz talk 00:12, 8 February 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, Wifione Message 18:34, 15 February 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. Merger discussion can be provided elsewhere. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jordan Dorner

[edit]
Christopher Jordan Dorner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. See also WP:BLPCRIME. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between him and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes both have not been found guilty and both are only known for shootings.--Ron John (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
b) A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
90% of the article in its current form is lifted directly from 2013 Southern California shootings. Furthermore, Dorner has not been apprehended by law enforcement, and so his guilt has not yet been established. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, guy, WP:BLP1E most certainly DOES apply, as it's all counted as one event -- you know, one crime spree -- and I'm having a hard time understanding what, exactly, is the "bad faith" in noting it as such. --Calton | Talk 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, nothing here should be surprising.--John Bessa (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not for Wikipedia to try and turn Dorner into a folk hero. The fact that you think that a) he is, and b) it's our job to portray him like that is appalling. A page on Dorner might be appropriate once he has been apprehended and everyone begins to understand the full extent of what has happened. In the meantime, any material on Dorner is best-suited to the page on the shootings. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is redirected, his name will still be searchable as a redirect, and a click on his name will direct readers to the appropriate article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean regardless of policies/guidelines we should ignore the rules and do whatever we want? You must understand, the reason we have policies and guidelines as a pillar of Wikipedia is because even though you would agree, the consensus is not clear if it is 'keep' or 'merge'. Mkdwtalk 20:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case yes. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. There was not one single vote for deletion, and relisting this after Dorner had been killed in the mountains is fairly absurd considering the massive amount of coverage he got in the final showdown. Merge discussions are already taking place on relevant talk pages, they are not decided in an AFD. Please close this. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
close, please. Deletion rationale no longer applies: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people." Wikipedia:BLPCRIME not a valid reason for deletion. Redundant to merge discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Jordan_Dorner#Proposed_merger_from_2013_Southern_California_shootings and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Southern_California_shootings#Merge.2Fredirect --Rybec (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant discussion is not a reason to close an AfD that lacks consensus. Please do not take this as an endorse to one side of the argument or another. It would have appeared a merge template and centralized discussion would have been preferable considering the consensus but I will not condemn the nominator for their actions in the AfD considered they have been supported in their guideline based argument by others in the merge & redirect camp. Mkdwtalk 20:12, 15 February 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) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--it's valuable information not covered in news features very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.139.114 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the abuse he suffered while growing up, and apparently no excuse for his firing. There are a lot of things to think about in his story, and lessons for everyone to learn. Please keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.21.249 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to a Bio of a Living person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apprentiship of Mr. Smith: The Birth of Ne-Yo (Ne-Yo album)

[edit]
Apprentiship of Mr. Smith: The Birth of Ne-Yo (Ne-Yo album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines for albums and has no independent coverage apart from a few retail postings at Amazon.com and CD Universe (WP:NALBUMS). Appears to be a bootlegged release of no importance (Googled) Article title is also spelled wrong. Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ne-Yo article. Like the above, I can confirm the existance of this album, insofar as allmusic has a track list. However, as allmusic doesn't have an actual review of the album, nor indeed can I find any reliable review in any of the mainline press, this is probably not a notable enough for a standalone article. --Jayron32 00:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:54, 9 February 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) 18:07, 15 February 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. Passes notability guidelines. Airline did fly. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aria (French airline)

[edit]
Aria (French airline) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely short-lived airline (September 2004 to January 2005), which obviously did not have any noteworthy impact on the aviation industry. This company has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media either, so it fails WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellas Airlines

[edit]
Hellas Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An airline not yet operational, therefore inherently unencyclopedic (per WP:BALL) and not notable. Of course, the article is also to be deleted per WP:CORP, as Hellas Airlines has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) FoxyOrange (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 February 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. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to Human Conduct

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
A Guide to Human Conduct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Cited in a single footnote in the peer-reviewed literature, no reviews or discussion of the book in the popular or scholarly press. Not listed in the bibliography of Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_. No notability and little likelihood of establishing notability going forward. Recommend delete. GaramondLethe 03:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep:
  • The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  • Wikipedia:Harassment
  • Wikipedia:Gaming the system
  • And honestly Garamond, if you want to make constructive edits instead of destructive ones, go and tag the articles instead of proposing deletion. Anyone can see that you're systematically proposing to delete all articles related to Sarkar, while you could do something to better them.
  • The previous nominator for deletion, even has withdrawn his nomination as he says that the article is indeed notable. --Universal Life (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If this book is used at multiple schools then it's obviously notable. Given sufficient reliable sources to that effect I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination for deletion. I prefer to use tags on articles where there I believe there is an open question on notability. For most of Sarkar's works this is not, in my opinion, an open question. GaramondLethe 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Morality is part of the instruction at all of the many Ananda Marga schools. I have now requested a statement to that effect from the Central Office of AMPS, but there is no telling how long it may take to get that. However, if you will trust my good faith here, this may be confirmed on two websites that I have personally worked on. (1) Here is a 1982 book - I know... primary, COI, yada yada - that describes the system of Ananda Marga education. Note the section on morality. Naturally, in an Ananda Marga school, morality is taught according to the primary text on the subject by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, that is, "A Guide to Human Conduct". (2) Here you will find some teaching aids (a board game and a PowerPoint presentation) for instruction on morality based on the guidelines found in "A Guide to Human Conduct". I might also mention that in Ananda Marga, instruction in meditation is given free of charge, but it is only given after a seeker has understood and accepted the principles of morality. So, in this respect, "A Guide to Human Conduct" has "made a significant contribution to a significant religious movement" (in accordance with Point 3 of WP:NB). Needless to say, my vote would be Keep, but I am hoping that there will be no need for me to vote yet again after only one month on this same book. --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this book is part of the curriculum in AM school then you have a difficult-but-doable argument to make that the AM school system in notable and can confer its notability on the books that it requires. That's a stretch, but it could work. Arguing that this book influenced a religious movement based on an attenuated definition of "influence" and in the absence of any independent reliable sources just isn't going to fly. (If the latter argument was going to work it would have prevented any article on a Sarkar book from being deleted. It's my understanding that this clause is used only for works outside of the religious moment that have a significant effect.) GaramondLethe 19:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garamond, your second comment contradicts your first comment, where you said; "If this book is used at multiple schools then it's obviously notable". References are there out, they are just to be searched and added here. And the very reason with which you nominated this article would be completely removed. --Universal Life (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The onus is on you to show that the Ananda Marga school system is significant enough that its curriculum choices can influence notability, and that this book is indeed a part of the curriculum. You're free to argue that this isn't the case, but I don't think you'll persuade too many editor that way. As to the publication, the books are not published by an independent third party. Arguing over what to call that isn't going to advance this discussion. GaramondLethe 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And references still aren't used to establish notability. Again, my own work is far more heavily cited than Sarkar's in the peer-reviewed literature. That does not make my work notable (in the wikipedia sense), nor should it. GaramondLethe 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four citations in this paper to AGtHC. AGtHC is not discussed anywhere in the paper, only referenced. There is a baseline level of WP:COMPETENCE needed if you're going to contribute here successfully. Part of this is reading and understanding the citations you provide. GaramondLethe 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To work backwards: Neo-humanism is of course Sarkar's system, and therefore it isn't notable that neo-humanist organizations appeal to his works. A blog is not considered a reliable source, especially when it is published by someone who is manifestly a follower. Finally, Z Net, while looking more promising, gives the appearance of verging on self-publication; their own self-description, and that of others, seems to indicate that their editorial policy is essentially indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see on the school website that "The ethos of the School comes from Ananda Marga," which as everyone by now who follows this is aware is the organization centered on Sarkar's principles. Therefore it is unsurprising that they might work from his texts. Again, this is a lack of independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Mangoe. You have just established the notability of A Guide to Human Conduct for us! Ananda Marga has many hundreds of schools around the world. In your own words, "it is unsurprising that [those schools] might work from [Sarkar's] texts". Point 4 at WP:NB reads: "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." In this point, there is no mention that the schools must be entirely unrelated to the author! How many authors would establish an organization that then establishes hundreds of schools just to establish notability for one of the author's books on Wikipedia? --Abhidevananda (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: my opinion is that the article has sufficient sources.--Anta An (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)— Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:31, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would dispute just about everything that Colapeninsula [CP] has stated. (1) I have provided links to two scholarly articles on the subject. Perhaps those articles do not meet CP's rigid standards, but they do tend to dispel the hyperbole of "no independent reliable sources discussing this". (2) Yes, there have been links to the author's own work, but there have also been many links to the statements and websites of others. (3) I am not aware of any "broken links". There is one link that initially comes up with an internal server error (500), but clicking Refresh then brings up the intended page. (4) Criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK is not the "chief claim advanced for notability". An examination of the first AfD nomination reveals that I asserted 3 out 5 of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. That is still my position, and I consider the argument for each of those three criteria to be strong. As I have not yet formally voted in this second AfD debate, I will do so below, appending an amplification of those three arguments. (5) CP asks for "verifiable" evidence that Sarkar's work is used in education. If websites and signed statements do not satisfy CP, then s/he is at liberty to contact either of the persons in those signed statements or anyone available at the contact page on those websites. "Verifiable" only means that CP - or anyone else - has sufficient information to do the verification. It does not mean that CP can sit back and claim that something is not verified simply because CP did not make any effort to do so. Here we are not writing or rewriting the article - we are just discussing notability. (6) CP wants evidence that this book is "widely used" and "not just at 1 or 2 institutions". Again, evidence has been given of use in at least two schools, and two qualifies as "multiple" (more than one), per Criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK. No one is obliged to satisfy the more stringent requirements that CP apparently would impose. (7) CP wants to know that the book was "not written largely for use in educational institutions". Even a cursory glance at the book should prove that for anyone curious about such a matter. (8) CP wants evidence that this book is considered [by whom CP does not say] to be a "'major work in philosophy, literature, science' or another area of knowledge". I am unclear as to why CP insists on this, but according to Criterion 3 of WP:NBOOK, it should be sufficient that this is clearly the view of many knowledgeable members of Ananda Marga worldwide. (9) CP's last argument about what an article should have in it may be valid, but it only suggests a reason to impose a flag on the article, not to delete the article. If we were to delete every article on Wikipedia that is not perfect (according to CP's standards), then the number of articles on Wikipedia might drop from 4,000,000 to 4,000. --Abhidevananda (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK Criteria Satisfied by A Guide to Human Conduct
Criterion Compliance References
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. A Guide to Human Conduct was first published in 1957 by Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha (then barely two years old). As of September 2004, the book was in its seventh reprinting. Ananda Marga encourages everyone to meditate (perform sadhana, spiritual practice). However, in the view of Sarkar (and hence Ananda Marga), the peformance of sadhana is impossible without Yama-Niyama, the yogic code of ethics that is explained in this book. That statement appears at the beginning of each book written by Sarkar. It is found in what is called "The Supreme Command". Similarly, in Sarkar's Introduction to this very book, A Guide to Human Conduct, Sarkar states: "It must, therefore, be emphasized that even before beginning Sádhaná, one must follow moral principles strictly. Those who do not follow these principles should not follow the path of Sádhaná; otherwise they will bring about their own harm and that of others." Hence, in Ananda Marga, instruction in meditation is not dependent on financial contribution but rather upon commitment to the moral code set out authoritatively in this very book (and in no other book by Sarkar). The importance of Yama-Niyama (yogic morality) for spiritual aspirants is stressed not only in this book but also in Ananda Marga Caryacarya Part 1 and Part 2 (2 out of 3 parts of the Ananda Marga social code). However, as stated, this may be verified by simply opening the front cover of any of the many books by Sarkar published by Ananda Marga in many languages and reading "The Supreme Command". For further evidence, examine the source code of Template:Yama-Niyama, which is used in the Ananda Marga article. The source code begins with the following comment: "This infobox template is based on the 10 principles of yogic morality (yama-niyama) as explained by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti in A Guide to Human Conduct.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. As evidenced in the preceding discussion, this book is indeed the subject of instruction at multiple schools. It is a fundamental part of the Neohumanist Education system adhered to by all of the many hundreds of Ananda Marga schools around the world. Signed statements by the in-charges of two prestigious schools, one in Laos and the other in London, as well as links to various websites connected with Neohumanist Education [2] [3] [4]. Additional evidence may be provided, but this already meets the criterion for "multiple" schools, and there does not appear to be any dispute on the number of Ananda Marga schools that maintain such a course of study.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. This argument was recently advanced by a Wikipedia administrator, J04n in the failed AfD nomination on Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2). Though the book was different, clearly this argument has equal impact in respect to other books. When J04n's assertion was questioned by the AfD nominator on that book as well as this book, I seconded the position of J04n with the following remarks: "I can understand Garamond's doubt as to the historical importance of Sarkar, based purely on what he can find in Western academic circles. However, the life of Sarkar was extraordinary - for example, he underwent seven years in jail on trumped up charges, with more than five years and four months fasting in protest of being poisoned in jail - and during that same time, his organization spread like wildfire around the world. Furthermore, Sarkar's contributions reflect progressive novelty in more areas of individual and collective life than any other historical figure that I am aware of. Philosophy, socioeconomic theory, spiritual practices, music, dance, cosmology, ontology, science, history, ethics, and much, much more - Sarkar covered them all. One need not agree with everything that Sarkar said to appreciate such an achievement. One simply needs to understand that these achievements were not mere dabbling. At the very same time as Sarkar was giving his 5,018 songs of Prabhat Samgiita, he also gave 26 original volumes of books on philology (Shabdha Cayanika) and spent many hours in organizational meetings regarding service work around the world - meetings that took place four times each day (seven days a week). So, yes, I think that Sarkar's works meet criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT, and I am amazed that anyone would concern themselves so much to seek the deletion of such articles. After all, this is a virtual encyclopedia. We are not killing trees or eating up a great amount of any other precious resource by providing accurate and neutral articles on a subject that may be of interest to readers of Wikipedia. Okay, these articles might not accumulate the greatest number of hits on Wikipedia. But so what? Wikipedia still provides a service to the public by making this information available, especially when any of these books are not yet cited in Garamond's "peer-reviewed literature". Criterion 5 of WP:BKCRIT and WP:IAR are tailor-made for a case like this." I stand firmly by those remarks. In the words of J04n, "The historical significance of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar renders all of his works notable." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2)
--Abhidevananda (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you thought the plethora of Bengali translations in libraries around the world would establish notability you would have done the search already. You're smart enough not to waste your time searching for something that isn't there. So am I. Garamond Lethet
    c     20:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garamond, as you would know if you had bothered to read the article that you nominated for deletion, I am not talking about "Bengali translations". There have been no Bengali translations. This book was originally written and published in Bengali. In point of fact, English is the translation, and there have been many other translations as well. The article on A Guide to Human Conduct specifically references a Spanish edition, a Brasilian edition, an Italian edition, and a Russian edition. Accordingly, a complete search of libraries for this book requires more than just a cursory use of WorldCat in respect to the English title of the book. It requires a search in all of the languages in which the book has been published as well as in all of the libraries of the world. Your admission that you did not "waste your time" making a search for anything other than the English title demonstrates the bias of your approach and the utter unreliability of your claim that this book "resides in exactly 6 libraries worldwide". --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My "strong keep" is much clearer after the last interventions. Thanks to all.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment This user has done almost no editing except on Ananda Marga and to vote in these deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another editor who has made his/her way to this Afd within 48 hours of account creation. Location (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm at my incorrect searches. My apologies. Redoing the searches (correctly this time, with conduct rather than conflict) I see that the book is noted/referenced in a number of other works, but it still doesn't look like the significant coverage is there. CtP (t • c) 16:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on comment: Finally we agree on something, Dougweller. A bunch of libraries is not a big deal. What we should be looking at is WP:NB. And, in that respect, notability is proven by the fact that this book meets not just one but three of the five criteria given there. Okay, maybe you don't agree with the arguments I presented in my table above. But let's look at your implicit position on those three criteria. With respect to Criterion 5, you do not think that Sarkar is sufficiently "historically significant". As I have not seen any authoritative list of persons covered by that criterion, I suppose that here we can only agree to disagree. With respect to Criterion 4, you think that accredited schools that rely on this book for their instruction must be ignored if those schools are associated with the organization that published this book. I don't see that exclusion anywhere in the notability guidelines, nor does such an exclusion strike me as reasonable. But perhaps you may like to have that guideline amended... just for cases where an author is also responsible for the establishment of hundreds of schools. That leaves Criterion 3. You seem to think that it does not matter how significant the contribution of this book is to a significant religious movement if that significant religious movement happens to be Ananda Marga. Perhaps you would like to add a blacklist to Criterion 3... either for books or for religious movements. However, in the absence of such a blacklist, I fail to see any rational basis for your position. --Abhidevananda (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the level of historical significance needed is "so historically significant that a the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." It's only a body of study within the very small number of schools in his own religious group. That doesn't affect his own notability, but it makes him not famous enough as an author to make all his books notable. The most recent religious figures I an think of as having that significance as authors, that of being famous far behind their community, and their works studied by people of all sorts of different traditions, is Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and we don't have all of their works, even all their major works. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I already responded to that remark at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discourses_on_Tantra_(Volumes_1_and_2), referenced for Criterion 5 of WP:NB in my table showing the three criteria met by this book. Criterion 5 does not state that the "author's life and body of written work" must be or even is currently "a common subject of academic study". It merely states that it "would be a common subject of academic study". In this context, "would be" expresses potential, either actualized or not yet actualized. I believe that "would be" makes more sense than "is", because we don't need to wait 50-100 years for academic study to play catch up. Gandhi and MLK? Do I detect a bias for successfully assassinated political activists who preached non-violence? Fortunately, the two known assassination attempts against Sarkar (one in his youth and another while in jail) both failed, thereby enabling him to make many more contributions in areas as diverse as agriculture, health, spiritual practices, philosophy, ethics, music, philology, history, and so on. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) no such thing as "unsuccessfully assassinated" <grin> --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book's notability cannot be inherited from that of its author. The article may be sourced, but verifiability is distinct from notability. Also, how did you discover AfD in fifteen minutes? CtP (t • c) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, while I agree with you that the wording of Soroboro's vote is poor, you are definitely incorrect when you say: "The book's notability cannot be inherited from that of its author." Please look at WP:INHERITED, where it is clearly stated: "Three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." In this case, one of the arguments for notability is: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Perhaps this was the point that Soroboro was making. If so, then I certainly agree with that. However, recognizing the somewhat subjective nature of this argument, I have also asserted Criteria 3 and 4 of WP:NB, both of which I consider to have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake for not examining the wording of WP:INHERITED more carefully; thank you for the corrction. I personally am not of the opinion that Sarkar fulfills point 5 of WP:BK, but yes, this may have been what Soroboro was getting at. CtP (t • c) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criterion 5 of WP:NB is somewhat subjective in nature, and so I merely state my opinion while respectfully acknowledging your differing opinion. However, Criteria 3 and 4 do not suffer from that drawback. As Sarkar established a global religious movement and also a global political movement, it is rather easy to demonstrate which of his books made a significant contribution to either of those (per Criterion 3). While many of his books do satisfy that criterion, I would not include all of them. For example, I would not include Sarkar's books of children's fiction, his books of short stories, his book on English grammar, of even his many books on philology under that category. But, without a doubt, Sarkar's book on ethics - A Guide to Human Conduct - does fall squarely within the ambit of Criterion 3. Furthermore, as Sarkar also established a global service network, comprising hundreds of accredited schools, it is rather easy to demonstrate which of his books are a subject of instruction in them (per Criterion 4). I have only cited two books in respect to the education network, and the book under discussion here - A Guide to Human Conduct - is one of them. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:57, 24 February 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. Based on the policy-derived arguments, this seems to be a fairly clear consensus. No in-depth coverage found, no independent reviews, etc.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Society (Parts 1 and 2)

[edit]
Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published collection by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Eleven citations to each volume per google scholar but no scholarly or independent discussion of the book. Volumes are listed in Inayatullah's _Understanding Sarkar_ but not discussed. Article states that the chapters that make up this work were reprinted in "Prout in a Nutshell", the article of which was recently redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Requesting redirection or deletion due to lack of notability and the low likelihood that notability could be established going forward. GaramondLethe 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 11 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tabaris

[edit]
Tabaris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article is named after a region/street in beirut yet the body flaunts the doubtful history of an obscure family. the entire "article" is not referenced Eli+ 12:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Kabbouche be deleted at the same time. It is very nearly identical content, created by the same editor. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangor University Hockey Club

[edit]
Bangor University Hockey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

University sports cub that fails WP:NCOLLATH. No robust references at all. Refs provided are dead-links, own web site or trivial mentions. No notability and no assertion of any notability other than its existence.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 February 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) 11:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go along with that. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eti 2000

[edit]
Eti 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company without any indication of deeper importance. Obviously, it has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media, so it clearly fails WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 February 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. Please use the list's talk page for any further discussion about renaming or converting to a list of lists. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of cyclists

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of cyclists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no criteria. If it is ever complete it would be too big. BaldBoris 09:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 16:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Street Legends Movie

[edit]
Miami Street Legends Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be perhaps a forthcoming YouTube video or an already filmed movie with no independent coverage whatsoever. Either way, fails a whole suite of Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Shirt58 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 16:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Edson Berto

[edit]
James Edson Berto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has one top-tier fight; does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest GNG. Mkdwtalk 08:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sylvester

[edit]
Tony Sylvester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No top tier fights (does mention he fought a Strikeforce opponent and lost). Does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest GNG. Mkdwtalk 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Persey

[edit]
Tim Persey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No top-tier fights and does not meet WP:NMMA. No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability in GNG. Mkdwtalk 07:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 February 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. Deleted per agreement of article creator - and as the article creator has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. The Bushranger One ping only 14:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stumpf

[edit]
Mike Stumpf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has 2 UFC fights but does not meet WP:NMMA. Due to successive losses it's likely he will not receive a third top-tier fight. Mkdwtalk 07:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious support of the AfD as the article creator. If he gains another top-tier MMA fight I will assist in the re-creation. Mkdwtalk 23:47, 15 February 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. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Singh

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ravi Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment - Seems like you have something personal against this guy, but either way, the topic is now up for discussion. Please make sure that your comments remain neutral. I can see from the notice on the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard that you say this article was posted with "slight" revisions. That is a gross understatement. I was actually working on improving the article but it was deleted before I could finish and post the edits. I would request that an administrator restore the deleted version so that people can see that it is more than a "slight" revision. The previous article reaked of promotion. It was basically an article about the company Election Mall, using the media surrounding Singh as a cover. It was horribly written and lacked sourcing. The current article is a "substantial" improvement and those discussing it here can see the major changes if the previous one is restored somewhere to look at. --Plainscallops (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 19 February 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 both to June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. According to our usual practices, we would not make a separate article here. I personally might disagree with that, but the consensus for our practice is clear & my personal view irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Menchaca

[edit]
Kristian Menchaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual whose death is tragic and sacrifice in the service to his country is commendable, probably does not meet our guidelines for inclusion per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, same goes for Thomas Lowell Tucker. These two soldiers are notable for the event: June 2006 abduction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. EricSerge (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the second article as part of this AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sumi Das

[edit]
Sumi Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorl sourced Piku 15:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 5 February 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) 18:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteShe is a non-notable reporter. Strongly recommend for deletion Jussychoulex (talk) 18:51, 16 February 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 Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Willmore

[edit]
Ben Willmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, the only references I found are already listed here, nothing else. I don't nominate articles very often so if I am doing this wrong, please correct me to the right way. Antonio Sugar Head Martin here 21:32, 31 January, 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 5 February 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) 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:56, 15 February 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. Sources do not prove notability, especially after two precious AfDs generated a consensus of delete. SouthernNights (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Fertel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mort Fertel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined G4 as I consider this article to be different enough from the last deleted version. I'm not convinced about the notability, however, and am bringing this for consensus in discussion. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you, first I'll copy my explanation from the talk page here: "I have no idea what this page looked like before, but I do know that when I reviewed the deletion debates from before many of the references I used here were not used, especially as they didn't exist yet. This person has been featured in major newspapers, and written about in major published books as an expert in the field. The author has been written about extensively in the press, far more so that a normal author. Sources 1-3, 6 and 12 exhibit clear depth of coverage, and sources 7 and 8 clearly show that his work is discussed by other major books. Minor amounts of detail have been taken from personal bios, which can be removed if necessary. I do not see at all how this article is one of someone that is "clearly not notable" enough to have a Wikipedia page." None of the sources mention Fertel in passing (save the smaller mentions in the books), and each discuss him as an expert. Sources also come from a range of places--relationship books, popular magazines, newspapers, etc. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure how seriously to take that book as a reference - Amazon list it as a Kindle edition, with Alliance Publishing as the publisher. From what I can see, that's a self-publishing outfit. Could be wrong... Look it up. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote in light of other comments. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Ronnie Lee book says the same thing as well, and is not a self-published work. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As did the Toronto Sun here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as the previous 2 articles that were deleted via AfD... no reliable references that go into any detail. Jeremy112233 says refs 1-3, 7 and 8 "exhibit clear depth of coverage". Can't see one ref as it is behind a paywall, but the others are book reviews or quotes by Fetel. None go into any depth of coverage about him. The books in refs 5 and 6 are self-published as West Bow publishing offers only self-publishing services. For Mangoe's book, Alliance Publishing Group specialized in "Chamber of Commerce and other lifestyle publications. Our resume includes numerous Chamber titles in Alabama as well as PORTICO Birmingham and other specialty publications, brochures, maps and directories." They will also help you self-publish your book. So, we have a person that has self-published a book, is mentioned in other self-published books, is quoted in some publications. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added four news sources to the page to try to help alleviate concerns about Fertel's notability. Among them are an articles that focus entirely on Fertel in the Baltimore Sun, which states that the Mayor of Baltimore announced the last week of October 2004 as "Marriage Fitness Week" due to Fertel's work, and quotes from Fertel in the Toronto Sun, Chicago Tribune, and the Rocky Mountain News. That now makes 8 different major newspapers that have covered Fertel, which I believe is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 6 February 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) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:55, 15 February 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 Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. Arguments to keep have been adequately refuted, there were no objections to merging which is preferable to deletion. J04n(talk page) 12:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Morrison

[edit]
Alex Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insufficient notability according to WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People Johndowning (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namami Krsnasundaram

[edit]
Namami Krsnasundaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (here writing as Shrii Shrii Anandamurti) that has failed to gain notability outside of Sarkar's Ananda Marga organization. The two citations to reliable sources are a brief quotation and an unannotated listing in a bibliography. No independent discussion of the book exists in the popular or scholarly press and there's no indication that any such discussion will be forthcoming. Recommend deletion.

Instead of several non-notable articles, the editors might want to create a Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (bibliography) page where each of these books would be listed. GaramondLethe 04:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bolkan

[edit]
Scott Bolkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He did make an appearance for the Portland Timbers in a U.S. Open Cup match in 2008, but his appearance was against an amateur club. That means he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ijin Material

[edit]
Ijin Material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't really see anything to indicate in-depth notability on a quick search and sources check. Article is excessively promotional and unsourced, and may be copyvio from somewhere. It was certainly created by someone whose ID suggests a clear conflict of interest. Mabalu (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As well as being promotional it seems to be a copyright violation from [8]. The text used to be closer, but wikipedians have corrected some of the spelling problems in the original - "artisinal", "principle", and "aswell" - something the commercial site still hasn't managed to do! - Ttwaring (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Habanero.NET

[edit]
Habanero.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unreferenced and I find no reliable sources to indicate that this is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristopher Tate

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kristopher Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the basic requirements listed in WP:BIO. This page was nominated for deletion together with a company related to Mr. Tate, and was subsequently deleted, in 2006. afd The page was recreated out of process in 2007 and after a brief revert war (making it a redirect to Zoomr, reinstating the article), the article seems to have stuck. In the meanwhile, Mr. Tate can only be said to have become more obscure - his two companies, his claim to fame (and notability), have become defunct, and it seems likely that a user with a COI has been editing the page, including links to Mr. Tate's linkedIn account, and 2 videos posted on his YouTube feed, showing him being interviewed by Japanese TV. Brooooood (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 15 February 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. MacRandal

[edit]
D. J. MacRandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP and I can't find anything reliable at all online about him, under his abbreviated name or full name Daniel Joseph MacRandall. The RSUA is a small, barely notable organisation and I don't believe Presidents of it should be automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article. if he is still alive he has clearly been active for over 40 years so if someone can find offline sources I'll withdraw this nomination. But its of little use unsourced! Sionk (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 January 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While redirects are cheap, we don't redirect one random book series to a huge company that publishes thousands of books, and consensus is clear this don't meet GNG. Secret account 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poison Apple Books

[edit]
Poison Apple Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. promotional, no sources provided appears to fail notability guidelines[[10]] no google hits or awards won. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Base song huh? Careful you're dating yourself! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:00, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is clear enough after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Monkey Fight

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Quiet Monkey Fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable performing group, fails WP:GNG and notability. Requires more significant coverage in reliable sources than a puff piece on thestranger.com to meet GNG. Previously deleted in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Monkey Fight. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:03, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is clear enough. No need for further relistings DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generator Rex (toy line)

[edit]
Generator Rex (toy line) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of toys that doesn't seem at all notable. Sort of reads like an ad. Paper Luigi T • C 08:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:08, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability is shown better at a later date.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Smith (producer)

[edit]
Cedric Smith (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable producer/writer/session musician. Worked with several notable artist but appears to fail the GNG on his own. Can find little to no coverage of the subject in Independent reliable sources. Article was created by an editor who admits to creating promotional articles in exchange for "tips". Ridernyc (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the Best Rap Grammy is an artist award. Songwriters and producers get nothing from the Grammys for that. So He has worked on a nominated album but has not been nominated. We also still need reliable sources that cover the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:10, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was the songwriter for one song and he has only received significant attention for the Tyrese album so far. Being a songwriter for one Tyrese Gibson song doesn't make him notable for a Wikipedia article because there are several non-notable or one-time songwriters. There isn't much notability with the other artists either. Redirecting is better than deleting it because it leaves the window open for a future article. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 16 February 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. No consensus following three relistings. However also no prejudice against a renomination, on account of that same lack of discussion. The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Friedman Foundation

[edit]
Samuel Friedman Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a conspicuous lack of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. We have three links to what are more or less primary sources (1, 2, 3), a pair of press releases (4, 5) and an advertising campaign (6). - Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources added. Please KEEP, this Award is an important one to it's recipients, and unique in nature. Ybidzian (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:27, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 15 February 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. It is sometimes a toss-up whether the article should be on the company, or the CEO, but it seems clear in this case that the company is better known. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rohith Bhat

[edit]
Rohith Bhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issue; though the company was mentioned in some news items, that does not make the CEO too notable GDibyendu (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GDibyendu (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 February 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, The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:05, 18 February 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Mackey

[edit]
Danielle Mackey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN seems to have little to no notability, can't find any real references on google. I highly recommend deletion, but there might be enough data to not change this to a CSD. Jab843 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless significant secondary sources can be provided to establish notability. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per basic criteria on WP:BIO. Sources have been added, subject is notably connected to multiple events. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually not bad. The TBS bio and the Rome Observer article are probably RSes and Gamesradar is listed as an RS at WP:VG/RS. If she wins this "King of the Nerds" thing then there will almost certainly be further RS coverage. Considering that the article seems to meet the minimum threshold of "multiple reliable sources", I say keep for now. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even with those, she is still a very minor e-celebrity. We do not have to document every single one, or even those with a few sources. Just the most important ones. Until she reaches that point, she shouldn't have an article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The added sources have made it far closer to WP:NOTE. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true. If the other people are only notable for the show, then the show page would be sufficient for documenting them. That's not the case with this subject, who is notable for multiple events/circumstances (not counting YouTube, since that is a self-source), so a dedicated article is appropriate per WP:BIO#Basic criteria. In other words, if we ignore the YouTube reference, her presence on 2 television shows and a Maxim contest would be enough, since they are independently mentioned in documented secondary sources. A page for the person is able to appropriately "bridge" the connection between these other events. -- Netoholic @ 09:28, 16 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability well established by multiple sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.55.119 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — 71.72.55.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No point in keeping. Just delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.26 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. -- she seems to have several connections to notable events, both online and off. References are cited, and context is provided. Skotte (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability. 89.75.58.109 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is documented notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.27.98 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 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.

Phantom Anonymity Protocol

[edit]

The result was delete. Sourcing is not clear enough to justify an article on this topic; theses are, at best, iffy as sourcing. Having said that, I'll note that 'no google news or GHits' does not an argument make; I'd really appreciate it if nominators could put the effort into elucidating an actual reason why there is a problem and do more than ~2 minutes of research before hitting the AfD button. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Anonymity Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no GNews, GHits appear not to be RS. GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 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. Theclear consensus was delete. If it becomes possible to write an article on "Church in the 21st century" the website could be mentioned in a sentence or so, but that's hardly a merge, nor would a redirect be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C21 Online

[edit]
C21 Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable special project by Boston College. No evidence of any WP:Notability. The main article, Church in the 21st Century, was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church in the 21st Century--GrapedApe (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we have articles about websites if they meet WP:WEB. This requires coverage in reliable sources, and has nothing to do with usage figures. This website doesn't meet that standard though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 8 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurens County Community Theater

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Laurens County Community Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization fails to meet notability guidelines as established in WP:ORG which states that at least one regional, national, or international news source is necessary to establish an organization's notability-— this article, after more than three years, still has no citations and has received no coverage at the required levels. It appears that the article is largely a list of productions and casts, none of which are themselves notable (therefore are merely routine and trivial coverage) which makes the article appear to be self-promotional. Lastly, though the troupe competed for a regional award, it did not win that award and therefore fails to meet that notability criterion as well. Perhaps parts of the article should be placed under the article for Clinton, South Carolina. KDS4444Talk 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get A Grip (book)

[edit]
Get A Grip (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Article created by publisher's marketing group. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 15 February 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.
More