< 15 February	17 February >

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 02:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Allard[edit]

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

This autobiographical article was created in good faith, but the author has since realized he doesn't satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The original author indicated on my talk page that he agrees it should be deleted. PROD removed by IP user. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Decent citation counts, especially for a community college professor, but not really enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see any evidence of passing the other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 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 without prejudice to recreation if it meets GNG in the future. Secret ^account 02:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal Plant Database[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Note that it is a wiki that is found here and not the one found here. A speedy deletion by Velella was declined. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It is a website without claim of notability. It is a new website, only a few days old, which contains (as far as I can tell) only one entry. Peacock (talk) 19:37, 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 02:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Browns-Lions rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has POV issues because what does establish a rivalry. The article makes no assertion, just lists the games the two teams have played against one another.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 22:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Browns and Lions do not have a rivalry. Simply being among the oldest of NFL teams does not mean they are rivals. This article developed off of a premise that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Browns were actually in the All-America Football Conference originally, not the NFL and that franchise moved to Baltimore, with a new expansion franchise adopting the historic name and colors. There is no "Browns-Lions Rivalry," although one might be able to sell me on a "Lions-Packers Rivalry" or a "Lions-Bears Rivalry." As such, not an encyclopedic topic, protracted competition between Random Team A and Random Team B in Random Sport X does not a notable topic make. Carrite (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historical rivalry and the two teams played in THREE nfl Championships in the 1950's if this shouldn't have an article that why should Bucs-Dolphins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources provided. I don't doubt that the games are played, but I do doubt that it is a "rivalry" so to speak. If the original editor is overly enthusiastic, go with userfication of the article and bring it back when it's ready.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sports rivalry is inherently notable per WP:NRIVALRY. A sports rivalry should should satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for inclusion as a stand-alone article topic; GNG requires that the subject must be discussed in a material way in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The media coverage of this "rivalry" does not satisfy those guidelines for inclusion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:30, 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. The policy based opinions, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not meeting WP:GNG, are decidedly not for keeping. A merge was considered but as AdventurousSquirrel pointed out it would only be appropriate if reliable sources could be found. The only sources found were by Muboshgu and fell short of defining this as a rivalry. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indians-White Sox rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Two teams in a sports league. Is there a rivalry or just a history of playing one another annually. Whether two teams are rivals are a POV.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to Major League Baseball rivalries where appropriate, if reliable sources can be found to back up what's in the article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete I do not for the life of me understand the desire of some to create "rivalry" articles for obscure matchups. Yeah, they're in the same division, but that doesn't necessarily make them "rivals". That should be a high bar to clear, like NYY-BOS, LAD-SFG, and a few others. As for this one, a Google News archive search will of course find some hits for "indians white sox rivalry", since the two teams have been around for so long. But, one of the first hits to come up says things like they "may have" developed a rivalry, and that was 1994, and another questions whether or not there is one, and that's from 2003. I'm not convinced that any amount of sourcing would suffice to save this article from WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This rivalry has 10 1/2 finishes as well several other competitive seasons, 5 no hitters the 1994 corked bat incident, shoeless joe also played for the Indians so it is a competitive rivalry with history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is that saying there have been "10 1-2 finishes", they're both lakefront cities, etc., is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - you're taking some facts and trying to claim that verifies a rivalry, when it doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with you on your comment on the lakefront cities which is a moot point in this rivalry but they have 10 1/2 finishes which makes for a competitive rivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These two teams have enough history that I'll leave it for the baseball historians as to whether a truly historic rivalry has existed between these franchises. I'm dubious. Carrite (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant. There is virtually no history between these teams.Ultimahero (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did you even read the article?.And define your definition of history, what do you mean? by what happenend in the games between the two teams? or 1/2 finishes.Im lost— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article mentions the years 1906-1908 but it's pointless because nothing happens. There are two close years in 1919 and 1920, then nothing for thirty years. The White Sox stunk it up during that stretch. Both were better in the 50's but were largely irrelevant to each other since the Yankees dominated that era (winning eight pennants during the decade.) The lone exception during the 50's where Cleveland and Chicago were relevant was 1959. After that Cleveland stunk up the 60's and then in 1969 they were placed in separate divisions which only served to push them even farther apart. So, from 1906 to 1993, we're looking at three close years. That's all. I think I'm justified in saying there is virtually no history there. Things get a little better from 1994 onward since they're in the same division but even then there's only four close seasons: 1994, 1997, 2000. 2005. It's just not enough to be called a rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article reads like a separate history of the two teams. The word rival or rivalry isn't used one single time. Lastly some seem to think a rivalry is only present if two teams are any good. Anyone familiar with college football knows that isn't necessarily true. Still in this case, we have two sources(that don't say rival or rivalry either) that two teams exist but nothing more....William 11:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Major League Baseball rivalries BO | Talk 10:36, 23 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) 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weixinism[edit]

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

Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. A search for sources to support and establish notability came up empty. There are a few Chinese websites that mention the subject, but none met the threshold for independence and reliability. Cindy(talk to me) 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N

ote: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:19, 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 redirect to Vetrimaaran#Career. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vada Chennai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD prt WP:PROD - previous AFD exists. Reason given in PROD was: Film has still not commenced principal photography, cast and crew working on other projects, fails WP:NFF. Illia Connell (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to per TOO SOON to the director's article at Vetrimaaran#Career where this planned project is already mentioned. His plans have coverage, but fails WP:NFF. Through policy's instructions we can offer information of it in sourced context to the man behind this anticipated film as spoken of in multiple sources. Undelete article once filming actually begins.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – to Vetrimaaran#Career per MichaelQSchmidt as the film is likely to kick start soon. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:41, 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 delete. Secret ^account 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Jun Wu[edit]

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

No independent refs . Only refs are own University profile, own LinkedIn page and personal home page. No notability asserted and none obvious from article. Unclear why this has survived for so long. Just a personal puff piece. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't think that Xxanthippe could have found a more suitable category. After carefully reviewing the history of the page and searching to see if Dong Jun Wu met any of the notability criterion, I agree that the professor does not meet WP:Prof and the article reads like WP:RESUME. However, I disagree that it is a personal fluff piece - multiple users have contributed, though the main ones came from two users which could, potentially, be the same. Still, the article, in my interpretation of Wikipedia policies, should be deleted. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not observed. Did not find any reliable reference. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:27, 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 Deleted by WilliamH as a hoax. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoidberg (zeitrburg)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be a hoax. IP removed ((db-g3)). —Theopolisme (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC) character.[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, Fails WP:GNG John F. Lewis (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, this is clearly not notable (e.g. multiple sources covering the topic in deep are missing) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This hoax is a mashup of a Futurama cartoon character, some claptrap about Greek and Germanic mythology, and a reference to a website of Winnebago Indian myths. The image resembles the cartoon character. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:49, 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. Secret ^account 02:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Gym[edit]

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

PROD was removed with no reason. I don't see significant coverage of the gym itself. The fact that notable fighters have trained there is WP:NOTINHERITED. The other sources are the fact that it burned down and another saying it was rebuilt--neither of which indicates notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete There have been some notable fighters who trained there, but notability is not inherited. WP:ORG says "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." I didn't find the significant independent coverage from multiple sources that WP:GNG requires. Papaursa (talk) 04:59, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform necklace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There seems to be very few independent reliable sources about the necklaces (or its concept), and those few I could find are little more than mentions that they exist. I think this hovers just below the notability standards; it might make a good article in a couple of years if they catch on, but not yet. — Coren ^(talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. At this point in time there isn't enough to show that this is particularly worthy of an article. This is the second time someone has created the article with the intent to promote Bizer's work specifically, so I highly recommend salting this to prevent further recreation until it can be proven that it passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 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 03:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Agnieszka Radwańska tennis season[edit]

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

I don't believe that Radwanska qualifies for her own yearly article yet. Check with members of the project. GAtechnical (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she does not qualify. Per tennis project consensus a player must have won at least 1 grand slam tournament to even be considered to have yearly articles. Plus her main page still has plenty of room to include a 2013 summary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:29, 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 Speedy delete a1, insufficient context to understand what this is about. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between connection oriented and connection less[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia designed for an essay. It serves as unsourced trivia. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 16:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, essay-like, factually incorrect. JIP | Talk 16:25, 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. J04n(talk page) 12:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Rico González[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in La Liga. This is not quite true. He has been called to the squad for at least one La Liga match, but he has never featured on the pitch. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to not playing at senior national level, nor in a fully-professional league, he fails applicable guidelines as mentioned above. C 679 16:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 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 already merged by User:Awewe. Secret ^account 04:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Hamas[edit]

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

An article based on a spin-off from a cheap shot from a blog. Soman (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Rutebega (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The allegations are getting a bit of flash-in-the-pan coverage, but we have no actual evidence that the group exists or ever has existed, since Breitbart isn't a reliable source, so we can't really have an article on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mention in reliable sources only to refute the blogger's allegation. Not a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the organization appears to have receive multiple passing mentions in reliable sources. However, the published content of those reliable sources does not have the group as the primary subject of the content, and it is my opinion that the coverage of the organization found does not add up to be considered significant coverage of the organization. Significant coverage maybe created by a reliable source in the future, but presently it does not exist to indicate that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, after all, difficult for reliable sources to devote significant coverage to an organization that appears not to exist. Fringe sources can have a field day, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link I found of the group was this one:

*George Ajjan (3 March 2007). "3.3.07". blog. Ajjan Associates, LLC. Retrieved February 17, 2013.

~~--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

This was about something about the American Iranian Council; disregard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Breitbart.com#Controversies. The scandal is certainly notable, as many news agencies picked it up, but not enough as its own article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Breitbart.com#Controversies, where a section on the subject already exists, per Inks.LWC. Per nom. & others, not notable enough to warrant a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 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. J04n(talk page) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuru (massage)[edit]

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

The article is about an erotic massage technique that does not meet WP:N. A 4 January 2013 prod delete request was removed by an IP.[1] A much bigger problem is that editors also are intermingling information in the Nuru (massage) article about Nuru brand massage gel, which has nothing to do with the erotic massage technique. This has upset the company that manufactures the Nuru brand massage gel as noted in this help desk post. The Nuru brand massage gel does not meet WP:N either, and I think the best way to address the problem is to delete the Nuru (massage) article as not meeting WP:N. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no coverage in reliable sources of either the technique or the gel. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deleting it.Wizofaus (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - I'm not certain what the basis for the claim that the massage technique does not meet the notability criteria is - those criteria seem massive and complex - it would be helpful if the someone could articulate why this technique is not notable. The main issue seems to be around a dispute with a manufacturer of a gel that shares the name - that issue can pretty easily be dealt with I would have though, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Tilapidated (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tilapidated, the simple version of notability is that the topic has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (those with editorial control, fact checking and a reputation for accuracy). I have not found any such coverage, so I see no "baby" worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, fails, WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing but promotional material and board posts about this, so it fails WP:GNG, and the 'gel' is certainly not a notable product either way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - this topic is pretty well-known and i added some content. You can read about it on Talk:Nuru_(massage). There are also some references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.244.1 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only two references and neither acceptable. One is a blog site of the gel company and the other could easily be a contrived Q&A on a public input site. If it is deleted it may need salting as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:35, 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 Speedy delete g11, part of advertising for selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All African Alliance[edit]

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

Fictional political party in self-published book by non-notable (Wikipedia definition) author. Book was published in Kindle edition only, so far as I can see, in December 2012. Peridon (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable by any standards. --Soman (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any notability criteria. PK T(alk)

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. Consensus to keep, and per source provided in the discussion. The purpose of AFD is not to force editors to add sources. Notability does not depend on the inclusion of sources, only on the existence of such sources. (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wali Kirani[edit]

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

The only two sources for this article are in regard to information about the town the person is from, not the person himself. There is a lot of original research regarding family trees and photographs of the person's gravesite. I'm not convinced, after a few years of the citation tag being there, that anyone will take the efforts to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~, if this is not a WP:HOAX, then notability should not be an issue (saints in a major religion, even if only revered in a specific area, are notable). Do note that the Urdu wikipedia article is older than the English one, if this had been an outright fraud I'm sure there are people there that should have reacted. Also, do note that there would be many different ways to write the name in English. That said, the article needs some massive copyediting and attention from expert on the subject. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep, see http://books.google.com/books?id=Jr21AAAAIAAJ , page 330 "The village comprises the mahdls under the Naurang, Malak, Kirani and Mast kdrizts and also Karakhsa, and is said to have been established, some seven generations back by Khwaja Wali, a Maudiidi or Chishti Saiad, whose grave with that..." --Soman (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must be kept.Notability is already established.Msoamu (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, I have no way of checking these things. It has sat untended for so long, and it seems as though non-Urdu speakers have no access to these sources. I'd be willing to fully withdraw any intimations of deletion if one of you or someone else who speaks Urdu would properly source this. Saints in any religion are important, but my issue with articles like this - which are primarily OR - is, how do we decide who is a saint and who is just an editor's pet project?

So is someone willing to put forth the time and effort for this article? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - forcing editors to bring sources in this way isn't the purpose of AfD, is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 20 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. J04n(talk page) 13:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Yusuf Bin Saamaan[edit]

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

The only "citations" are sources which don't appear to be in English and GoogleBooks documents whose nature seems questionable. After a few years of the citation tag being there, I'm not convinced that anyone will take the initiative to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must be kept.Notability is already established.Msoamu (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like on the other articles for deletion, could you clarify? The only sources provided are names of publications; the publishing dates, authors and even mediums are not given. There's absolutely no way to independently verify any of these sources as it stands now, and I am not convinced of the subject's notability or even existence; the primary contributor to both the English and Urdu articles is only one guy who has created a number of articles consisting entirely of OR, hence my suspicion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notwithstanding the Talk page rights or wrongs, MezzoMezzo, you seem to think AfD is here to bump articles into getting sources or else. It isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never thought that deletion was a tool to force the addition of sources. Per points six, seven and eight on WP:DEL-REASON, the nominations seemed appropriate. My comments here regarding sources, however unclear they may be, were merely an attempt to reconcile with the opposition given (which I hadn't expected). I hope that makes sense, even if it isn't entirely correct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are not in English are pefectly acceptable. nominating based on a lack of English sources, even in part, is a bit of a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction then, based on the information presented here. It seems I need to brush up on deletion policy a bit more. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 23 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 keep. SK #1: nominator does not advance an argument for deletion, instead proposing a merger. Merging is discussed on talk pages, not at AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Ryan Gosling[edit]

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

I think this article should be merged with Ryan Gosling. The content should be added to Gosling's article, there is no need for an article only for his awards and nominations. teammathi (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator is proposing a merge. This is the wrong venue. --Michig (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Malformed deletion rationale aside, it is clear that this list is sufficiently long for stand-alone subpage status. Its merger would bog down the biographical piece. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 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. Secret ^account 02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News media phone hacking scandal comparisons with Watergate[edit]

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

No topic here, just a quotefarm and odd mentions of Watergate in context of modern phone hacking, tied together using a synthesis of historical Watergate studies and modern phone hacking analysis. Binksternet (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#OR. Page filled with lengthy block quotes comparing two events with each other. Although most of the quotes do reference Watergate and the News International phone hacking scandal together, some of the early prose draws conclusions from unrelated sources. Would need a complete overhaul, summerising and removing all the quotes on the page, to make it encyclopedic. Funny ^Pika! 15:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge relevant information to News_International_phone_hacking_scandal. A lot of synthesis here, the meat might be worthwhile in the main article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see how a merge might help flesh out the main phone hacking scandal article. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, random assemblage of news media metaphors. Carrite (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, somebody put a lot of work into this. Sorry. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, very unencylopedic JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: consists not entirely, but largely of synthesis. Unless the comparisons themselves can be shown to meet the GNG I don't see why this would be considered an encyclopedic topic. CtP (t • c) 19:45, 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. Secret ^account 02:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FreeStyle Life[edit]

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

A search finds only more press releases such as the ones used as sources and a load of links to the organisation. I came across this as its awards are being used in articles - inappropriately I believe. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - good spot nominator, I agree, I can find no independent coverage of this subject, never mind significant or in-depth coverage - the article has no independent references and no claim to notability. --_nonsense ferret 15:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't life be easier if we accepted own sites and Facebook as sources? None of this wading through stuff on Google. I can't find anything in 11 pages of ghits, and can see no real claim to notability in the article. Edited primarily by two SPAs (one has other deleted edits - on related topics). Peridon (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 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 Breton-Norman War. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dinan[edit]

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

The Battle of Dinan does not appear to meet the notability threshold for a separate article. Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR have not produced any potential sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Breton-Norman War, leaving a redirect (and the same for Battle of Pouancé and Battle of Segré). Partly because of its depiction in the Bayeux Tapestry, there are rather a lot of book references to this battle although I do not have citations to hand. However, a merge to the broader article seems editorially sensible with the option of spinning off again in future when fuller properly referenced material is forthcoming. Thincat (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, seems the most sensible solution unless and until... There seems to have been a minor siege at Dinan rather than much of a battle. Not sure that the rather thin article on Conan shouldn't be merged also, but at least it has a ref of sorts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Lack of sources aside from the Bayeaux tapestry. — - dain- talk 20:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Breton-Norman War per Thincat.--Staberinde (talk) 16:05, 20 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. J04n(talk page) 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Qasim Sadiq[edit]

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

This article has remained unsourced for two years. Nobody cares for it, and the individuals notability and even existence are questionable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is plenty of info in the internet, and for instance I sourced the death date from this website, but I have not a slightest idea how reliable this source is. I could not find any 100%-reliable source easily.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.AFD Prod is not needed.Notability is here.We should assume good faith and try to improve the Articles.Msoamu (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, that's my issue. We have one source of whose reliability is in question, and another which simply mentions where his body was buried. The article has existed based on good faith for over two years and nobody has tried to improve it. What is the cutoff point? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added {WP Biography}{WP Islam}{WP Pakistan}. AfDs don't show up on Project pages if no tags exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from notability being apparent, there is a seriously flawed deletion rationaile being advanced by the nominator. WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. The article does need work by those knowledgable on the subject matter, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 23 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. At a first glance, it looked like an obvious keep closure. But in determining consensus, the debate was nearly impossible to read, because of some mess that doesn't involve this specific individual, which made many of the comments here invalid, and that David in DC took care off. Now discussing this individual, the main debate is whether he meet GNG or not. The main source discussed in this debate doesn't give any indication why he meets GNG, as it's a clear cut one sentence passing mention of film review. In regards to policy, it is considered an invalid source to determine notability as it doesn't describe the subject "directly in detail". Based on this debate, I can't decide if the rest of the sourcing mentioned by the keeps commentators is valid nor the delete commentators doesn't go into extensive detail with the sourcing they found, and considering the mess that put this article on AFD in the first place, it is impossible to determine consensus here and relisting the debate for further commenting is practically useless. No prejudice for quick renomination. Secret ^account 03:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Schwartz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability (first raised at Talk:Aaron Swartz. He's an actor and he's listed at IMDB. Is that sufficient? Is there any of the necessary reliable independent coverage in adequate depth around to sustain a BLP? We need critics, not just IMDB. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article says he began working as an actor at age 4. In Eleni (as the Czech Officer, see ref. 1). Questionable. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (sig added after edit by Evanh2008)[reply]
- The article says that because Dervorguilla themself added that information in this edit and this edit. It's inappropriate to add false information to an article and then call for it to be deleted because of that false information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Metropolitan90’s point that Dervorguilla herself added that information is correct. Like the other sourced information, it’s from ref 1 of 1. If the sourced information’s false, the article gets deleted.

2. Given Metropolitan90’s point, Dervorguilla is now calling for the stub to be deleted because of the false information in the original stub. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Andy Dingley (and Dervorguilla) for getting Yworo and MichaelQSchmidt (and Dervorguilla) to fix the article so it no longer offends WP:BLP. Keep. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious -- why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inquiry, Evanh2008. Others may be curious too. New material posted at Dervorguilla’s user page should answer your question. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as notability has been established by non-trivial mentions in two sources, albeit possibly not by sources that pass WP:RS. In any case, this is not a hoax, as Unsigned above seems to be implying. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources,” WP:REDFLAG. Not many four-year-olds could have played the role of the Czech Officer in Eleni. Not without a serious makeover. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if that had anything to do with the article, that might be a compelling argument. As it now stands, the article doesn't mention him playing a Czech Officer in anything. If another source does, that's their problem. Verifiability and Notability are different policies. An article will not stand or fall at AfD based on verifiability issues (not that the problem you mentioned is even a verifiability issue, but you seem to be implying that it somehow is). Unless there is a credible reason to believe that Aaron Schwartz does not exist, and was not in Heavy Weights and The Might Ducks, this AfD should be closed per WP:SNOW. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks as though the Eleni confusion was brought about by confusion with another Aaron Schwartz. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says he played the Czech Officer in Eleni at age 4 and the Forensic Pathologist in Suspect at age 6. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations. You've added material you know to be false to an article you don't like in order to justify your demand for its deletion. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a fantastic way to get what you want. /sarcasm Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable Delete~~ Playing a Forensic Pathologist at the age of SIX? No. I can accept Heavyweights as the age is about right for the part. Others are really the other Aaron Schwartz (I), who was old enough to play a night club owner in 1977. This one's a 'former actor', who became a Location Assistant - but has acting entries at IMDb up to 2012. There's a lot wrong here. (I) and (II) are mixed up, and the information that might be relevant is contradictory. Needs a complete rewrite if Heavyweights is considered enough for notability. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked into the history. Changing to Revert per Metropolitan90. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to last version by Callanecc. The problems with this article stem primarily from this edit by Dervorguilla, which was made today, and which added information about, apparently, two other people named Aaron Schwartz into the biography of this actor. This is an apparent case of building the Frankenstein monster -- taking information about two or more people with the same name and combining them into the biography of one person. The actor Aaron Schwartz born in 1981 [2] may be notable enough for an article, or maybe not, but he deserves to have his article evaluated on its own merits rather than by trying to evaluate him as though he (a) had been an actor as an adult when he really was a child, and (b) has switched to the much less prominent occupation of being a location assistant, when those jobs were actually performed by two other people. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Dervorguilla also removed information from the article that mentioned the subject's other roles, such as a recurring role on Gossip Girl. (See [3] for confirmation that that is the same Aaron Schwartz.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Metropolitan90’s point that Dervorguilla removed the unsourced material is correct.

2. Dervorguilla did not add information about two other people named Aaron Swartz. All sourced information in current article is from ref 1 of 1. The material can be removed by deleting the article.

“Poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately…. If such material is repeatedly inserted … report the issue.” -- Dervorguilla (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is Yahoo! Movies - if that's as reliable as Yahoo! Answers I wouldn't trust it very far. Based on IMDb (which at least is maintained by performers themselves), that is a conflation of IMDb's Aaron Schwartz (I) (the elder, who played adults in the 1970s and 80s) and Aaron Schwartz (II) who was in Heavyweights and the young roles. Calanecc's version is as accurate as I think we'll get. But we need to lose that Yshoo! reference as it is junk. Peridon (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, material is not contentious except to Dervorguilla, who is only trying to get this article deleted because he doesn't like (and keeps incorrectly removing) the hatnote on Aaron Swartz. Give it up. Yworo (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yworo’s point that Dervorguilla doesn’t like the hatnote is correct.

2. Dervorguilla doesn’t like the hatnote because “[it] targets a stub created in 2007. Only one substantive edit by a clearly legitimate editor — and he acknowledges, ‘I was in his class.’ Link could be seen as promotional.”

3. The hatnote was removed by MarkBernstein.

4. MarkBernstein doesn’t like the hatnote because “it was only added recently and it seems unlikely that many people will find it useful.”

5. The article was nominated for deletion by Andy Dingley.

6. Andy Dingley’s point is that “we need critics, not just IMDB.” -- Dervorguilla (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that the current article conflates two or more different people. But Schwartz the child actor probably does meet Wikipedia's notability standards: he had major roles in significant movies. I'm of two minds about that hatnote; do we require hatnotes to be symmetric as a matter of policy? It seems to me that a link from Obscure Fellow to Famous Fellow is likely to be quite useful to people who land on Obscure's page by mistake, whilst hardly anyone who visits Famous's famous page is really wanting to find Obscure. But I don't feel strongly about the hatnote. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are for finding similarly named people and similarly titled articles on Wikipedia. They are there to help people who aren't sure of the spelling of the person they are trying to look up. They are used regardless of the obscurity or notability of the target. It doesn't "harm" the article of a more notable person to have a hatnote pointing to a less notable one. Hatnotes exist to help people! What Dervorguilla is basically saying is that he doesn't like to help people find the article they were looking for simply because he doesn't want "his" article "marred" by a functional and easily ignored hatnote. That's inappropriate ownership. I say, "Tough!" Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, if Dervorguilla doesn't want to allow other people to improve Wikipedia, s/he should really reconsider precisely why s/he is here. Deliberately introducing erroneous material into articles through the misuse of sources is one of the few unforgivable things one can do on Wikipedia. If I were an admin, s/he would already be indefinitely blocked. Yworo (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hatnotes are usually from famous to obscure, or to close but different spelling (in which case they can go both ways). They very seldom do any harm, unlike the mixup here - however it happened. What I want to see here, now we've established that this Schwarz, that's IMDb (II), has certain things in his CV. Another Schwartz (I) has other things that crept in here through use of a bad source (we all do it at times...). We need to source to a better place than Yahoo! Movies - even if it's only to IMDb for now. I'm assuming that whatever's gone on here was by mistake rather than vandalism, and I hope everyone will try to find references to sort it out. Except me - I'm going to bed... Peridon (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Glad to see the reversion to the correct version. However, I do not feel filmographies count as RS in terms of establishing WP:N. I don't see anything other than incidental mentions in the press. If anyone can point out an RS or two, I could be convinced to change my vote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After the article was sourced I was pinged for a 2nd opinion. Basically all that the sources say is he had a minor supporting role took time off and now has another supporting role. They might as well be filmographies. This is all incidental stuff. There are no sources that really tell us anything about him. Vote unchanged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've browsed Highbeam and looked at reviews from when Heavyweights was released, but the only one who got more than a bare mention was Ben Stiller. Sadly Schwartz doesn't seem notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep of current repaired and sourced version (kudos to User:Yworo), as there is a case to be made for enough of his very few roles being significant enough in notable productions to meet WP:ENT, and there is a case to be made for WP:ANYBIO's being gently tweaked at by a group of youngsters receiving industry and peer recognition. Another option is to redirect to The Mighty Ducks as we might at least serve our readers by sending them a place where his contribution is worth a sourced mention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ensemble awards don't count towards notability. Non-notable roles in notable films don't count either.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But of course a lead role in a notable film is by definition notable. Unless you are proposing that the Heavyweights article should be deleted? Are you? Yworo (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only if there is critical review of his role in the film. If you find any articles that present critical commentary on his performance, then that role is notable. The only roles that are notable on WP are those for which there is critical commentary. If a role is just a line in a filmography it is not notable regardless of whether it is a lead role or an extra.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ User:TonyTheTiger: I never said the ensemble nomination was one of those automatic considerations per ANYBIO... however, being part of a "group" that received peer recognition hints that there may be coverage of that person or group in relationship to that 1993 event. Perhaps even hardcopy sources not online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Never heard of WP:HINTSOFRSSOMEWHEREPOSSIBLY--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it might fail WP:ENT. Nevertheless, you must take into consideration WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, which I don't see this article failing. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. The Steve 07:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale last time this was up 5 years ago, individual meets GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious keep as they very obviously meet notability. Obvious WP:TROUT for Dervorguilla for their disruption (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG especially through the article in the Baltimore Sun (and presumably the NYT, though that one wouldn't load, so I can't be sure) and the one on CinemaBlend.com. CB.com even goes so far as to assert he "starred" in Heavyweights. Any way you slice it, Bonkers hits the nail on the head. At the end of the day, he meets GNG. Go Phightins! 14:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actor. If this meets WP:GNG, then that means the standard has been watered down to little more than "has gotten a paycheck" and "has a pulse". Let IMDB handle that. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. GNG as I've seen it has been interpreted is has appeared in two or more mainstream sources which are more than simple mentions of the subject's name. Most people who have a pulse and get a paycheck don't get mentioned at all in the NYT, the LA Times, or the Baltimore Sun, much less all three, so your comparison falls on its face. Yworo (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wanting to declutter a page on Aaron Swartz is not a reason to delete similarly named pages. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is nuts. This AfD is part of a wholly unrelated (and stupid) dispute about a hatnote on a different page. WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:POINT. In my view, once this AfD is resolved, the closing admin should review (or get another admin to review), the debate on the Aaron Swartz talk page, and follow up on the comments on this page related to them. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An argument at another article (inane and regrettable as that might be) still doesn't bypass GNG for a BLP. Does this guy pass our notability bar for an actor, and do we have RS to establish this? (I'm happy to follow Michael Q Schmidt's lead on this with a weak keep, as I trust his judgement on film stuff) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I'll split it out. Keep because Yworo has pulled out the vandalism and gotten the article back to a state where the article, while still needing more sources, asserts sufficient notability, in reliable sources, to scrape by on GNG.

But the vandalism to the Schwartz article is waaaaaay more important than whether we keep or delete the Schwartz article. Once this AfD is closed --- whether as keep, delete, redirect, no consensus, merge, rinse, lather, or repeat --- I urge the closer to refer the WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:OWN issues outlined here to an appropriate forum for further review and whatever counselling or other measures might seem appropriate. David in DC (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support counseling. See history at Talk:Aaron_Schwartz. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dervorguilla added material to the article talk page. I reverted it as it is NOT appropriate material for an article talk page (this AfD doesn't change that). David in DC re-added the material and posted comments (rebuttals? whatever). David asked me to leave it all in (on my talk page). I'm not; I'm removing all of it. I am not involved in this AfD, but the article talk page should be used to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss editors' interpretations of the history of other editors. Unless you can find another uninvolved admin who disagrees with me, leave the talk page alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Dervorguilla attempted to chill other editors editing by making implied legal threats, which earn an immediate indef block. Shall I take it to AN/I? Or will Dervorguilla desist now? Yworo (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would not even have been questioned without nonsense above. WP:TROUT In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've separated out the two Aaron Schwartzes. Please review this diff and this new page. I'm looking for reliable sources to flesh out the material I've learned from the Canadian's photography web page, personal blog, and law firm website. I'll go mark them with cite requests now. David in DC (talk) 20:26, 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 redirect to Partizani Tirana. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brigada e Kuqe[edit]

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

No indication this topic meets notability guidelines. Cannot imagine this in an encyclopaedia. C 679 07:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, supporter group of a major football team should be fine for notability. A quick google search gives several positive indications. Seems to have changed name to Ultras Guerrils recently, so a move might be in order. For non-BLP articles lack of good sources is not itself cause for deletion. --Soman (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But no indication with your keep !vote that the topic is notable, just that it "should be fine for notability". I believe it isn't. C 679 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Partizani Tirana - no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with Snowman, it seems a reasonable search term, but the article does not assert independent notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 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. Secret ^account 02:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern Munich vs. Real Madrid[edit]

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

Unreferenced and highly unlikely that any can be found. My search turned up nothing notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:OR. No specific rivalry between the two clubs. Any genuine significant matches between them can be covered in their own article (although I doubt there are any) or through the individual club's pages. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No meaningful rivalry established. Article is barely comprehensible. Kevin McE (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is a notable rivalry. Giant Snowman 11:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. FrigidNinja (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: somehow, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF_uOgyBK1c came to mind. --Soman (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite a liking for "enthusiasted"... You could have articles about any two football clubs anywhere. Specific 'derby' pairings, maybe. One or two other not-derby but not far apart ones like Liverpool and Man U, maybe too. Not this one. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You do get some rivalry in European football, but this is a clear case of WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 12:22, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Koumarianou[edit]

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

Article does not have citations to establish the notability of the subject. atnair (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that IMDB has the subject's forename as "Eirini" rather than the Anglicised "Irene". I have interwikied to the Greek Wikipedia page which includes an obituary article whose Google Translation describes the subject as "one of the most important figures of Greek theater" - at the least the beginning of a demonstration of notability. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a source has been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If reliable sources are added article will not be deleted, but IMDb cannot be considered as reliable secondary source for BLP. --atnair (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but right now we have an article on the Greek TV website.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The obit in Greek once translated does confirm she had a recurring main cast role in Sto Para Pente, as well as indicating that she has had aother acting roles of significance in the past. Given that she is a Greek actress, I suspect that there are more sources in Greek that I do not have the skills to find. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 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 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Irvine[edit]

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

Do not have references to establish subjects notability. atnair (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This child actor has had one major film role, but I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources offering any biographical information, other than mention of the role and that his brother played the older Pip. Not yet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single role in his career and no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 11:10, 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. Secret ^account 02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disk Space Fan[edit]

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

Speedy contested. Advertising of a non-notable software utility. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP appears notable in context — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacNighttt (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a bit of cleanup and proper sourcing rather than what people thought of the software, it will survive future deletion votes if any come up. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator. No Google hits showing up except the company's own Web site. Reviews are not references. No credible referenced assertion that this is a notable product. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't yet looked into notability, but must point out that the assertion that there are "no Google hits showing up except the company's own web site" is blatantly untrue, and that reviews are perfectly acceptable as references if they are from independent reliable publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I missed the Facebook page and the Youtube promotional video, also the Pirate Bay download site. I perhaps should have said "no significant Google hits"; I keep forgetting how literal-minded we can be around here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why don't you just give it a miss. This is not your encyclopedia as you seem to believe and you do not get to decide what articles are allowed to remain and what must be deleted. 86.157.171.171 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably does a good job - I couldn't see anyone dissing it. Does sound rather like a cooling device... However, apart from http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l=261510&a=261510&po=56,00.asp which may be reliable but is rather brief and more of a list entry, I could find nothing to fit WP:RS in ten pages of ghits. Peridon (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is absolutely not notable, wp is not ad catalog for software sales. There are many utilities - most free - that analyze disk usage and find duplicates. Also, how come there are no sources at all? EnTerr (talk) 05:01, 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. Not a hoax, but one evaluation of the sourcing was rebutted, BlueRoll18 keep doesn't go into more detail with the sourcing, and commentators agree though this might meet WP:MUSIC, it fails GNG. Secret ^account 02:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supergrub[edit]

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

This article full of Original Research created by a brand-new user whose only previous edits were adding a false category to many well-known bands' pages. Seems clearly promotional and not notable. JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Survived WP:SD, but no source was added. Search reveals none exists. Fails basic notability. Alfy32 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Failure to add sources is not a reason to speedy delete an article. Lack of notability is not a reason to speedy delete an article. It survived speedy deletion becuase it makes a credible claim to significance, namely that there are 2 notable members of the the band, see WP:Band #6. GB fan 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Supergrub might be an elaborate prank or hoax. There is no mention of the band on Chuck Treece's page. And there is a mention on the Ben Kenney page, but I haven't tracked how long it's been there, only recently been linked. On BK's page it says he formed the band with CT, as does it on the Supergrub page. However, CT's involvement on BK's page is uncited. And on the Supergrub page there is one source - MTV, which is copy-and-pasted or mirrored from... wikipedia (MTV "source"). This is also of note in that this page was created as a first edit by a brand "new" editor, who also went on to add nonexistent categories with Kenney's name prominent in them to well-known bands' pages. Sounds pretty clear that someone is toying with Wikipedia, likely to benefit Ben Kenney unduly. As there are NOT two notable members of the band (that are verifiable), it no longer passes WP:Band. strong delete JesseRafe (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by creator of page Hello, this seems to be one big misunderstanding. Let me make it clear that I'm purely a Ben Kenney fan, no way associated with him at all. This is no hoax or anything remotely like that. I'm just a new user trying to learn and get used to wikipedia. I just found it frustrating that it's incredibly hard to find information about the band, so I gathered what data I could to try and clear things up.

- First things first, if you doubt Chuck Treece's involvement in Supergrub, in the official Mcrad release "50/50 Split" there is a song called "Sunday" which is exactly the same song as one of the tracks on the Supergrub release "Norma & Thurselle" and if you listen to that song and the album, it's very obvious it's Treece singing those songs. Unfortunately, I don't have anything more credible than fan forums, song videos on youtube, or the CD itself. Can provide tons of links to forums, including the official Ghetto Crush forum (which is Ben's label). I think because he was in the band only briefly for one album, it's hard to find much information on the internet.
- Those doubting Ben was in Supergrub, if you listen to the albums off itunes, "Challenger" in particular, it's very very obvious it's Ben's voice (plus the fact that Ben's label Ghetto Crush is the one who put it up on itunes), but for a more subjective reason, there was a recent tweet he did Ben's tweet where he hash tags (though slightly misspelled) #Supergub

Also, Ben tweeted his about.me page here: tweet to about.me and on it, it has a short description saying he was in Supergrub. So then it becomes a matter if you want to call Ben a lair claiming Treece was in the group on the old Supergrub site. Sorry if I went about editing the page the wrong way, I'm just trying to learn the ropes around here. I have more sources I've read in the past giving more information about the band, but I can't seem to find them atm. I'll add them when I do.Redonkulousemu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Twitter is not a reliable source, and that probably would be defined as original research. Wikipedia operates on a basis of verifiablity, not truth, and a Tweet saying "I was in band X" isn't verifiable for establishing notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 7 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 02:52, 31 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per jesserafe logic. Greglocock (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the band is a WP:HOAX. iTunes is still selling their last album they released back in 2000.[4] Incidentally, it was also released by Kenny's record company Ghetto Crush Industries.[5]. It should also meet WP:BAND. "Chuck Treece's Supergrub" makes a passing mention in this Philly.com article.[6] Even if you were to take Treece out of the equation, Kenny fulfills point 6 by being a member of both Incubus and The Roots. The article would need a substantial writeup though, with additional sourcing. Funny ^Pika! 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I found an interview with Ben Kenney where he talks about being in Supergrub. Doesn't mention too much about the history of the band besides how it was frustrating how the band didn't seem to get anywhere commercially. He also talks about the album Challenger and why the songs are titled the way they are. [7]He starts talking about it at 3:25. Hopefully this dispels the hoax accusations.Redonkulousemu 07:13, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the band exists, it doesn't violate WP:BIO, and it has a reliable set of references. With a bit of cleanup, it could pass as an encyclopedia article. BlueRoll18 03:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how any of the criteria for WP:BAND are met. Given there was almost not enough coverage to decide whether this was a hoax or not simply underlines the lack of independent coverage, and notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERIT --_nonsense ferret 15:14, 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. Secret ^account 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. Wesley Thompson[edit]

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

Contested prod on an article for a physician assistant/adjunct professor/clinical researcher who does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines. The subject is a distinguished fellow of the American Academy of Physician Assistants [8] and has received an award from the HIV/AIDS group, The Body; [9] however, neither appears to be sufficient to meet WP:PROF. I have not been able to find national media coverage nor any scholarly publications. Article is CV-like and was created by a new editor who is acquainted with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the nominator basically covered my reasons why.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are J W Thompsons on GS with some cites but I am not sure if it is the same. Even if this BLP is kept the nominator will be entitled to prune the dross in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm happy to remove anything that needs to be. Can you give me some direction in that regard? MacGyvr (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. I'd start by removing the lists and then work on the sourcing. The page would need to meet the notability criteria given for academics or biographies to sway this discussion. Funny ^Pika! 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked various combinations of names/initials, but all the JW Thompsons I found writing on HIV/AIDS or related medical topics on GS & PubMed seemed to have different forenames (eg there is a "Jennifer W. Thompson" and a "Joseph W. Thompson" writing on HIV/AIDS, and one or more John W. Thompsons writing on other medical topics). Of course, with such a frequent surname, it's possible I missed something. If the article is kept, it will certainly need a radical shortening to make the source(s) of notability more apparent. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find adequate secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Mr. Thompson is the first PA that was board-certified in North Carolina as an HIV/AIDS Specialist, and one of the first 20 in the nation. I am looking for some form of reference that can be cited for this. MacGyvr (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In 2005, Mr. Thompson was named one of only 5 Outstanding Physician Assistants in the nation with regard to the treatment of HIV/AIDS, referenced here: http://www.thebody.com/hivawards/winners/jthompson.html. MacGyvr (talk) 16:42, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to be a very impressive, very nicely done, very detailed c.v. My hunch is that it fails GNG. It certainly appears to fail our needs for verifiability of information. Carrite (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to MacGyvr (above the relisting). The award from The Body seems to me the closest readily verifiable claim to meeting notability guidelines. Although I can't find an article for The Body.com, I believe it is likely to be a notable national AIDS advocacy & education organisation. However, there are 51 HIV-associated US health professionals listed with an award.[10] Just for comparison, I have only been able to find an existing article on one other of these (Perry N. Halkitis, an academic with a substantial publication history). Alone, it doesn't seem a sufficiently important award to meet the notability guidelines for biographies, which require an award to be "a well-known and significant award or honor". Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Espresso Addict. One interesting point about the award from The Body. Of the 51 individuals listed, only 5 are Physician Assistants. MacGyvr (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mr. Thompson does have an authored work available online. The title is "The Evolving Role of Physician Assistants in the Prevention and Treatment of HIV and AIDS", and I have linked it here and in the article. MacGyvr (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been cited by anybody? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Forgive me, I don't understand the question.MacGyvr (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Citation and WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. Are you looking for a citation within the article under discussion, or are you looking for someone else to have cited his work within their article (not sure how I would know about that)? MacGyvr (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would be looking to see if someone else has cited his article as a reference in a paper of their own. That's one of the ways we evaluate the person's publications - if a lot of people are citing the person's work it suggests they are influential in their field; see WP:ACADEMIC. Citation information can be found if the article is listed at Google Scholar. Here's how you look for that: [11] See the note under each article "cited by xxx". Unfortunately Mr. Thompson's article did not turn up in that search; most likely the journal that published his work is not indexed by Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that Mr. Thompson is a fine person and doing important work. But unfortunately that's not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The requirements for an article here can be found at WP:BIO for people in general, or WP:ACADEMIC for people based on their professional qualifications. Neither seems to apply to him. The award he got, while admirable, is not a " well-known and significant award or honor" (we're talking Nobel Prize type awards), and he has not made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". I know, the criteria are awfully high and they leave out a lot of people whose friends and colleagues might consider them notable - but this is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 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 keep. While the keeps are on the weaker side of policy based comments, Colonel Warden rewrote the article soon after it was relisted, and more than enough time passed to look at the rewritten version, and none of the editors advocating for deletion commented on it, thus the result. Secret ^account 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional resistance movements and groups[edit]

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

In-universe fancruft, no criteria for inclusion. No notability out of universe. Unsourced since forever. I forgot I prodded this and somehow ended up prodding it twice, but the prod template didn't trigger. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but prune and rename to List of fictional resistance movements and groups There are problems with this article, like the lack of sourcing, but a number of the entries have either Wikipedia articles (Maquis (Star Trek), Order of the Phoenix (organisation), Rebel Alliance, Brotherhood of Mutants, Resistance (V)) or sections in articles (AVALANCHE) so you could just about make this into a valid list. It might be possible to expand it, e.g. using the relevant TV Tropes article[12] - and yes this article is itself a bit TV Tropes-y, but it could still be a valid topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator fails to articulate a poicy-based deletion reason, since the above keep !voter notices that there are sources that sources for the various entries are available on Wikipedia. Failing that, if any of the named organizations proves to be sourced but non-notable, the list should be retained as a merge target. Oh, and as noted above, if the list were restricted to notable entries, the inclusion criterion is solved *poof* like magic: normal editing, no deletion required. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPLOT and WP:OR. The article focuses entirely on in-universe aspects of the topic. The article does not cite any reliable sources and appears to constitute original research into the topic. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly broad list, lacking a narrowly defined topic, without any notability of the subject matter. This pulls random groups together from across the entire realm of fiction and publishes them in a single article due to the trivial fact that they are "resistance movements". Needs a much narrower scope to be an encyclopedic article. Also, the broad topic hasn't been written about in reliable, third-party sources. If nobody else talks about this, then it is not our place to do so. Them From Space 22:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with the nominator and the other two delete votes. The article has no solid inclusion criteria, and its current content is unsourced fan speculation. Reyk _YO! 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic criterion is that there be an article on WP, and then that the the group be highly significant in the work in question. This is not vague, because whether something is significant enough to be listed is always a matter of judgement, and can be discussed on the talk page, since the basic source for the content of a work is the work itself. But the list of groups and people should be separated; that this needs to be done is a reason to do so, not a reason to delete. . The real problem with this article is that there are a few dozen more to add from famous works in various genres. If the work is famous enough , there will also be secondary sources, as every article/book on the work will mention them if significant. Certainly this can be done for at least #4, 5, 14, and 15. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The basic problem here is that there's no external source in which to ground the treatment as required by WP:LISTN. At the moment, it's a compilation of examples from popular SF but these examples will not be well-supported by sources. The sources that exist will tend to focus more upon fictional treatments of historical resistance groups: Christians in early Rome; Saxons after the Norman conquest; the French resistance to the Nazis; &c. As an example, see Encyclopedia of Slave Resistance and Rebellion which references numerous fictional works such as Ben-Hur, Birth of a Nation, The Color Purple. And if you want to be recentist, then there's Django Unchained to add to the list. But if we toss out all the unsourced pop-SF and put in lots of entries about resistance to American oppression, the article becomes a political battleground for which it would need a stronger foundation. Back to the drawing board. Warden (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten it and, as a better structure is provided, the topic seems to be developing well. It should be given more time per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All those things listed have their own articles, so the list is useful for navigation. Dream Focus 15:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sound topic and suitable more for expansion than deletion. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~Weak keep~~ - but I suggest something be added to the lede to clarify that it is a list of notable fictional groups. Otherwise every non-notable fictional group from every movie or book is going to be redlinked into the article. What about the Liberation Army of Tecala from Proof of Life? What about the Liberation Army from Rave Master? What about the Ecumenical Liberation Army from the film Network? Or the Ulster Liberation Army from Patriot Games? Do we include the People's Front of Judea or the Judaean People's Front? You see where I'm going with this, right? Stalwart111 01:39, 23 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 02:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbrickane, County Clare[edit]

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

Non-notable residence without clear location, based on a passing mention in a 1863-book. No relevant Google hits found. The Banner talk 15:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is right. All I could find was passing mention of a house that burned over 300 years ago. Nothing else is known. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 17:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Jahan[edit]

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

Only 2 names in disambig. ((for)) is enough Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you fix that for tag! Also, I don't see an issue with a 2-article disambig page, since both are bluelinks. Then again, disambig policy is not something I know much about, hence no vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this was nominated for deletion. A two entry disambiguation page is perfectly acceptable, unless the nominator has some objection to the links. Funny ^Pika! 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is the only conclusion without making one of the topics the primary topic, which the proposal does not include. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: resolving two possible intended articles for a typo. No reason to delete. If either of them didn't exist, there would be a redirect from the typo to the other article: as they share a possible typo, dab page is the solution. PamD 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed a typo in one of the entries - it was going via a redirect - but the case remains the same. There are 4 versions of Nur/Noor Jehan/Jahan, all of which seem necessary, and we need to ensure that readers can find either of the two target articles. PamD 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nur Jahan. I think an influential Mughal empress trumps a great singer as far as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC goes, in particular "long-term significance". A hatnote can be added to Nur Jahan. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. And while I understand Clarityfiend's reasoning regarding who's the primary topic, I note that raw Google tests seem to produce vastly more hits for the esteemed singer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:48, 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 article is notable, as discussed in the AFD. Has received multiple notable reviews. (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Gansky[edit]

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

I came across this via PROD and after some searching, I found multiple reviews in trades and the like. It's enough to where I think it would probably pass, but to be fair I'm giving it an AfD debate just in case. I know that trade reviews are often debated as to whether or not they're considered trivial or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - trade and other reviews and references make this a perfectly acceptable, if a little short, biography of someone with a good collection of material. I personally don't consider trade reviews to be trivial at all, so I'd let this fly. Fish ^Barking? 01:55, 10 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) 01:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obviously notable. Has received starred reviews in Library Journal and multiple reviews in Publisher's Weekly. In addition, is published by well-known publishing houses. While the article needs major work, the subject is without a doubt notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:36, 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. Reliable sources do exist, and the article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Vaca tion 9 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melila Purcell[edit]

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

Never played a game at the NFL level, doesn't seem to pass notability. Wizardman 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG, click on the "news" link above if you don't believe me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Paul. Reviewing the first few pages of the news results reveals multiple articles in mainstream media that are about Purcell, I.e., mot just passing references. Passes GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:00, 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) 16:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists from the MACBA collection[edit]

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

lists of artists represented in museum collections are not appropriate for a WP list, as they amount to a directory, which is identical to the museum's website listing. a list of important works, or special exhibits, would be appropriate here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a terrible idea for a list. It's just a wall of names with no context. The article for MACBA could have a section on select artists or even better notable works in the collection and likewise that article has an external link with this information. This is just a directory and has no encyclopedic value. freshacconci talktalk 20:44, 7 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, Courcelles 00:32, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not what we're here for. I presume all this is available on the official website, and they will have more chance of keeping up to date. Yes, it is http://www.macba.cat/en/index-artists and there's no reason to mirror it here. I'm not sure whether a list of names would fall under copyvio, but we don't really need it anyway. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 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. The policy based opinions are not in favor of keeping. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Fever Vaccination Centers in India[edit]

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

Directory / how-to page. There are already relevant pages such as Carte Jaune and Yellow fever vaccine; if someone wanted to write Yellow fever in India that might be worth keeping, but this isn't it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I appreciate the author's efforts, going into detail about the vaccinations centers and where they are and how to contact them is not necessary. I don't think there would be a way to improve this article to Wikipedia requirements. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have written an article User:Drbkmurali/Yellow fever in india Drbkmurali (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Wikipedia is not a directory, but wikipedia does allow lists like List of hospitals in India and List of Hospitals in Nagpur and list of hospitals in every city.Medical information list should be encouraged, These are very important lists for travellers to africa and south america where yellow fever is prevalent. yellow fever has no cure! This information can save lives!moreover the hyperlinks on the list of places do not lead to the information on where they are and how to contact them. They just direct the reader to more information that is available on wikipedia.I have made some improvements.I think the article can be improved.Drbkmurali (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Centers in India that issue yellow card" needs to be removed which violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Secret ^account 15:20, 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was moved to Yellow Fever in India while this discussion was open. The new article could use more sources but is clearly encyclopedic and notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it notable? No significant changes were made when the page was moved: it's a directory and a listing of regulations. It also notes that Yellow fever is not prevalent in India... so why have a page on it? Hairhorn (talk) 02:17, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:21, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. At the moment the page reads like a medical health guide for non-Indians intending to travel to India. It probably would've been better to remove the prose and rename the original page List of yellow fever vaccination centers in India rather than Yellow Fever in India. Having said that, the list itself hasn't been referenced and probably would've failed WP:NOTDIR. Given that yellow fever is only prevalent in Africa and South America, I don't see a need for this page. It'd be similar to having an article named Yellow fever in America or Yellow fever in Russia; slightly redundant. Funny ^Pika! 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the move was appropriate and that the new article should be kept as this is an extremely important topic in epidemiology. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:18, 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. without prejudice for a quick renomination, been relisted three times and "no added value" is not a policy based comment. Secret ^account 02:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Business Park[edit]

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

Utterly WP:NN commercial property. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept,, then merge a paragraph into the city or county article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:54, 4 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 00:20, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no added value. Galileo01 (talk) 05:20, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sudsy Malone's Rock 'n Roll Laundry & Bar[edit]

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

Sigh. I love this place. I probably went to a few hundred shows there and performed on it's stage a dozen or so times myself. To me, it is and was an important and unique place. I mean really, a bar featuring live music pretty much every night, where there is no cover if you bring a bag of laundry... that's just awesome. And many bands that went on to greater fame graced it's stage. But is the venue itself notable in the broader sense? It is no problem to find hundreds of raw google hits for it, but most of them are directory type listings or mentions of shows that took place there. There is very little on the establichment itself. The one reference currenty included appears to be a sort of "guide to everything" so being included in it is probably not an indication of notability. I found one or two mentions of their closure a few years ago, but nothing substantial. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Pyle, Albert (August 1987). "Saturday at Sudsy Malone's". Cincinnati Magazine. Vol. 20, no. 11. Emmis Communications. pp. 40–41. ISSN 0746-8210.
Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, I would love to be proven wrong here. However your not giving us much to go on with this. Looks like a two page article in a local magazine. Have you even read it? Does it go into depth about the venue itself? Can it be used to expand the article, etc? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Saturday at Sudsy Malone's" can be read at GBooks:[13]. Insufficient by itself to show notability (it would have been nice if the author had explicitly called it a "local landmark" or something like that), but it's a start, anyway. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:33, 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) 11:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is, it never really was a "local landmark" unless you were part of a few specific subcultures in the late 80's and most of the 90's. I've just taken a very depressing walk down memory lane using Google street view and it is clear that the city got what it wanted, it completely and totally killed everything unique and interesting in this neighborhood and it mow looks like any other generic city street with cell phone stores and crappy sport bars. Sudsy's, at least when Google was there, is just a blank storefront. Everything else I remember from this block, except Bogarts, is gone. For those of us that were part of that scene Sudsy's will no doubt retain a special place in our memory, but the world at large took little notice of what went on there. This is just how cities go i suppose, in my parent's day all the hippioes hung out in Mount Adams, now a very expensive place to live and not somehwere any hippies would be welcome. And the Clifton scene aged out and moved to Northside. I feel old. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel; I have a few remember'd places like that too. There'd at least be a case to merge a sentence or two (plus a reference to the magazine article), presumably to Corryville, Cincinnati where this place is already mentioned unless there's a better target. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reference already in the article is The Rough Guide to the USA which highlights this establishment as a landmark in Cincinnati. This is quite adequate as an indication of notability and AFD is not Wikipedia's laundry room. Me, I miss lots of establishments such as the Chicago Pizza Pie Factory. There's no article for that so that's what needs fixing, not this. Warden (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An overview of some found sources:

Book/Magazine sources: long article [14], short article [15], very short article, basically a listing [16]
News sources: (both paywalled) [17], [18], short article (mostly mentions of bands) [19]

Additional sources have been found that are not included here, because they consist of passing mentions (e.g. [20]). —Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 7 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) 00:20, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is just sufficient to have an article. --Michig (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Substantial, independently-produced published coverage from the Aug. 1987 issue of Cincinnati Magazine, "Saturday at Sudsy Malone's: A Lot of Noise, A Jug of Tide and Thou," by Albert Pyle. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, money, here's another one that I've discovered listed in the bibliography of the book Going to Cincinnati: A History of the Blues in the Queen City...: Steven Rosen, "Sudsy Malone's: The Leader of the Laundromats," Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 28, 1986, pp. 28, 30.

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 02:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GetJet[edit]

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

This is pure speculation and product announcements, unworthy for an encyclopedia per WP:CRYSTAL. GetJet was an airline which never became operational; all there is known comes from self-published press releases. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media and thus also fails WP:CORP --FoxyOrange (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per reasons stated by nom. FallingGravity (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons stated by nom. A quick google search doesn't come up with anything, no significant or independant coverage, and as FoxyOrange said, it never became operational.★★Retro Lord ★★ 10:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also fails WP:CORP, and so on. Kill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails both WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:22, 23 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 02:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falls bagging[edit]

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

OR, unreferenced, possibly merge with geocatching Hownibuk (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I understand the concept, which is analogous to Peak bagging, this pursuit has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so is not notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources provided. Besides that the topic can really be explained in one sentence. It would be better to put that sentence in another article (or two, like ~~Geocaching~~ ? and Waterfall.) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geocaching seems to be a more specialized activity. Is there a general article on this kind of activity? Steve Dufour (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 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) 17:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Sashen[edit]

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

Steven Sashen does not meet the notoriety requirement to have a page on Wikipedia.68.33.153.127 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 2. Snotbot t • c » 23:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After incorrectly closing this, I'm fixing the nom and removing the close.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 7 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, Courcelles 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -This has the stench of self-promotion all over it. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find substantial independent reliable coverage such as would bring this within WP:GNG and WP:BIO --_nonsense ferret 17:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The potential notability hook is status as inventor of running huaraches. There is a little coverage there, but it's pretty bloggy — a piece from Footwear News or some such might tilt the scales there. I'm not seeing enough to get over the GNG bar in a cursory glance at the internets. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 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) 17:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Peters[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines for people, and there are no reliable sources on the page to back up anything said there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 2. Snotbot t • c » 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 7 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, Courcelles 00:15, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the nominator, seems to be a delete - the page itself does not make a clear claim to notability, has no significant independent references, and from my searches I can find no such material which would support an argument for the notability of the subject of this article --_nonsense ferret 16:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Written some books, but we'd need critical comment on them saying that these books had a significant influence before that was enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 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 keep. Discussions as to what to call this page can take place on its talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean general election, 2016[edit]

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

Violates Wikipedia:FUTURE guidelines. No references to substantiate that the general election will be called at that time, or even which political parties will be participating.--Lionratz (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it also concerns an election that has not even been announced:

Note: Can you please rename back to Next Singaporean general election and Next Singaporean presidential election. There is no fixed-term elections unlike UK. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's perfectly reasonable to have an article about the next election, as it's certainly notable and we pretty much know it will happen, even if we don't have an exact date as yet. I believe we have such an article for basically every democracy in the world. Should be moved to Next Singaporean general election or 17th Singaporean general election or something. Other AFDs on similar articles have resulted in no consensus to delete. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (until a date is known) and Keep as above. I believe we generally keep articles for the immediate next election, regardless of whether we know exactly when it will be. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for General Election page because it can happen at any time. There are many examples of next election pages on Wikipedia. If it's the next immediate general election, I think it's perfectly fine.
- Keep for Presidential Election page because there are very specific rules on when and how the Presidential Election is conducted, under Singaporean law. By that definition, it has to happen in 2017. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:51, 30 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) 10:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Redirect - WP:CRYSTAL/WP:FUTURE, this article is going to be plundered by what if arguments. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:55, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Because this page is blank talk as it is hypothetical and we will never know whether the next general election is in 2016. Talking about an election that does not even exist will cause confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.106.5 (talk) 15:13, 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. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Health[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable journal. Recently restored after having been deleted at AfD about a year ago. Article claims that the journal is included in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, an EBSCO database, and CINAHL. PubMed indexation is automatic for any open access journal included in PubMed Central and therefore not selective. According to the coverage lists for the Web of Science and CINAHL, the journal is not included in those databases. EBSCO databases are not very selective and "EBSCO Health Policy Reference Center" is only a minor one. Therefore, this still does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG: no independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Randykitty for taking the time to explain. I am looking for evidence for the Web of Science and CINAHL indexing. If that evidence is found (as in an online link like the ones that you have presented) would that mean that the journal is notable enough? I read the notability guidelines and I understand that it may not be notable enough anyway - but I wanted just to double check with you. Also - how long before this article gets deleted? e-korax (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs get closed after 7 days (if a consensus has emerged), so there are still 5 days to go. WoS would be perfect as evidence, Scopus is good, too. I'm not sure whether indexing in CINAHL alone would be considered enough evidence of notability (I mentioned it above because it was mentioned in the article). --Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty. In your first point you mention that "PubMed indexation is automatic for any open access journal included in PubMed Central and therefore not selective". In the NML catalogue FAQ however mentions that only 20-25% of the reviewed journals are selected for indexation (FAQ: Journal Selection for MEDLINE® Indexing at NLM). Does that change your view on this point?e-korax (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the criteria that you mention are for inclusion in MEDLINE, not PubMed Central. MEDLINE is indeed selective and evidence of notability, but unfortunately, this journal is included in the non-selective PMC, but not in MEDLINE. --Randykitty (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see. I was hoping that other users would have helped by now in editing this article. I don't think I have any more information to add and as it looks my information may not be 100% correct sometimes. Based on the notability criteria I agree that we should delete it. I will try adding it back when hard evidence of inclusion on selective databases is found and when it gains impact factor. Thanks for all the help.e-korax (talk) 10:09, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for relisting, I somehow missed the first listing of this. I am loath to delete the article as the journal is relatively new, it is published by a respected educational institution with a worldwide reputation (U. of Edinburgh), has on its editorial board scholars from a number of developing countries, and publishes medical-related articles written by scholars from a number of developing countries. These facts make the journal rather unique and valuable. I understand the concerns about information contained in the article that may be erroneous, but this calls for editing, not deletion. WP:NJournals does not call for any specific indexing source in the notability criteria. The journal does meet the criterion: "the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". Google scholar turns up citations of articles from this journal in the National Institute for Health databases, including the National Center for Biotechnology Information database; Lancet; PLOS Medicine; the Central Asian Journal of Global Health; the Journal of Global Health Care Systems; International Journal of Global Health and Health Disparities; and others including citations in published books. This makes the article pertinent to our readers. Meclee (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but you completely misinterpret WP:NJournals. When we talk at AfD about notability of just one single academic, we require hundreds if not thousands of citations to establish notability. A handful of citations to a complete journal therefore does not make it notable (otherwise we could just stop having AfDs for academic journals at all, because all but the absolutely newest of them will have at least some citations to them). Being new is not a reason to keep a journal either: as we cannot predict how it will fare in the future. NJournals, contrary to what you say, does call for specific indexing criteria, namely being indexed in selective, major databases. (That excludes GS, by the way, because although it is major, it is absolutely not selective). --Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The newness of the journal was only one rationale given, linked with the reputation of the publisher and the editorial board. Being indexed in selective, major databases is only a measure for Criterion 1. The argument is for inclusion under Criterion 3. GS is not being used as an index, but to count citations, of which there are hundreds (221), I only listed a handful. Since it is a new journal (2011), one could not expect thousands of citations. Meclee (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When talking about a journal, to me 221 citations is a "handful"... Article creation is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An impressive new journal in an important scientific field. The University of Edinburgh is a leading public health research center. The journal's editorial board, including regional editors from around the world is quite impressive. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but notability is not inherited. In these discussions we have never given any weight to who is or is not on an editorial board for that reason. Whether we think this journal is impressive or not is also immaterial. What is material is the fact that there is an absolute absence of independent sources and that the journal is not included in any selective database. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute insistence that inclusion in a selective indexing database is the primary criterion for notability seems quite contrary to WP:NJournals. The citations I'm referencing are citations of articles in the journal, not the "complete journal" (to which there are over 37K citations); 221 citations of articles in the journal seems very good for a journal less than 2 years old. Is the major problem that the journal is electronic? It also has a print ISBN, though most libraries will not carry a print copy where an electronic copy is available. Electronic journals have become well accepted in most academic circles, now.Meclee (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have nothing to do with the journal being electronic only, as yous ay, many journals nowadays are electronic only and more and more journals are abandoning print. However, I'm afraid you're misinterpreting the GS search results. I get 228 "hits". Those are items published in this journal (and journals with similar names, such as the Journal of Global Health Care Systems). The number of citations, though, is MUCH lower. As far as I can see, there are less than 10 articles that have been cited even once, 1 article cited twice, and 1 article cited three times. Even for a journal that has been around for only 2 years, that is pretty abysmal. Many new journals get into the Journal Citation Reports in their first year of publication and then start with an impact factor of 2 or 3 (meaning that in the mean, every article they published has been cited 2 or 3 times). Having 221 GS hits is just a function of how many items the journal (and those with similar names) have published, but it doesn't say anything about the impact that those items have made. So to get back to NJournals, you are right that inclusion in selective databases is not the only way that a journal can get notable, but this one does not meet any of the criteria in NJournals and doesn't have any independent sources, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you can start in Journal Citation Reports with an impact factor, because you need to be 2 years in WoS to get the official impact factor. e-korax (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that normally an IF is calculated over 2 years. However, it is a common misconception that this means that journals have to wait 3.5 years (2 years of publication data, one year for the citations to be counted, half a year until those get published) before they get an IF. Some journals get included in JCR after just 1 year and obtain an IF the next year, based on 1 year of citation data only. To name just one example: Genes, Brain and Behavior, established in 2002. If you have back access to the JCR you can see this. My access goes back to the 2004 JCR (published 2005). If you search for this journal, you'll see that it has an IF of 3.846. If you clikc on "impact factor trend", you will see that it had a 2003 IF of 2.864. Scroll down to the calculation, and you'll see that this is based on citation in 2003 to articles published in 2002, whereas for citations in 2003 to articles published in 2001 you'll see 0 citations and 0 items published. There are more examples of course, but one is enough to demonstrate the principle. In the mean, this new journal's articles got cited almost 3 times within a year of being established. --Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 4 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) 00:19, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice to recreation once it is listed in selective abstracting databases, such as Medline. As the nominator notes the journal does not appear to be abstracted by CINAHL or Web of Science. New journals can attain notability very quickly but it's the exception not the rule; many fold after a few issues. This has only published 4 issues so far. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:58, 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 no consensus. WP:IAR isn't a reason for keeping or deleting unless there is special circumstances, which this article doesn't meet. Other than that, no consensus though a merge might sound reasonable. Secret ^account 03:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins[edit]

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

The article is a list of non-notable software Ronz (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy There is a lot of good information in this article. But the WP policy on list-based articles like this is that the entries on the list should be notable according to, e.g., WP:GNG, and should ideally be subjects of articles themselves. In this article, all the entries appear to be cited with external links. It would be a worthy project to go through these and figure out which add-ins are in fact notable, but as it stands there is no demonstrated notability. This article would be a good candidate for userfication for further development without the threat of deletion; alas I don't have the time to take it on myself. --Mark viking (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually a complete list of software used in risk analysis, a very important area of business and science. It is the ONLY complete list I have come across, it is accurate, well-referenced, unbiased and current. It's very hard to understand how its removal could improve Wikipedia or benefit mankind. I don't understand the objection at all unless it is driven by someone with a vested interest in seeing it disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.200.251 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between, for instance, Comparison_of_raster_to_vector_conversion_software and Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins is that most or all entries in the lists of the first article are linked to Wikipedia articles on those entries, whereas none of the entries in the second article are linked to Wikipedia articles. It is an important difference, as list-based articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be lists of topics with Wikipedia articles. This policy is laid out in the Manual of Style at the WP:LIST page. Any entries on the lists without links to associated Wikipedia articles could be deleted. For instance in the Comparison of raster to vector conversion software page, there is a WiseImage entry that has no article linked; this entry could be, and perhaps should be, deleted from the list.

For what it is worth, I very much sympathize with your position. There is a lot of good information in this article, it was a good bit of work to organize and write up, and the information is obviously useful for those interested in the topic. Personally, I think there should be a place on Wikipedia for these sorts of articles; that verifiability, not notability, should be good enough for comparison articles. But that is not the policy at Wikipedia and we aren't going to be able to change the policy in the the context of this particular discussion. This is why I suggested userfication; a keen editor could figure out which add-ins are notable (see WP:N for details) by Wikipedia standards and provide evidence in the form of articles with reliable sources WP:RS for the entries that that have then. It would be a shorter list, but the resulting article would be robust against those editors that would seek to delete it. --Mark viking (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I am new to editing Wikipedia, but I would propose that this software list is largely notable. My understanding of the notability requirement is that references must exist, but the article doesn't necessarily have to include them to be considered notable. This is a specialized area which I am currently learning about, and many of these tools are industry standard tools in finance, project management, enterprise risk management, and technical fields. I'm confident the references to support notability are out there. The theory behind their function is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method This list is also referenced by this page on probabilistic risk assessment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_risk_assessment I believe this content is both valuable and notable and the page should be included in Wikipedia for further development and editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBorgfeld (talk • contribs) 15:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:20, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR - no one wants to delete this article, and there's no need to do it "because the rules say so" - we have a rule that say we don't have to. Another option is to merge the table into Decision-making_software where the requirement of notability won't destroy the encyclopedic, verifiable content; WP:PRESERVE agrees with this outcome. Diego (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I wasn't bold enough to declare ignore all rules myself, I would have no problems with keeping the article or preserving the information by merging into Decision-making_software. --Mark viking (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for the reasons above.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an good candidate for WP:IAR - also as I read WP:LIST it is intended for simpler lists, and the notability requirement for list items is sensible to avoid indiscriminate addition of, for example, people, theories etc. This article contains more verfiable encyclopaedic content than that. Mcewan (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is obscure to some, but the article is well-sourced and therefore meets WP:N (although the merge proposed above wouldn't make the destination article too long). Miniapolis 17:28, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMAPI[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent GNews hits, 2 passing mentions in GBooks, no RS found in GNews. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I am not certain from reading the article whether this igmoplectic fizmobulator is a standard part of DHCP or simply a feature of one implementation of it. If it's a standard feature, I'd say redirect this to DHCP. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The OMAPI protocol is not part of DHCP, but is part of the reference dhcpd implementation put out by the Internet Systems Consortium. For sources, I found a reference page on OMAPI created by IPAM, and a blog which gives advice on using OMAPI. The first source is a reliable secondary, indepth reference, but the second is unreliable by WP standards. The manpage is reliable and indepth, but is a primary source. At this point, the topic seems subthreshold for WP:GNG notability in a standalone article. But the topic certainly has the verifiability for a merge or redirect to the DHCPD article. I've taken the liberty of merging the verifiable information from the OMAPI article into the DHCPD article, so a simple redirect is all that is needed. Mark viking (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget to look in books. There's stuff about OMAPI in ISBN 9780672323270. Uncle G (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the book reference, Uncle G! We now seem to have two reliable sources, so perhaps a call for a redirect was premature. I have added both your reference and the IPAM reference to the OMAPI article. Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:57, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:22, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 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. Secret ^account 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Stone Woodard[edit]

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

This biography of a living person does not cite any sources other than those of the person's own radio show. My prod was removed by the creator, but no independent sources were added, and I wasn't able to find any with my own search, so I'll send this to discussion to see if anyone else can find independent, reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any indpendent coverage in reliable sources. She is carried on just a few stations so the reach of her show as a radio broadcast is limited. -- Whpq (talk) 22:37, 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!} 05:53, 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, Courcelles 00:27, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Can't find any coverage of her in reliable independent sources. Sideways713 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found of notability (Nothing via Highbeam or Questia). AllyD (talk) 11:38, 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 redirect to ARMA 2. Any content to be merged can be salvaged from this history. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Zombie Sandbox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dynamic Zombie Sandbox

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

No reliable sources to verify article content.
Subject fails to meet notability guideline for a Video game.
No assertion of notability and searches reveal no evidence of it.
Mod is not notable, have gained no media coverage.
Appears to be entirely based on original research.

Canwin87 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note that the article creator has posted on the talk page of this AFD, linking to this interview and the mission's ModDB homepage. What I'm not seeing here (from the provided sources or from my own web searches) are the reliable independent sources covering the mission in detail, needed to fit in with the notability guideline. ModDB's homepage for it is effectively a self-published source, the user reviews are not usable for any purpose either. The interview on FPS Guru is a usable source, but again is effectively non-independent as it's the creator talking about their creation. What's needed are some in-depth features/reviews on it from the likes of Rock, Paper, Shotgun or magazines etc. No prejudice against recreation of the article should the relevant sources appear. Someone another 00:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ARMA 2, perhaps with a line or two merged, until independent notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 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) 00:27, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 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. Without prejudice for renominating or a merge. Secret ^account 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lü Lingqi[edit]

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

Person was real, but name is fictional. Insufficient notability both historically and fictionally. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Romance of the Three Kingdoms; as character's of the novel, they are part of the plot, and any information about the fictional character in the novel (even based on a real person) should direct to the plot of the story or a section detailing the characters.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 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!} 05:55, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:23, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 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. Sources have been successfully rebutted that she doesn't meet GNG yet. Potential is not a policy based reasoning to determine consensus. No prejudice to recreation if she meets GNG in the future. Secret ^account 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Everett[edit]

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

Lacks the coverage in reliable sources necessary to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources available are grossly unreliable (including those which are primary), others are WP:ROUTINE announcements (probably including paid listings) or trivial quotes in passing that don't satisfy the significant coverage requirement for notability. One or two more in-depth pieces from the subject's hometown area show WP:LOCALFAME at best, just as if Everett were a local restaurant or a high school play that got a review.

No coverage in reliable sources = not notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable (as opposed to unreliable) sources are WP:ROUTINE announcements (sometimes paid listings) and/or trivial quotations in passing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:46, 10 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, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search provided many reliable sources. She has written plenty of books, has been interviewed in Fox News, has been published in an interviewed by Health Matrix, she has been cited and interview in WorldNetDaily ([http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/264177/ link]), there are many videos of her speeches and interviews on YouTube and she even has an entry on IMDb. She definitely fits the requirements for notability by WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Also notice that the article may be poorly written or lacking reliable sources, but the deletion discussion must be limited by WP:POTENTIAL, not current state. She is definitely notable and the article definitely has potential. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm familiar with WP:POTENTIAL, but the sourcing just isn't there (in the world, I mean, not in our article). Even most of the sources you link are inadmissible (WorldNetDaily) or trivial (a minute-and-a-half interview on what is not the most reliable network). YouTube videos, IMDB and her own two books (published with tiny, agenda-driven publishing houses) don't do anything since we need reliable, secondary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Almost no reliable sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing books does not make a person notable; neither does an occasional interview. The reliable sources ABOUT her just don't seem to be there. In addition, the article is quite POV and most of the biographical material seems to have been supplied either directly or indirectly by the subject herself. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, but writing many books, being director of four clinics and owner of two, being interviewed many times, including by PubMed indexed Health Matrix and Fox News, and being featured in two documentaries do. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:POTENTIAL – S. Rich (talk) 21:17, 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 delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air Independence[edit]

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

This is a small non-scheduled airline, which in my opinion fails the WP:CORP notability guideline. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All there can be found are the most basic pieces of information like contact details and self-published press releases. Also, I do not think that the topic itself (kind of a taxi business) is important enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. FoxyOrange (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 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) 00:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a few references to this airline, but they only had a bit of information. If this company adds several more airplanes to its fleet and would have more coverage it would deserve an article. Actually, there is an air taxi article in Wikipedia and it is an appropriate topic here. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP, non-notable company. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 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 delete. Secret ^account 03:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vishnu Teertharu[edit]

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

A Hindu religious figure with a hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. I get no book hits, and while I found a fair number of other hits they all appear to be forums, blogs, and photo sites. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Vishnu Tirtha. They appear to be the same person— have the same date of birth (1756–1806), alias and sect.[21] On a cursory glance, nothing in this article appears to be worth salvaging. The other article cites just two questionable sources. I'll see what I can do with that one. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stand corrected, there are two different Vishnu Tirthas. This website points out that the 18th century Vishnu Tirtha is different from the earlier (probably 14th century) one. That makes Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide by Roshan Dalal the only reliable source for this article. The coverage of Vishnu Tirtha in this reference is not significant, so the article fails WP:GNG. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 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. Secret ^account 02:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisheen[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an non-notable townland, without special features or relevant links on Google (as far as I could see). The Banner talk 15:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 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) 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a townland shouldn't hav' its own article unless it's noteworthy in some way. ~Asarlaí 17:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. not a notable area. Snappy (talk) 17:33, 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. Secret ^account 02:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luxaviation[edit]

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

As there is no special notability guide for airlines, the WP:CORP criteria must be met. With Luxaviation, this is not the case: There has been no significant coverage about the company in reliable, independent secondary sources. FoxyOrange (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and it isn't even an airline anyway, just an air charter company. YSSYguy (talk) 23:21, 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) 00:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:15, 23 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 Oświęcim Synagogue. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Szymon Kluger[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything that indicates this Holocaust victim did anything significant other than survive. Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Oświęcim Synagogue. I found some references which I added, and there's probably more in Polish. But since his house is now part of the museum complex including the Oświęcim Synagogue and Jewish Center, it would be a logical merge target if he's still not quite notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 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) 00:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 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, Vaca tion 9 00:03, 23 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. Evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals not provided. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academicus[edit]

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

I PRODded the article, but some editors voiced their opposition on the article's talk page, so I thought it better to take this here. PROD reason was: "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not listed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." This still stands, hence Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: this is the version of the article before I reduced it to its present state (I did this in small steps, each explained by their edit summary). --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be a more helpful set of searches than the one automatically provided by the nomination procedure: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement was posted on the article talk page. I think it was intended to be taken into account in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing up an article for a scientific journal, is worst than cutting a tree. To improve it is a mission. On the first steps of Academicus, one of the most distinguished sociologist in the world, Franco Ferrarotti, addressed his thoughts about the new journal as following:

“A new magazine that began in an era dominated by electronic messages now clearly is both an act of intellectual courage and fervent hope for the future. Especially in countries that are developing into modern industrial sense, such as Albania, a magazine like this could mark a turning point than the political theories still purely intuitive or dogmatically metaphors of the past.” We, the Academicus Journal Team, feel nothing else but e deep surprise the request to delete the article. The obligation of all us academicians is to open up a window in human reasoning. People than have the right to choose what’s best for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicus Journal (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC) — Academicus Journal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an encyclopedia we aim to cover topics that are already accepted as part of the corpus of human knowledge, as demonstrated by their being covered in independent reliable sources. See WP:Notability for the official explanation of this principle. We do not cover topics that are hopes for the future or that could mark turning points unless and until those hopes are fulfilled and they actually do mark turning points. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC) P.S. We ought to have an article on Franco Ferrarotti. He may not actually be one of the most distinguished sociologists in the world, but he does appear to distinguished enough for us to have an article.[reply]

If Franco Ferrrarotti can not be considered one of the most distinguished world wide still alive sociologist ?! http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Ferrarotti Give a look at Google Scholar (since the others can be viewed by payment) and see yourself the citations :http://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=franco+ferrarotti&hl=it&as_sdt=0 Give a look what he wrote about Academicus Journal:http://academicus.edu.al/?subpage=news Members of the Editorial Board of Academicus are distinguished personalities such as Thomas Patrick Melady, 38 Doctor Honoris Causa Title: http://academicus.edu.al/?subpage=board, as well as other distinguished personalities such as Michele Marsonet or Invernizzi Emanuele, ex-president of EUPRERA Is is the International Editorial Board compounded by 8 members, leaving aside the Scientific Committee of 32 members. Academicus- International Scientific Journal is really a good one, it is not an emerging one but is operating from 5 years Do you really think that all this distinguished personalities were going to lose their time and deal with something not worthy???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whether or not Ferrarotti is the most distinguished sociologist in the world or not is absolutely immaterial, as are the reputations of the persons on the editorial board and scientific committee. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. What we need to establish notability of this journal are ideally independent reliable sources or, barring that, evidence of inclusion in selective major databases. Please review WP:GNG and WP:NJournals to get an idea of what is needed here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability SciVerse Elsevier : http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/search/results?st=academicus+2079-3715 Also included here Thanks Gabor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the user who originally wrote this article, then you put a template which showed that "it is promotional and should be deleted", then "there is no enough resources and should be deleted". These are some of the sources (CEEOL, EBSCO publishing, Euprera, ISSUU, Index Copernicus International, Institute of World Politics). Newspapers (kohajone.com - sq , www.bashkiavlore.org - sq). TV ( tvklan.al). I am administrator in the Albanian language since 2009, maybe you think sq.wikipedia is much lower level than English, which is true, but from my experience, this article does not deserve to be deleted. If so, then let us examine this list of articles in this category of academic journals, most of them are in the same situation, some worse, but are still active.--Liridon (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don(t know who you mean by "you". The editor who originally proposed this for speedy deletion as being promotional has not participated in this debate, I think. Neither has anybody said anything negative about the Albanian WP, which is independent of the English one and has its own policies and guidelines (with which I really am not familiar). The sources that you give in your comment have been discussed above. None of them are selective databases (some of them are just user-contributed sites), none of them show any notability for the journal. The newspaper references that you give just mention Academicus in passing in connection with its editor, Musaraj. I agree that there are other stubs that perhaps merit deletion, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument that carries much weight in an AfD discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NJournals, Notes and examples point 1.: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus." Previously it was mentioned that Academicus is indexed by Scopus: http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/search/results?st=academicus+2079-3715 So if I understood well, this means that Criterion 1 is fulfilled by Academicus to be considered notable by Wikipedia. Shall this information be included on the article's page as well? Vasmatics (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC) — Vasmatics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, it was previously mentioned that this journal was under evaluation by Scopus.[22] Your link only provides evidence that it is indexed by the non-selective Academic Search Complete, not by Scopus. Here is confirmation that Academicus is not indexed by Scopus. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand. Thank you for the clarification Vasmatics (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This journal seems notable to me. - ʈucoxn\^talk 12:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not really a good argument in AfD discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing “to be or not to be” is not productive, since existence is not simply a matter of perception. Being part of any data base is simply an editorial board issue. It is a particular data base which selects based on the application of certain criteria, definitively it is not up to an encyclopedia. Being listed in a database doesn’t means that you are a qualitative entity or at list famous. It is similar like telling to a certain university that cannot be included in an encyclopedia since it has not been listed in the best 500 referring to the Shanghai list, even if 10.000 students are actually enrolled in this university. I do not want to believe that this is being applied for small country such as Albania or for a journal originating from this country because it questions the basic principles of Wikipedia. We are afraid we are being discriminated. You cannot ask to a gifted child to grow up and become famous and then we will talk about you. More than 100 authors from all the world cannot be a simple coincidence inside a scientific reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 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) 22:00, 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. It seems that the relisters are looking for votes to count rather than arguments to evaluate so that's my vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Phil. We can't keep articles for being "courageous", they need to be notable and verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Come on guys, in this way, you lose the sense of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia. Please don't see discussion only, but see the content of the article.--Liridon (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want to have your opinion count, you'll have to base your !vote on policy... --Randykitty (talk) 23:50, 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} 08:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soccor Velho[edit]

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

Page passes WP:NFOOTY but he fails WP:GNG and usually what happens is that GNG is dropped if the player is young as his page will be expanded upon over time but this player is older (29) and is in the end of his career and currently we know nothing about him. No stats, no biographic information. Nothing that really adds something to the encyclopedia. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the follow pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very basic articles that fail GNG - this recent AfD, also on an Indian footballer, closed with the consensus that technically meeting NFOOTBALL through 1 or 2 pro appearances was not enough when the article so comprehensively fails GNG. Giant Snowman 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment: I would like to drop Vijith Shetty from this AfD as he is the current captain of his club. I can use that to expand the article out. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Nominator has withdrawn Vijith Shetty from the nomination.
Soccor Velho is hardly a player with 1 or 2 appearances about whom we know nothing. Click the Google news link at the top of this page and we find six pages of results, in reputable newspapers, going back to 2005. OK, they're match reports: what do you expect for a sportsperson? But there's plenty to start making a half-decent article on the subject if anyone wanted to, and a player with an 8+ year career at the top level in India can't have avoided personal coverage if one knew where to look.
Creson Antao was playing for Dempo when they reached the semifinals of the AFC Cup in 2008 and was still playing for them as they won the I-League in 2012. Here is a lengthy article from just last year, which starts off "Defender Creson Antao has emerged as ‘Mr Dependable’ for the newly-crowned I-League champs Dempo Sports Club..." and is devoted to that player.
I'm a little concerned at the absence of WP:BEFORE about this nomination. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will drop Creson then because I also found a Dempo page with info on him but I will keep Soccor. The thing is that when Soccor started playing professional football the I-League was not professional and no one cared. Even when the professional I-League began no one cared. Then when India played in the 2011 AFC Asian Cup that is when people started to care. And that is also when websites decided to do profiles or interviews but mainly with the younger players. The only time an older player, like Soccor, would get a profile or interview for us to know more about him is if he is an international or if your club actually does profiles on their website. Other than that no one cares about the player sadly.

I will see what I can do but I am keeping Soccor in this discussion. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:04, 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) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Struway. I accept the articles are brief but it appears GS is wrong about the players having played only one or two games. This nomination is a mess too and comments like "no one cared" are hardly what is needed in AfD. The players have had substantial careers in what is now a professional league, it seems reasonable to assume that there will be offline sources available to assist in enhancing the article. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no adequate reason proposed for deletion. Keep all. Offline sources are likely to exist confirming and detailing further aspects about this player's career. C 679 09:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wazmo Nariz[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, uncited page and no relevant sources could be discovered. felt _friend 01:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing moderate coverage around 1980 in publications like the Los Angeles Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Chicago Tribune and Billboard. Clearly not a major act, but they had a couple of two bit hits, enough for an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage found in GNews/GBooks to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Ldvnsx (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in sources listed above. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 23 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.