< 8 February	10 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The result was keep (nom withdrawn, no delete votes). Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Busybody[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD'd before and result was delete, but article was recreated. Article is merely a dictionary definition, and an entry already exists for it on Wiktionary. NYSMy talk page 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Withdraw this, significant improvement made. NYSMy talk page 09:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not a dictionary definition and, even if it were, this would not be a reason to delete because the essential point of WP:DICDEF is that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by." Warden (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what you just said is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says it is okay to add dictionary definitions. The article states the definition of the slang term, and then has 4 sentences stating random usage of the term in plays and books, none of it is encyclopedic. NYSMy talk page 23:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. As a non-native English speaker, it's exactly the kind of information I'd like to find in an encyclopedia article about an English term. If the books are deemed reliable sources, the article passes WP:GNG. If the article contains references to uses in cultural works, it is not a dictionary definition. Diego (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't just a definition. The changes Warden has done have added to it greatly since the time it was nominated for deletion. [1] Dream Focus 08:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Listed by User:Colonel Warden. Discussion notified by Richhoncho (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (albeit weak). WP:DICDEF says "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. " - So the test we must use here is: are there enough sources that discuss busybody as a concept or a kind of person (rather than merely as a word). There appear to be some sources in the article, and my gut feeling tells me that more are available. --Noleander (talk) 18:23, 10 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crow Nation's use of Bison and Huckleberries[edit]

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

Pure WP:COATRACK as there is no hint of anything distinctive about the way the Crow Nation used either bison or huckleberries. Anything of value in this article is already, correctly, in either Plains bison or Huckleberry and there seems no prospect of improvement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the material seems to be good, there is no reason to put the three things: the Crow Nation, Bison, and Huckleberries together in one article. There are already articles where the information belongs. BigJim707 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 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 keep. Consensus is that he scrapes by. Kubigula (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ramírez[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are we sure that it does not pass GNG? It looks like it does. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the eleven sources listed only one is not obviously routine. The first one is a player profile, nine of the ten others are routine transfer news. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to all the coverage, the article says he's made 52 appearances for Independiente José Terán of Ecuadorian Serie A, the top league in Ecuador; while Ecuador is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, I find no record of a discussion of this omission, and the article about the league says that it's one of the dozen or so most highly ranked leagues in the world. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about scrapes through GNG in current state, and as has made 52 appearances in the Ecuadorian Serie A, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and assume there's more out there. Unsure if the Ecuadorian Serie A is fully-pro or not but that doesn't matter as GNG is met. Giant Snowman 23:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG, still young sounds like a player to watch in the future. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. If you look into the references you will see that most of them (if not all) link to an article about his transfer. Plus the references are sourcing 2 facts pratically. He also fails NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Extra.ec article is certainly significant coverage - describing his youth career, performance at the U-17 World Cup and in Ecuador's Serie A. It also mentions his trial with Dortmund, but it is hardly fair to say it is about his transfer. The other sources are a mix, but at least one other appears significant. Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced with reliable third party references from numerous countries. Granted this is not the most notable footballer in the world, but he seems to have done enough to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 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 merge to List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American primetime network series that ran ten seasons or longer[edit]

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

Redundant to List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What is this, a rerun? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — this was created from a category that was deleted 2006-06-29. On 2006-11-20‎, 5 months later, somebody else made the other. All this was in 2006, so there ~~may be a lot~~ are thousands of RL links to them. Make sure every entry in the former is in the latter, and redirect.--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it make sense to merge when everything is included in List of American primetime network series that ran ten seasons or longer JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge anything from this article that does not appear in the other list. I have not looked at everything, but it is possible something appears here that is not in the List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series. Would hate to see valid info disappear. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to have two lists on the same thing...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead (talk • contribs)
Redirect to List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series. Fairly obviously a duplicate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. Harmless, but pointless, and probably unintentional duplication should be addressed with a minimum of disruption. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge per above RadioFan (talk) 04:12, 12 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. without prejudice to a rename. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storm naming controversy[edit]

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

A two senetence stub with no indication of importance whatsoever. United States Man (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs a stand alone article as a controversy between the Weather Channel and other weather services that oppose and support it. It is in the news, has subsantial coverage, RS, etc, etc. More material is being added.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is fairly new, can we atleast wait a little bit? JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actully has become quite controversal and I do believe the article has potential to grow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic it covers has had a lot of attention recently and should be kept. Camyoung54 talk 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Weather Channel#2012.E2.80.9313_naming_winter_storms. The controversy seems pretty notable, with multiple organizations publicly opposing TWC's system and plenty of reporting on that. But I don't think it needs to be covered outside of TWC's page, unless other organizations start actively supporting TWC's position (rather than just using the names on occasion), which doesn't seem to have happened. (Keep wouldn't be too bad either, which is where this seems to be headed at the moment.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or delete. It'd be interesting to read about the pros and cons being presented, but unless there's more than a list of organizations that agree/disagree, this is fairly useless. Has the NWS made any statements, or have they just ignored the whole thing? 173.65.73.222 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During Athena they sent out a bulletin to their offices telling them not to refer to it as "Athena." Other than that it has been ignored by the NWS. United States Man (talk)

It probably will expand. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricanes/tropical storm naming came about for the same reasons TWC wants them named. See: this link that states "Tropical cyclones are named to provide ease of communication between forecasters and the general public regarding forecasts, watches, and warnings." Even if TWC doesn't maintain the right to name them, it may still carry on to the NWS which opposes it now, and may yet do a Reverse Ferret--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point, TWC has the right to do whatever the @#!*% they want regarding anything. TWC could even start naming tropical cyclones themselves, but that'd just be stupid so they don't. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This'll be a pretty big controversy by next season, and already is. Assuming TWC continues, this'll gradually get bigger (think way back when with cyclone naming). It's notable in many reliable sources. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly the consensus is keep, and it seems like too new an article to delete. But its current state is unacceptable. It talks about Athena and then mentions hashtag use of #nemo on Twitter. (#NotVerifiedOrNotable) As with all articles about controversies, the bar is higher than usual, although there are some good sources listed. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hash tags on Twitter and other uses were one of TWC's reasons for naming them. Simplicity, communication, information, awareness, etc. The source, Time Magazine, verified how often it was used. Close to 200 times in 10 minutes when they counted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. There's plenty of discussion in multiple sources. While the article still needs quite a cleanup, don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- YPN YPN ✡ 02:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge; this shouldn't be outright deleted, as it is a notable dispute between TWC and other outlets. Many sources on this issue. 331dot (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am strongly against having the named storms as the page names on Wikipedia, but as for an entry about the controversy, I think there are enough articles where the topic has become notable enough to have its own page and can be linked from some of the more notable storms where one of TWC names has actually been used by some notable sources. Locally in the northeast, and even quite a bit of coverage online, Nemo seems to have been used more so than any storm TWC has named previously. Perhaps it was because it is so short and so easy to make fun of, but regardless a lot of notable organizations used it. Trending on Twitter does not count toward being a notable source, though to be fair to the issue it is worth mentioning in this article as evidence that at least some of the public was going along with it. The name was still not widely used among notable sources as even NBC, which is owned by the same company as TWC, was still not using the name on the NBC Nightly News. (On the graphics shown on that program, where TWC would normally add the storm name, the name was notably missing.) Other television programs did not seem to be using it nationally, but I'm not sure about locally. (I saw some of the newspapers in the NE did use the name.) Therefore, I believe you could have an article about the naming controversy, especially if it went into more depth about other attempts to name storms, not just by the TWC, and expanded further. This would save space in the articles about major winter storms, where a name like Nemo is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. We do not need a really long discussion every time about the naming. A link to the entry on the controversy would be good so that the information could be centralized in one place and expanded with additional information depending on how the debate continues. However, perhaps the article could be called something like: "United States winter storm naming controversy" or however that should be styled. (U.S.) The storms are named by TWC based on the impacts to the US (and whatever arbitrary methods they use, but that is another topic) and unless this article covers other winter storm naming controversies worldwide, which I know nothing about, I think the name should reflect the US. (Yes, some in Canada might use the name, but the naming is US oriented.) I do not think TWC should be in the name of the article because other entities unofficially name storms as well and I think those should be mentioned in this article as well as that goes back for many years as TWC's effort, though more widely covered, is new. Once you have more of that in depth info, I think this article would be good, with a possible rename. Christopher Hollis (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too trivial, localized, and temporary LaBernardFox7778 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:RECENTISM may apply here, but this controversy is getting covered in major news sources. Seems to be a notable controversy. I wouldn't oppose merging it with the The Weather Channel article, which is another option.--xanchester (t) 06:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Weather Channel#2012–13 naming winter storms. The article is largely redundant to that section, and there is absolutely no reason why there should be a separate article for this topic. Reywas92^Talk 07:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move. The title of this page does not seem appropriate. It has now been redirected to Winter storm naming controversy, but should be moved to Winter storm naming to reflect the page Tropical cyclone naming. By doing so, the page should focus on the naming of winter storms (which could be applicable worldwide) and in that scope cover TWC's practice in brief (with a link to TWC's Wikipdia page, where the bulk of the "controversy" coverage can stay), the history of suggesting naming winter storms, and opposition to naming storms (maybe in the form of a section called "Positions" with 1-2 sentences/quotes from noteworthy meteorological agencies & press for/against). AHeneen (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article tile could probably use tweaking, yes. Hurricane Bawbag briefly had a section, but was removed because there was no RS that it was controversial. Something like 'Storm naming policy' may be the eventual title. This seems to be turning into a pissing match between TWC, NWS, and other weather services. The issue will ramp up as more storms are named and those names used by the general public. The NWS seems to strongly dismiss naming smaller storms but may lose out to democracy and public outcry. Policy may be passed in the future to decide who actually has authority to name smaller storms. I doubt naming will cease, just move forward to consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. The article's current scope simply cannot be expanded much further, and due to the nature of the controversy, it belongs better in The Weather Channel#2012–13 naming winter storms. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Mediran (t • c) 08:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Weather Channel#2012–13 naming winter storms. This seems to fit best there at this time. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Weather Channel and/or February 2013 nor'easter, both of which mention this story. But it isn't really notable enough for its own article. Robofish (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a continuing controversy not limited to the most recent storm. —Lowellian (reply) 19:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand - The controversy behind the topic has become widely reported on by media outlets as a significant issue extending beyond the meteorological community. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Weather Channel#2012–13 naming winter storms. There is no need for a separate article - it's a short little stub that logically fits within the TWC article. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Winter storm naming as suggested above. This is not confined to The Weather Channel's actions but eventually will involve the court of public opinion or be decided by other means. It's not just up to The Weather Channel. --Star767 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Regardless of what's done, this is correct, as the current title is misleading. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like there are enough sources to indicate notability, just saw this one a minute ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Winter storm naming so that it can cover not only any controversy but history of winter storm naming as well. Should not be merged into any one storm article or the article of any one weather service because it's not limited to those. --PatrickD (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be room for growth, and the article has credible references. Cocoaguy ここがいい 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A section about a name change has been created at the article talk page. I don't think we need to re-name it until this AfD runs its course though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think the information is valuable, though unless there is more room for expansion, it should be part of Winter storm naming. ----Charlesblack 13:00, 14 February 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 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 Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIMM ALUMNI[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG blatantly. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I originally CSD A7'd it, but then reverted myself because I thought it was an educational institution. I see now that it's an non-notable organization (an alumni group), so I'm going to re-nominate it for CSD. - Mr X 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:53, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 17:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:08, 9 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Robert Giles[edit]

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

May not meet WP:Notability, some or all sources may not meet WP:SOURCEACCESS PhantomTech (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:07, 9 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 Bekasi#Commerce. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bekasi Cyber Park[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. If there is any need to mention where one goes to buy a computer in this town (which I doubt) then it should be covered by a sentence in Bekasi#Commerce. AllyD (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG and is possible spam. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bekasi#Commerce. TerriersFan (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 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 keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson mandela high school sierra leone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally High Schools are kept, not deleted. However this one needs work. I have wikified it by adding links. The British Council Program is called "Connecting Classrooms". The connection for this school should be here, but does not appear to be. It may be very recent. The article does need moving to a title such as Nelson Mandela High School, Sierra Leone, but that can wait. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and opposition to systemic bias which makes it difficult to cover topics in less developed countries. Consensus is that secondary schools anywhere are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. I am rather depressed with this "vote", your rationale basically is an appeal to tradition. Just because in other AfD discussions some schools are kept it doesn't mean that this one should automatically be kept too. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Only source I could find is this but this is not so much about the school as it is about the principle, Mohamed Jalloh it is he we should write about. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, MrT, this is not a vote, but rather a debate that is based on policy, guidelines and established precedent and consensus. Consensus on repetitive sorts of deletion debates is very important to streamline our processes here. And our established consensus says that we delete and redirect articles about the vast majority of primary schools, except those very few that have genuine historical or architectural significance. And, we keep pretty much all articles about secondary schools, unless those articles are hoaxes or no evidence whatsoever exists in any reliable source in any language that the school exists. A "bright line" consensus rule like this allows editors to make judgments quickly, and that serves the project well in dealing with cases like these. So, please do not be depressed. Consensus is a good thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that if you are depressed about people opining that an article about a legitimate institution should be kept in an encyclopaedia then you are on the wrong website! Frankly, I find that depressing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks perfectly notable to me. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Sierra Leone schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched. Nominating for deletion within an hour of creation, hardly allows time for article development nor would it have been very encouraging to a new editor. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clearly established precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:SNOW. The general consensus located at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that states that articles about high schools are generally kept because they are notable or verifiable under policy. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sciences faculty of meknes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable department of a university that does not have a Wikipedia article. The website (and that of the university itself) is also apparently a dead link. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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. Kubigula (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Airways[edit]

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

Clearly fails the general notability guideline. Or, more specifically, at least WP:CORP and WP:CRYSTAL. The whole page content is speculation/announcements about future events that may not occur (judging from the defunct website, it likely that there won't be any future developments at all). A proposed business is not relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia, at least not as long as there has not been any significant impact on the society. All there is known about Atom Airways originates from self-published sources (on facebook), which created a short media buzz (due to the proposed superior, luxury passenger experience). The "airline" has never owned or operated any aircraft, and currently it all looks like they never will. FoxyOrange (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to [2] they contracted a Boeing 767-238 (former registration number N774WD, manufacturer number 23403), but it does not have a new registration number yet. According to [3], the plane was delivered to Melbourne and it was scheduled to begin operation in October 2012, but the official web site (http://www.atomaviation.com, not http://www.atomairways.com) says that the flights will be starting in April 2013. Until we have something more consistent, we should delete the article, according to WP:CRYSTAL. Razvan Socol (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". It is just too early for an article on an airline that that doesn't yet exist. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until it actually exists it doesn't merit an article. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 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. Kubigula (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petite Noya[edit]

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

Non-notable lyrics lacking sources or any analysis per WP:LYRIC. Also a possible copyright violation. - Mr X 14:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently it's not a copyvio because it's a folk song. Nevertheless, this is unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. James086 ^Talk 17:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS and WP:MUSIC. Search results only show that Gipsy Kings have performed this song on occasion, which, of course, doesn't make it notable. Ezhuks (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 12:01, 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 speedy keep. This is under policy; nominator stated that the article can be kept now and there are no substantial arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zakavia[edit]

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

AfDed as per WP:NCORP. Unsourced article. Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, this airline has not been important enough to get a stand-alone alone Wikipedia article, as it was only around for two years. Of course, it is quite difficult to find reliable in-depth sources for a 1920s company (which are somewhat necessary for WP:CORP), but I think it is safe to assume that these just do not exist because (per the talk page) User:Russavia did not succeed in finding them in nearly six years. --FoxyOrange (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I expanded the article and added sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the view of Ymblanter's recent edit (many thanks to this great work!), I have to revoke my earlier comment, and go for speedy keep instead, as in my opinion all concerns that had led to this AfD discussion have been dissolved. --FoxyOrange (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work by Ymblanter improviing the article. The nominator is reminded that a lack of sources isn't a reason to delete. (Also, for future reference re: the struck Delete !vote above, WP:NTEMP, WP:NEGLECT) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate the article because of a lack of sources, I just mentioned that the article had no sources when it was nominated. My main concern was notability. Nevertheless, WP:VERIFY is a policy to be followed at every article, including the new ones. Following the discussion above, I agree that Ymblanter (talk · contribs) improved the article and that it should be kept now, yet it is in need of a serious expansion. Just a curious thing: this is not the first time an article I've nominated gets improved by someone else (mainly by the addition of references) and it's eventually kept. Is it so difficult to create sourced articles?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough; just wanted to be sure nobody drove by and took it the wrong way. As for improvement, I think the main thing is there's simply so many articles that some have to "have attention drawn to them" for somebody to go "oh, I can do this". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 13 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 Burdwan#Schools. Given the lack of discussion. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baksa F P school[edit]

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

A primary school which does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 01:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, which is not surprising. Possible redirect target is Burdwan#Schools, but I do not propose it since this strikes me as an unlikely search term. Ray^Talk 01:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that all content has been removed.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was all removed, and then speedily deleted as a G7, but then re-created. I propose we just let the AfD run. Ray^Talk 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 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. This deletion is without prejudice to re-creation if the subject's notability becomes more clearly established in the future. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Kimble[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Kimble

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

With respect, being a candidate for office and holding no other offices makes me think this gentleman doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I see that he has had 2 prior afds (1 delete in 2007, 1 no consensus after a new article was created in 2011), but I don't even think that the 'perpetual also-ran' angle is sufficient in this case (would need to be many more attempts, IMO). Syrthiss (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on Wikipedia for many times and the individual is a notable individual who has been in newspapers worldwide and has been stated as a "notable person" many times previously. There is no reason to remove an article that gains at least 400 views per thirty day time period. There is no reason to remove the article and because of his "Playgirl" and "New York Times" coverage as well as "The Daily Show" coverage the individual has clearly met notability standards under the Wikipedia guidelines. The article is also noteworthy as a"person" and not only as a politician who is a "perpetual candidate". The man is notable and the article has been on Wikipedia since 2007 and not just 2011 as stated above. The article should be kept as informational and notable. It does also seem that some of the same names are not only on this debate but on the previous debate from 2011 and seems suspect. I agree that the article subject does meet the general notability guidelines and is noteworthy. this text was added previously by junglejamm below, and unsigned. Syrthiss (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Meets notability standards

68.50.111.217 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 68.50.111.217 (talk)— 68.50.111.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article meets the general notability guidelines and is "newsworthy" because of the subjects many "antics" or stunts trying to win public office. There is no question that the individual is newsworthy and that the same arguments were made in the previous afd pages which resulted in no concensus. Thus , unless there is new substantial argument the result will probably be the same and the article should not be removed/deleted.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclops2007 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Cyclops2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 22:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was more discussion of the "antics" made by the individual, or if there were more "in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists" about the "antics," then this could pass the general notoriety criteria. As is, the news articles seem trivial, or campaign related, rather than about the subject. Enos733 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing the 2011 deletion debate and the 2007 debate it does seem that the subject is newsworthy. In 1996 he said he would pose for Playgirl and there are many news accounts worldwide that mention this. Then we look at the most newsworthy events and those were in 2002 when he had the opponent's wife as his campaign manager. This went viral from what I have seen on the 2011 debate and in the news articles I have found. He may be considered a perennial candidate but he is covered each and every time he runs for office and is listed as a scientist first in the article with the campaign events/publicity stunts covered in England as well as the United States major news outlets. The subject seems to be newsworthy and meets the general guidelines or notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglejamm (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Junglejamm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note the keep !votes above smell strongly of sock- or meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 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 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ From what I have read and reviewed by looking at the 2011 deletion review is that the article was about a newsworthy person who made splashes in the news. What I see in some of the "delete" votes are some of the same people who voted in the 2011 participation and seem to be in unison with their motivation in this discussion to intentionally delete a noteworthy subject. I believe that any man that has his opponent's wife as his campaign manager is "newsworthy" and notable. The previous arguments from 2011 should be included as arguments for inclusion or deletion. But in all honesty I believe the article meets the general notability guidelines.68.50.111.217 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 68.50.111.217 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? How in the World does this compute; I believe that any man that has his opponent's wife as his campaign manager is "newsworthy" and notable.? However, it takes a brave man to do such, and that he survived those events may indeed be! Яεñ99 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting view I see your point of view. the individual did survive and that is in itself "newsworthy". lol I commend him on his bravery or foolishness. 68.50.111.217 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking at the news articles under google and viewing the 2011 review it appears that the subject is newsworthy and should be retained. 68.54.86.51 (talk) 22:46, 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note I've heavily discounted the masses of keep votes as being sock/meatpuppetry. However there isn't enough legitimate participation to take action on it either way, so I've relisted. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered in the news, but that is insufficient for notability. Looking at the results, Kimble hasn't been close to achieving public office (15% of the vote). In the lopsided contested, there is often no contest for the nomination of the party (or parties) that is clearly going to lose. If someone wants to toss their hat in the ring, that person will be nominated as the only candidate. To achieve notability as a politician, one needs to have done something more than sign up for a race that one is clearly going to lose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have read and reread the arguments fom 2011 and even 2007 and the article was not new in 2011 and had been on Wikipedia for a number of years drawing hundreds of views a month. The subject was in the New York Times and on Hard Copy, Today and the Daily Show and on the BBC etc and the only sock puppetry seems to be inane argument trying to get people to say delete the article. I find the google news search to be very informative and maybe the individual will win office some time. Continuing to relist the argument is really pushing te limits of decency and fairness.Junglejamm (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC) user was blocked as a sock puppet Syrthiss (talk) 12:25, 12 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 List of Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Gorshkow[edit]

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

per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. This persons limited "notability" is only in relation to being suspected as nazi criminal and being placed in List of Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center . He was never convicted or even tried, so BLPCRIME fully applies. Also coverage he has received comes mostly from being placed in Wiesenthal Center's list, which already has separate article where this individual is included.-- Staberinde (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Extremely weak keep for now.~~ Same as the other alleged Nazi criminals in the list, Gorshkow merits an article of its own. It is possible to find more sources using alternate spellings of his name (Mihhail, Gorškov, Gorskov, Gorskow, Михаил Горшков etc). However, I must note that even then I was unable to find any in-depth sources discussing his life or alleged crimes. --Sander Säde 08:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all in that list actually have articles, Ivan Kalymon is just a redirect. Not to mention those red links and another redirect in "previous lists" section.--Staberinde (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Changing my weak keep to redirect, keeping the full history of the article - in case more/better sources are found and article rewritten. --Sander Säde 08:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, with a possible merge of his alleged crimes. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ENIGMA (Game Maker)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet requirement of WP:GNG as all ghits are self-published or blogs.
Relies on self-published references, created by possible WP:SPA
Appears largely promotional (WP:PROMO) Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 12:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS. The sources are shotty at best. Fails GNG. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 12 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 close, not a deletion issue. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Stars (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/All Stars (album) (2nd nomination)

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

Because the title name or page name is incorrect.Sadsam123 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for All Stars (album)

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 9. Snotbot t • c » 11:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)´[reply]

What is the correct title? --LlamaAl (talk) 16:20, 9 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. Michig (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters who die in Naruto[edit]

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

contested prod. WP:FANCRUFT, clearly is WP:NOT Bensci54 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely non-notable, unencyclopedic fancruft. Stalwart111 12:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plainly not notable and WP:NOT.--Staberinde (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be renamed to "List of deceased Naruto characters" but this does seem like a non-notable fork from List of Naruto characters. Funny ^Pika! 15:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has more than a few issues with it. It's fairly OR and not entirely encyclopedic. This really is something better served on a fan wikia than Wikipedia, especially considering that this is something relatively easily included in the character pages. There is also the issue of characters that have died and come back to life. It's not nearly as bad as some of the characters in DC or Marvel, but there's a definite question as to what would be included in this list. I just don't see where this subject is ultimately notable enough for a separate list.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment this article doesn't have a fair chance in it's present state, so I'm going to try to clean it up a little bit. —Rutebega (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page is now located at List of characters who die in Naruto. It looks a lot better, but it's still probably not right for inclusion. I won't !vote. —Rutebega (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason that we need a list of characters who died in a particular work of fiction (nor am I aware of any other article of this type) and even if it was cleaned up I don't see how it would not be redundant to the existing character list.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)--174.93.160.57 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD proposer. Nothing but WP:FANCRUFT. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Snow Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:N to name a few. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't this article die? It's useless, unsourced fancruft. It belongs better in the Naruto wiki than here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Nothing more than fancruft. You add any of the information into the appropriate articles if possible. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Just a duplicate of the Naruto characters article, with a bit of plot thrown in. Wikipedia doesn't exist to catalog the plots of things (WP:NOTPLOT), and there's no other reason for this article. Nobody has argued keep, so kill it already, please! --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and redirect to List of Naruto characters. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that the average reader would have to type in "List of characters" first to even get to the option of searching from there so I dont think it would be a good redirect term to look up, I would support a transwiki though to wikia if someone wants to do that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original title was simply Who dies in Naruto? (now a redirect). Assuming this becomes the redirected title instead, a search of WP for any combination of "characters", "Naruto" and "dies" would include the new title in the first few search results for anyone (no matter how unlikely) looking for that content. Likewise searching for the old title exactly - "Who dies in Naruto?" - yields much the same result. Like this. Stalwart111 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear cut case, no notability for the topic nor the characters. Diego (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic, if something like this needs to be tracked, it would probably be best if it were just stated by the individual character's section in the respective "List of characters" article. (That being said, I don't think it needs to be tracked.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abfa Tehran F.C.[edit]

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

Part of a large series of unreferenced micro-stubs about football teams in Iran which have not received significant coverage or played at a national level in order to meet notability guidelines. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C.. This nomination covers a total of eight articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C 679 09:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven related articles listed below per nomination:

C 679 09:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. C 679 09:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 09:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - none of these clubs has played at a level where notability is presumed. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all can't see any evidence for notability. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Someone seems to have put a lot of effort into creating low level Iranian football articles, but I can find no evidence that any of these teams have even competed in the national cup let alone pass GNG on their own merits. Unfortunately RSSSF only seems to show the latter stages for the Iranian cup, but none of the teams are mentioned unless there is a mis-romnaisation from the Farsi. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 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 Withdrawn. I will establish consensus regarding WP:ATHLETE then return if appropriate. James086 ^Talk 12:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Allen (tennis)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not found "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Some may meet WP:ATHLETE but it only suggests that they are likely to meet the general notability guideline which these do not. If you find sources to prove notability I will strike the nomination of that article. I recommend deletion without prejudice, that is, if sources become available or if someone finds sources somewhere (perhaps offline) then the articles can be recreated rather than being speedied. James086 ^Talk 08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC) James086 ^Talk 08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Louise Allen. She advanced to the second round of each of the majors (her alma mater claims she made it to the "third round of singles at Wimbledon and U.S. Open, and quarterfinals of doubles"[4]), more than enough to satisfy WP:NTENNIS. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence of the guideline you linked to is "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." She meets NTENNIS, but does not meet the general notability guideline, thus does not warrant an article (unless someone can find "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"). James086 ^Talk 08:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all, without prejudice to individual renominations. The nominator is apparently unaware of deletion procedure, and suggests that "some may meet WP:ATHLETE". If an article meets that guideline, then it doesn't have to meet WP:GNG. Hence, there has been no argument forwarded for deletion, and the nomination fulfils criterion #1 at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the first sentence of WP:ATHLETE or my other comments in this AFD. Meeting WP:ATHLETE is not criteria for inclusion, the GNG is. Meeting WP:ATHLETE only suggests that it's likely that the person will meet the GNG. James086 ^Talk 09:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you are misreading the guidelines - if you don't think that meeting WP:ATHLETE is a sufficient condition for inclusion, you are adopting a very idiosyncratic interpretation. Wikipedia:Notability says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." St Anselm (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball players get in on the slightest of qualifications, e.g. one plate appearance. Honestly, how can one justify keeping somebody like that (and I've seen it done here) and excluding someone who, aside from her majors appearances, won 13 titles and an NCAA national championship? Anyway, there's a fair amount about Allen in the Albany Times-Union article ("Allen's Defeated by Mager's Again" - Highbeam sub. required) and her North Carolina 2003 Tennis Hall of Fame membership. Those plus her Trinity U. bio and various other less substantial mentions, are enough to construct a reasonably detailed article (which I'll get to a little later). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: WP:ATHLETE, the subject-specific guideline (in the box on the right on WP:N), says that it should meet the GNG, so it goes around in circles. That doesn't mean it should be included.

@Clarityfiend: While I don't have a Highbeam subscription, it appears to be a match report (not considered sufficient basis for an article) but the award may be enough. I've struck her from the list for the meantime. James086 ^Talk 10:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep ALL. The articles are microstubs, yes, but that's because no one has really tried to expand them. Competing in the 2012 Asian Beach Games is automatically a grounds for notability (major continental tournament). Competing in the 1997 FIA GT Championship is automatically a grounds for notability (major international tournament), and I found evidence here that this driver did indeed race there:[5][6] (he may not have actually driven in the race, but as an endurance driver, he being part of a trio that did race is enough). In addition to this, the grouping of people here makes no sense - by all means group those who competed in the 2012 Asian Beach Games together, but a random tennis player and racing driver as well? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will assume you read what I said about WP:ATHLETE requiring the GNG so will just reply to the rest of the comment. They are microstubs because there is no potential to expand them. I don't disagree that the Asian Beach Games is a top level competition as is the FIA GT, but these people are so minor that they aren't worth mentioning. What information could be added to Kiyoaki Hanai article? The source for the article conflicts with SpeedSport Magazine (that you supplied), the one in the article says he was in 2 races, the table of results says he entered but never raced. The beach volleyball players could have their results listed, but that would just duplicate the information already listed at Beach volleyball at the 2012 Asian Beach Games, which also already gives all of the information available in the articles in one place. Something else important to note is that the sources you have provided are not considered sufficient basis for an article. James086 ^Talk 11:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that passing the specific subject guidelines is enough, via long-standing consensus? Especially when they have competed in major international tournaments? You can expand any of these very easily - talk about the results they achieved, for example. I am well aware those sources are routine; please don't insult my intelligence, I provided them specifically to provide proof he did, in fact, enter a race, as I stated. Information specific to a player would not duplicate information elsewhere, unless you want to start arguing that, say, Jenson Button's F1 results is a duplication of each season article. You may not agree with the long-standing consensus, but the fact is, that's what Wikipedia is run to. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep with nothing against individual noms for those that might not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Passing one of the many occupation-specific criteria sets is enough, per substantive consensus. Might be a misreading of ATHLETE or some unclear wording there. Either way, nom should probably tackle these case-by-case. Stalwart111 12:14, 9 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 snow delete as a hoax. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Strathfordshire[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I can find no sources predating Dec 2012 for the earldom or any of its holders. Kilopi (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - seems an obvious hoax: non-existent county; no sources; new SPA; sea of redlinks; and nothing at all on it in the big wide world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Not only is there no evidence of the earldom, and the county name does not exist, there is nothing to link the family with Taplow Court. And for that matter, the supposed current holder Charles Phillip Westgrave is a remarkably retiring man if he exists. I conclude he is a figment of somebody's fevered imagination. --AJHingston (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks like a HOAX to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 11 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 Withdrawn per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Comics Database[edit]

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

Every footnote is primary. Other sources consist of a name-drop and two press releases, neither of which are reliable third party coverage. A Google News search found only reprints of a press release, or a couple instances where it was used as a reference (e.g. "According to the Grand Comics Database…"). There's very little to no notability here. Just being name-dropped is not equivalent to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is linked from Wikipedia:Book sources under the header "Online databases". Someone thought it was notable enough to put there. diff. --Auric talk 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that on the criteria of WP:GNG? Answer, nowhere. Just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few good sources for this. Holy Hypertext! looks a little sketchy but seems to be hosted by a university; this Springfield News-Sun article is a fairly detailed profile of the site's creator; and this page from the Colorado Springs Gazette includes the site in a list of Spider-Man related websites. The various references from the Google News search also help to demonstrate the impact this site has had on the comic book community. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:18, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:08, 9 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 06:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the comments on it's notability appear in print -such as Alter-Ego and other comic book consumer magazines, but also in websites (see former Marvel writer Tony Isabella's blog for Feb. 12th). Advanced search on Google tells me that Wikipedia links to the Grand Comics Database website "About 5,770 results". link Sangorshop 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangorshop (talk • contribs)
Keep It is frequently cited by various blogs, commercial comic book retailers, museums, other databases, and other internet sites as their information source. For just a handful of examples, see Mike Grost's Classic Comic Books, Wikia, gocollect, Michigan State University Library's Comic Art Collection, Aparofan's World of Comics, Who Drew Superboy, and Stonercomics. I would suggest that instead of deleting it, you do the necessary research to add the appropriate second party sources. DonDMilne (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Sangorshop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and — DonDMilne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have cited the GCD in numerous articles submitted to the Greenwood Publishing Group's forthcoming "Comics Through Time" encyclopedia, and the citations were accepted by the editor and source/citation verifiers. See my user page for details. A prior Greenwood publication The Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels includes the GCD in the list of "Selected General Resources" (p 732 in vol 2), so that one is currently verifiable in print and outside of the usual comic fan press. Additionally, Jean Bails, widow of seminal comics researcher Jerry Bails selected the GCD as the custodian of her late husband's "Who's Who" web site and data. Ixat totep (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been a member and researcher since the mid-90s. It seems that the main concern is that of notability (or lack thereof); would a rewrite of the article to include more secondary links be what's required to "prove" the notability? Admittedly, there are too many primary sources. I have found a number of examples showing that the GCD is often listed as an important site for scholars doing research on comic books (e.g., University sites like Virginia Commonwealth [7] and Duke [8], writers' resource sites like Internet-Resources [9], comics research sites like ComiChron [10], and the New York Public Library [11]). Additionally, company editorial records donated to the GCD listing the creators of decades of comics have been incorporated, and major companies such as DC and Marvel have utilized (and credited) the GCD with helping to identify unknown creators of reprinted material so that proper remuneration can be given. Wizardimps (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though the current article needs work. Andrew³²⁷ 17:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thought I believe the article needs to be reworked to include more third-party sources, a search on Amazon.com finds seventeen published books that cite the GCD as a reference or as a research tool, which should satisfy the criterion of notability:

1,000 Comic Books You Must Read by Tony Isabella
Comic Art of the United States through 2000, Animation and Cartoons: An International Bibliography by John Lent
Graven Images: Religion in Comic Books & Graphic Novels by A. David Lewis, Christine Hoff Kraemer, Douglas Rushkoff and G. Willow Wilson
Marvel Comics in the 1960s: An Issue-By-Issue Field Guide to a Pop Culture Phenomenon by Pierre Comtois, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko
Silver Age Sci-Fi Companion by Mike W. Barr, Carmine Infantino, Murphy Anderson and Gil Kane
All-Star Companion Volume 4 (The Justice Society of America and Related Comics 1938 - 1989) by Roy Thomas, Todd McFarlane and Jerry Ordway
The Thunder Agents Companion by Jon B. Cooke
An Illustrated History of Trigger: The Lives and Legend of Roy Rogers' Palomino by Leo Pando and Corky Randall
The Krypton Companion by Michael Eury
Blue-Collar Pop Culture: From NASCAR to Jersey Shore by M. Keith Booker
Heroes and Villains: The William Messner-Loebs Benefit Sketchbook by William Messner-Loeb and Clifford Meth
A Subject Guide to Quality Web Sites by Paul R. Burden
World Wrecker: An Annotated Bibliography of Edmond Hamilton by Richard W. Gombert
The Buffyverse Catalog: A Complete Guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel in Print, Film, Television, Comics... by Don Macnaughtan
Yahoo!: The Ultimate Guide to the Internet by HP Newquist
The Phantom Detective Companion by Tom Johnson, Will Murray, Al Tonik and Harold Ward
The Image and Role of the Librarian by Linda S. Katz

WaxTadpole (talk) 16:01, 14 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. Michig (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Strikeforce fighters[edit]

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

Let's face it, there are no more current Strikeforce fighters. Most of them have gone to the UFC now or have been released, so this page doesnt really serve a purpose on wikipedia anymore. Let's get rid of it people. Can this be speedy deleted infact? GladiusHellfire (talk) 05:26, 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 Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Strikeforce is now defunct so the article should be blank since there are no current fighters. I'd say this falls under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. It also appears to be original research and selectively inclusive, unless you believe Strikeforce only had 1 heavyweight and 1 light heavyweight. Papaursa (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom. IronKnuckle (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Strikeforce is defunct. The main Strikeforce page should certainly be kept as an archive of a major promotion, and any relevant content here can be moved to a "Notable fighters" section on the main Strikeforce page. Bdure (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Noleander (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - Per all above. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Strikeforce Promotion may no longer exist, but in some way, the article history should be kept alive through a redirect at the very least. Deletion should not be argued here since it's likely those interested in Strikeforce might come to this page via search engine, and going defunct shouldn't be an excuse to clear the decks of everything involving the promotion. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I don't think a redirect is necessary, if people are interested in Strikeforce, they'll just go to the main Strikeforce page. CaSJer (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Hogan[edit]

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

This article does not meet notability requirements for a sports biography (boxing). Senator2029 ➔leave me a message 04:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NBOX since he's not even ranked in the top 100 and has fought for no world championships. That's not close to a top 10 ranking and fighting for Queensland state titles is a long way for a major world title bout.Mdtemp (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not deserve page.Finnegas (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable boxer. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Dark Thirty (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This page does not link to any other articles with the name "Zero Dark Thirty", since there is only one page with this title, there is no need for a disambiguation page. Camyoung54 talk 22:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this seems inappropriate ---- _nonsense ferret 23:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the purpose of a disambig page. Also seems like a way to get some cheap publicity for the albums. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The disambiguation page is unnecessary. The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia topics (not just Wikipedia articles). Kitfoxxe's assumption of bad faith aside, the disambiguation page is necessary for readers seeking the album or song (how do you propose that such a reader find it after landing at Zero Dark Thirty?). Please read MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The album and song on the page are just briefly mentioned on the article this disambiguation page is directing them to. Mike McClure has multiple studio albums, however not all of them are included on disambiguation pages as well as the song from Skelethon is just one song from one album. If the person searching for these typed in "Zero Dark Thirty" and the name of the artist, they could easily find them with no help from this disambiguation page. Camyoung54 talk 14:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:DABMENTION. There are three topics, covered by articles on Wikipedia, that could be expected to exist under the article title "Zero Dark Thirty". One of the problems with your solution is the reader may not know the name of the artist. "However not all of them are mentioned...": see WP:OTHERSTUFF, and feel free to add them to the appropriate disambiguation pages per MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHJ - just a well-formed and useful dab page. PamD 15:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves the purpose of a disambiguation page in guiding users to information about those topics. I doubt there's a significant number of users seeking information about these topics; nevertheless I don't see any reason to delete a disambiguation page that complies with our guidelines. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In conformance with disambiguation guidelines, and potentially useful to someone searching for any meaning other than the film. bd2412 T 13:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION, no harm here J04n(talk page) 12:38, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It provides some utility and is consistent with the style manual (DABMENTION). - Mr X 03:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this disambiguation page is perfectly fine, multiple usages of the term exist and this informs readers. NYSMy talk page 23:32, 9 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. Michig (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary group theory[edit]

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

textbook-ish -- Taku (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge. The nomination is based on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and normally I'd say that the article should be kept because of notability and the problems are fixable. But there is a more serious problem here. We already have a highly developed article on basic group theory at Group (mathematics) that seems to cover similar material as this article, plus much more. Group (mathematics) is already well-integrated with the more advanced article Group theory. I don't see how this article is sufficiently different from or superior to Group (mathematics) to merit keeping it. I appreciate the care and work that went into producing it, but it seems redundant. --Mark viking (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is written in a ludicrously non-elementary style. Warden (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removed as off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki: I have to concur with Mark viking's analysis; there is simply too much overlap in subject matter and content between this and other articles to justify its existence as a standalone article. However, given the fact that the article is presently written in a style that is more textbook than encyclopedic, a possible solution would be to transwiki it over to Wikiversity as an educational math resource. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have two better articles on this topic at Group (mathematics) and Group theory. I don't see a reason for having a third; this article does not seem more elementary than the coverage in Group (mathematics), for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have dug a bit through the history. The article morphed from this, which could basically be taken as a first draft or blueprint of our current group (mathematics) article, to its current form which doesn't seem to serve any purpose over the former version. To understand the current, supposedly elementary, version the reader is supposed to understand what an algebraic structure is (seriously, follow that link), and to cope with the symbol $\perp$ to denote multiplication. I mean, really?! Mathematics writing, if sufficiently incompetent, is indistinguishable from trolling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair criticism. A lot of thought when into this. Try reading past the statement of the axioms before jumping to conclusions. As for the group operation symbol, it was chosen for a reason (although a better one could be found). See the end of Talk:Elementary_group_theory#Denoting_a_2-ary_operation. Bomazi (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that whoever wrote the article this way didn't have reasons for doing so. I'm saying that, regardless of those reasons, the article is badly written twaddle that is certainly not illuminating of any supposedly "elementary" concept of group. And yes, I have read the article beyond the axioms. Do you have a point? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be a little bit more specific that just saying "trust me, it's crap!". All I am seeing is a fairly standard development of the theory, with the same basic theorems you'll find in any introductory textbook (See for example Joseph J. Rotman, An Introduction to the Theory of Groups). At least until section 4 included, I don't see any serious error in the definitions, theorem statements or proofs, and they are all presented in a logical order. As written I'll say the article should be understandable by a first year university student. Can you give a bullet point list of exactly what you think is wrong here ? Maybe it is the fact that it is too advanced ? Whatever it is please be specific. Bomazi (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I think the content is appropriate for a textbook, not an encyclopedia. But I don't think it is useless. Bomazi (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had said that the article was written by a first year student, I might agree. "Understandable by" might possibly be true, although the article does seem to be written in a deliberately obscure manner: it begins with a confusing list of axioms, alternate axioms, all in a non-standard notation that no textbook would ever use, and takes it as given that people know all about binary operations. But let's grant that the reader will struggle and understand the article as written. Would this reader then actually be able to articulate what group theory is about? I leave it to you to decide. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:13, 14 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian footballers who have played for foreign clubs[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator, no rationale given. No evidence of notability, and AfD consensus exists for these type of lists not being inherently notable. Giant Snowman 09:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the AfD provided by Snowman. Also there is false information in the article as well. There is also a lack of sources to prove anything so it also fails WP:GNG as well. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Football_in_india, if possible. ~dee^(talk?) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If all the information here were properly referenced, then I would have supported to keep it, because, it is a big deal for Football in India, as India is ranked among the lowest ones in the world. But, in the present form, it will propagate wrong information beyond Wikipedia, and possibly would be a source of constant vandalism from the unregistered editors.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:31, 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)} 01:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a short list that does not seem to add much value to the encyclopedia. As mentioned above, such lists are not inherently notable. - Mr X 02:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non needed list JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:06, 9 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 amongst policy-based arguments is clearly for deletion. Michig (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Benjamin Mimms[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Should have been Speedy. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just met this founder - historically significant, an unpublicized genius. I cited sources - if you need anything more, let me know. --Rhinotate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is provided that this person is notable. Pretty much every source provided is written by Mimms himself or has nothing to do with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please note that "unpublicized" generally means you fail the notability requirements. Hairhorn (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what is the fuss about? "well publicized" is not a synonym for "notable" -- as a side note, the article does not violate any of the points made in the "Why we have these requirements" section of notability requirements 128.54.165.10 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)— 128.54.165.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
According to the people above, the sources are either primary sources (written by the man or his employers) or don't discuss him (if they're being used to cite a claim of notability, they must discuss him at some depth). Thus, your claim above is bollocks, and your editing history starts and ends at this AfD. SPA tagged. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of genuine notability, which means significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. We do not have that here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. (And the article is distinctly promotional in tone, too.) A speedy deletion tag was removed, but I think it could well have been speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and I feel the article has a promotional tone as well. Webclient101^talk 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse smelly socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is fine. Notable over here at UCSD. Falls under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." of WP:BIO 169.228.148.144 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 169.228.148.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I examined the edit history and discovered that reddogsix tagged this entry for speedy deletion and reverted it as the author cited it - that is the definition of overzealous. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] ...and the article still fails to meet notability requirements. reddogsix (talk) I could go through the requirements line by line and tell you exactly how this entry meets them - I'm through wasting my time defending this entry - this guy is legitimately notable, if you want to discredit yourself by denying this, you go right ahead. In the meantime, I am going to enjoy my private knowledge. I hope the community continues to defend this obviously notable character. Good night. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] ...again, the article still fails to meet notability requirements. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I do not see a problem with this. Sources are clearly cited. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — 169.228.182.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] The article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep Agree with 169.228.148.144 - this person invented new techniques. 69.229.28.31 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — 69.229.28.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep Don't know what reddogsix is talking about. Mimms crowdsourcing and regulatory approval system alone is well known, at least in SoCal. 128.54.114.84 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This entry meets all the requirements. Looks like an overzealous mod. 128.54.178.184 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep, Moderator overstepping his bounds. JBM is a notable figure. 128.54.96.168 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - To all the ANON IP commentators, this is not a vote. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the notability using independent, verifiable sources. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Sorry reddogsix, disagreed. Your word is not God here. The community has spoken - there are plenty of independent, verifiable sources here. The community suspects you may have ulterior motives in denying this. 128.54.165.10 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Firstly, ANON is a compliment. Secondly, the support here is more than solid. It is appalling that one rogue moderator has such control, horrifying that Wikipedia has fallen so far - What are you looking for, NYT articles, popular press? Publicity may correlate with notability, but notability is not purely causative to publicity. In other words, biographies may be notable, just not well publicized. The two do not go hand in hand. The sources are here to the definition of notability. The subject of this entry is famous - everyone I know knows this subject and if they don't they soon will - inventor of the Omega Interpreter and 8 firms. Keep in mind this is ONE moderator claiming lack of notability and priming the community the wrong way. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Did reddogsix even bother to read the sources and connect the dots? Reading this above, I suspect not: "I examined the edit history and discovered that reddogsix tagged this entry for speedy deletion and reverted it as the author cited it - that is the definition of overzealous. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)" Let another person moderate this please so that we may reach a balanced decision. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Just to be clear, there is no moderator here. Just like all the apparent socks I am voicing an opinion. The comments here will be reviewed by an admin and they will decide the fate of the article. As I indicated above, this is not a vote nor a count of keep vs. delete. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the notability using independent, verifiable sources. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse smelly socking. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is fine. Notable over here at UCSD. Falls under "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." of WP:BIO 169.228.148.144 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — 169.228.148.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the edit history and discovered that reddogsix tagged this entry for speedy deletion and reverted it as the author cited it - that is the definition of overzealous. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and the article still fails to meet notability requirements. reddogsix (talk)

I could go through the requirements line by line and tell you exactly how this entry meets them - I'm through wasting my time defending this entry - this guy is legitimately notable, if you want to discredit yourself by denying this, you go right ahead. In the meantime, I am going to enjoy my private knowledge. I hope the community continues to defend this obviously notable character. Good night. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...again, the article still fails to meet notability requirements. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see a problem with this. Sources are clearly cited. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — 169.228.182.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with 169.228.148.144 - this person invented new techniques. 69.229.28.31 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — 69.229.28.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no evidence of his originating a significant new technique; regardless, the article fails to meet Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know what reddogsix is talking about. Mimms crowdsourcing and regulatory approval system alone is well known, at least in SoCal. 128.54.114.84 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This entry meets all the requirements. Looks like an overzealous mod. 128.54.178.184 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Moderator overstepping his bounds. JBM is a notable figure. 128.54.96.168 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so prove it using independent, verifiable sources. reddogsix (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To all the ANON IP commentators, this is not a vote. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the notability using independent, verifiable sources. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry reddogsix, disagreed. Your word is not God here. The community has spoken - there are plenty of independent, verifiable sources here. The community suspects you may have ulterior motives in denying this. 128.54.165.10 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, ANON is a compliment. Secondly, the support here is more than solid. It is appalling that one rogue moderator has such control, horrifying that Wikipedia has fallen so far - What are you looking for, NYT articles, popular press? Publicity may correlate with notability, but notability is not purely causative to publicity. In other words, biographies may be notable, just not well publicized. The two do not go hand in hand. The sources are here to the definition of notability. The subject of this entry is famous - everyone I know knows this subject and if they don't they soon will - inventor of the Omega Interpreter and 8 firms. Keep in mind this is ONE moderator claiming lack of notability and priming the community the wrong way. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did reddogsix even bother to read the sources and connect the dots? Reading this above, I suspect not: "I examined the edit history and discovered that reddogsix tagged this entry for speedy deletion and reverted it as the author cited it - that is the definition of overzealous. 169.228.148.144 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)" Let another person moderate this please so that we may reach a balanced decision. 169.228.182.40 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there is no moderator here. Just like all the apparent socks I am voicing an opinion. The comments here will be reviewed by an admin and they will decide the fate of the article. As I indicated above, this is not a vote nor a count of keep vs. delete. Continually adding a Keep notation will not save this article unless there is solid support for the notability using independent, verifiable sources. Just saying someone is notable does not make it so in the Wikipedia world. reddogsix (talk) 05:49, 10 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 Guan Yu. Due to the low participation, this merge may be challenged or reversed by any editor. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Guan[edit]

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

No independent notability at all apart from her father Guan Yu, even in the context of fiction. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question – is this about a real person or a fictional one the article is unclear? Just wanted to know so I can delsort under People or Fictional elements. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I guess I wasn't all that clear. This person was real, but the name given to her in the article (as the article noted) is fictional. And I am arguing for deletion on the basis that she was neither notable as a real person nor as portrayed in fiction. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:48, 20 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 26 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} 00:07, 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)} 01:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not notable; merge into Guan Yu.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wild East Productions[edit]

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

Was CSD as A7, but creator has recreated the same page, ignoring the fact that this is unreferenced promotional material, and has raised the cliché WP:OSE argument. Recreation challenged on 18 Jan. but editor had failed to provide further references to support the notability of this page since, despite being quick enough to recreate it following CSD. Still appears as a Sales catalogue, than a valid notable article, and breaks WP:SELF in one ref, the other ref. being more of a WP:TRIVIALMENTION given that only only one of their "44 volume" releases has a minor mention.. hardly notable. I don't see any reason to keep this following a Google search for "Wild East Productions".. the results are generally self-published promotional material or part of item reviews (i.e. this is a Wild East release), but there are no notable third-party reviews of the company portfolio or market interest. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The reviews wouldn't be sufficient for this article and Google News found nothing recent though this isn't surprising if it's a small home video company. Google News archives also didn't find anything despite detailed searches and adding words such as "home video", "company" and "2000" and the only relevant and significant link I found is this Blogspot interview with Eric Mache, Vice President and co-founder of Wild East. I have no objection to userfying but if the article is recreated another time or two, "Wild East Productions" may need to be salted. The user seems to be unfamiliar with the guidelines but they may need to be blocked if persistent. I have given them some advice at their talk page and I hope that will prevent any more issues. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 16:47, 13 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FreshStart Living[edit]

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

Article is written in PR-speak as an advertorial for a minor company that seems to have ceased trading after receiving many court judgements against it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeldaintherain (talk • contribs) — Yeldaintherain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Article has a lot of primary sources as references, but there is coverage in Manchester Evening News. My own searches show more coverage, but again from the Manchester Evening News. It's a local company catching only local attention from essentially only one reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacking third party sources. Needs something more than local news. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficient RS coverage, per whpq.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:37, 11 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 (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis Fighting: MMA Global Invasion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT with no well-sourced prose; consists only of WP:ROUTINE coverage. LlamaAl (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable event due to the unusual nature surrounding it. Fighters weren't paid, the organziation didn't have enough cash to hire judges, features many current and former UFC fighters. Disagree that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and feel that it passes WP:GNG based on notability stemming from the unusual nature of the event. Luchuslu (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. And the coverage is routine. If you address this issues before this AfD is closed, I would withdraw my nomination. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple more sources. Apparently the case was up for investigation by the US government. Not sure if it's enough for you to withdraw the nomination but I feel there's enough here for an article per WP:SPORTSEVENT "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved." Luchuslu (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs some tweaks. But it's enough. Closing. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep To an extent i agree with Luchuslu. Sepulwiki (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 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, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find coverage of this event on anything but MMA sites and I don't know that they qualify as reliable sources. I do remember reading about what a fiasco this event was. It certainly received coverage on MMA sites that was not just the usual fight results, but I don't know that it meets WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 20:20, 9 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 Kilkee. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Byrnes Cove[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been merged into Kilkee article, does not warrant its own page. ShaneMc2010 21:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ShaneMc2010 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete superfluous after merge The Banner talk 01:34, 3 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)} 01:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, now mentioned in Kilkee article. Snappy (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Banner Finnegas (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kilkee. If it has been merged there, a redirect should obviously be left. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyles (World of Darkness)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same issues apply to all of them:

I found these pages in Category:Vampire: The Dark Ages, which was nominated for discussion at WP:CFD 2013 February 8. All of them have the same terminal failing: they demonstrate absolutely zero notability. Some of these articles are entirely unreferenced; most of the rest are some referenced to the publications of the publisher of the game Vampire: The Masquerade; and some also have a few refs to fansites and other unreliable sources. In no case did I find any reference which met any of our criteria for establishing notability.

These pages appear to be an attempt to create on Wikipedia a partial manual for the games concerned, contrary to WP:NOTMANUAL. This amount of non-notable detail is not encyclopedic, and while it may belong on a fansite, it does not belong on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clan (World of Darkness). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These lack notability and reliable third-party coverage. The articles also tend to focus entirely on the in-game issues and do not show how these things are notable in a larger context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per the excellent reasoning laid out by BrownHairedGirl. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Albeit invoking WP:NOTMANUAL is wholly inappropriate here (nothing in the articles serve as a manual; fictional elements of games can be cited so long as they are sourced and appropriately edited), they lack independent reliable sources and thus do not meet WP:GNG - Sangrolu (talk) 19:33, 11 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 to merge or rename can certainly continue on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia[edit]

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

This article is typical Anti-Armenian propaganda. It talks about the Nagorno-Karabakh War and misinterprets the facts. Երևանցի ^talk 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article - not in ideal article, needs improvements. However it is well-referenced at this stage, topic is encyclopedic, there are a lot of articles on similar topics (racism against in one country about other nation). Best, Konullu (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article Could be improved, solid list of sources Hittit (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of reliable sources. If the article is unbalanced, fix it, don't delete it. Just make sure that you don't go too far and make it pro-Armenian propaganda. Howicus (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you would like to see Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan then. No Armenian source is used there and some users still talk about it being unbalanced and even nominated it for deletion.--Երևանցի ^talk 20:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Երևանցի ^talk, did you check that very few of the sources in this article are Azerbaijani ones and their ratio is very low compared to all sources? If you don't like the references for some sentences in the article, you can put citation needed template for those ones. Best, 188.142.246.17 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot see any problem with notability or sources. Maybe the name should be added the words "and the Armenian Diaspora" at the end. --E4024 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above arguments. This article is not intended to include anti-Armenian sentiment. We have Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan for that. --Norden1990 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or alternatively merge both this article and Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan into Armenia–Azerbaijan relations. Grandmaster 09:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article is more a mishmash of events and quotations selectively taken and interpreted by the creator of the article. The "Destruction of mosques in Armenia" section in Armenia is nothing but a non-sequiter. It says because there were several mosques in Armenia one hundred years ago and only a few now, they were destroyed as a part of a campaign of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment by Armenia. I suppose anti-religious Soviet policies had nothing to do with it. Maybe Armenians of Chardagly rejected the Azerbaijani sovkhoz director because he was known to be a corrupt official. It doesn't matter because the source itself is so weak that this article is barely able to stand on its own two feet. I don't know why Khosrov bey Sultanov's dealings with the Armenians is somehow connected to anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, but it may have escaped the editor's attention that Sultanov was also responsible for the destruction of a number of Armenian villages and massacre of civilians. This article is borderline WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH; the articles do not purport to show any semblance of consistent hatred of Azerbaijanis in Armenia. In fact, much stronger cases can be (and have been) made against Azerbijan and Turkey for the systematic inculcation of anti-Armenianism, especially in the latter, where it has permeated all parts of society, from school textbooks to politics, where calling a politician's ancestors Armenians becomes a controversy and an offense punishable by law (!)

And, of course, I find it rather amusing how virtually none of the editors asking to keep this article has offered any specific argument on how this article is in any way encyclopedic, their opinions being more akin to vote stacking than anything else. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that the topic of the article is non-existent, and there's no Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia? Then how would you explain the hate rhetoric by the former Armenian president, which was condemned by the leaders of Council of Europe and PACE? With regard to mosques and other Muslim monuments that vanished in Armenian within the last 90 years the article refers to the opinion of the professional archaeologist Philip Kohl, who does not consider the paucity of surviving Islamic remains in Armenia to be just a coincidence. And Soviet anti-religious policies cannot explain destruction of Khan's palace, citadel and other non-religious monuments built in Yerevan by its Muslim population, and which survived the imperial Russian rule, but did not survive the Soviet and independent Armenian republic. And it would be good to assume good faith, accusing absolutely unrelated editors (some of whom also voted to keep the parallel article Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan) of vote stacking just because you happen to disagree with their opinion is no good. Grandmaster 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the whole article is based on Kocharyan's phrase, then we can also built an article "Anti-Armenianism in Romania", because Traian Băsescu called the doctor who operated on him "the first competent Armenian I have met", referencing the Romanian finance minister Varujan Vosganian, who is of Armenian descent and whom Băsescu considered incompetent. This remark was considered racist by Vosganian.

But I'm not going to start a war with you. Just one request. If there is public or institutional anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, then just provide us with a source saying that. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that ethnic cleansing of the entire Azerbaijani population in Armenia and occupied territories in Nagorno-Karabakh, destruction of cultural monuments, mass killings such as in Khojaly and Garadaghly were not motivated by hate, I beg to differ. Grandmaster 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion doesn't matter here. We need sources that state that "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" exists in Armenia. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Grandmaster. To call the president's description of the situation as being inconducive for two groups to live by one another is not anti-Azerbaijani by any stretch of the imagination. Whatever the knee-jerk reaction of organizations in Europe, his statement was tame by any standard you measure it by. The actions of the other editors speak for themselves when their only defense consists nothing else but "they're good, reliable sources, why you mad, bro?".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion, and European leaders who condemned the statement and called it a hate rhetoric are notable for inclusion. Grandmaster 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per MarshallBagramyan. The article is clearly a propaganda essay. For instance, in the section "Destruction of mosques in Armenia" there is no source that the mosques (which were not even Azerbaijani, in fact, but Persian) were destroyed because of "anti-Azerbaijani sentiment".--Երևանցի ^talk 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why else would anyone knock down a mosque with a bulldozer at the height of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in 1990? Thomas de Waal describes it to be a result of the negative sentiment towards Azerbaijani people in Armenia. So does Robert Cullen from New Yorker. Destruction clearly was not a manifestation of love. Grandmaster 18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that singular event deserve its own article?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you want the whole list of cases of Armenophobia in Azerbaijan? Again, we need sources clearly stating that "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" exists in Armenia. Otherwise, there is no reason to keep this article. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a singular event. Kohl considers the elimination of Islamic monuments to be a result of systematic efforts. One cannot seriously argue that 269 mosques were all destroyed as result of Soviet policies, while in neighboring Azerbaijan and Georgia only a small fraction of religious monuments was destroyed in Soviet times. Grandmaster 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to argue. We need third-party sources. First, a source that proves that those eight Persian mosques were Azeri and a source that they were destructed because of "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" in Armenia. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search google books. Plenty of sources about anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia: [12] Grandmaster 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "Persian" mosques in Yerevan, a city with no Persian population, you can read in the book by Thomas de Waal:

That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name “Azeri” or “Azerbaijani” was not in common usage before the twentieth century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as “Tartars”, “Turks” or simply “Muslims”. Yet they were neither Persians nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of Safavid dynasty of the Iranian Empire – in other words, the ancestors of people, whom we would now call “Azerbaijanis”. So when the Armenians refer to the “Persian mosque” in Yerevan, the name obscures the fact that most of the worshippers there, when it was built in the 1760s, would have been, in effect, Azerbaijanis.

Thomas de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. ISBN 0814719457, p. 80. Grandmaster 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to see one that proves that it exists in Armenia. See below, that is the first pargarpah of Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan. As you can see there are three sources (one Russian, two European) that clearly state that armenohobia is part of Azerbaijani state policy and the society.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“

Anti-Armenianism (Armenophobia) exists in Azerbaijan on an institutional level^[1] and permeates daily social interactions in that country.^[2] According to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Armenians are "the most vulnerable group in Azerbaijan in the field of racism and racial discrimination."^[3]

”

^ (in Russian) Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs "«Первый и неразрешимый»". Vzglyad. 2 August 2011. Archived from the original on 12 January 2013. Retrieved 12 January 2013. Армянофобия – институциональная часть современной азербайджанской государственности, и, конечно, Карабах в центре этого всего. "Armenophobia is the institutional part of the modern Azerbaijani statehood and Karabakh is in the center of it."
^ "Report on Azerbaijan" (PDF). Strasbourg: European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. 15 April 2003. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 January 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2013. Due to the conflict, there is a widespread negative sentiment toward Armenians in Azerbaijani society today." "In general, hate-speech and derogatory public statements against Armenians take place routinely.
^ "Second report on Azerbaijan" (PDF). Strasbourg: European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. 24 May 2007. Retrieved 23 January 2013.

As I said, such sources are available at google books in abundance. Just one example:

In short, thе nаtiопаlist movement in Агmеniа started in the form of peaceful dеmопstгаtiопs in solidarity with Karabakh Armenians. But in the absence of а favorable solution, Агmеniаn nationalism was radicalized. Anti-Soviet sentiments emerged, and anti-Azerbaijani feelings were furthеr entrenched. Initially, violence сгерt in thе form of thе mudег of Azerbaijanis in Armenia and border skirmishes. Eventually, violence escalated to а full-scale but undeclared wаг between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in аnd around Karabakh (i.e., within Azerbaijan).

Lowell Barrington. After Independence: Making and Protecting the Nation in Postcolonial and Postcommunist States. University of Michigan Press, 2006. ISBN 0472025082, 9780472025084, p. 231

Grandmaster 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources. As to claims on its neutrality, reliability and original research, I recommend users to discuss on the talk page. Takabeg (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article is just a collection of unrelated sections compiled using original research. I attempted to begin improving but an edit war was initiated immediately by User talk:Grandmaster. The section about historical mosques for example does not link any of the mosques with Azeris since almost all of them were Persian, their subsequent absence is not linked to any action by Armenians given how they were all destroyed by Soviet authorities. In conclusion, whatever can be salvaged from this mess should be included in relevant articles if it's not already there otherwise it should be promptly deleted.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt at "improving" consisted of deletion of a large section without any consensus with other editors. See above the quote from de Waal, he explains how the mosques are declared "Persian" in Armenia to obscure that they were built by Azerbaijanis. And please read carefully what you try to delete, the article clearly says that one of the mosques was demolished with a bulldozer in 1990, at the height of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. And archaeologist Philip Kohl does not consider the near total absence of Muslim monuments in Armenia to be just a coincidence. Grandmaster 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the fact remains that it was a major improvement. de Waal is not an ethnographer or a historian but a journalist, so his opinion on Azeri ethnogenesis is hardly noteworthy. Perhaps the driver of the bulldozer that demolished said Persian mosque was a Ukrainian, under orders from a Buryat, doing so because the old structure was threatening nearby buildings? What does it have to do with anti-Azeri Armenian sentiment? Kohl's statement is conjecture, we cannot have an article based on conjecture.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reliable sources, you cannot remove them just like that. And here's another one:

In Yerevan оnе night, а friend took mе tо see а pile of rubble behind аn apartment building at 22 Ulitsa Кnunуantsаyа. It had bееn, hе whispered, а small, simple Azerbaijani mosque back in thе days when Azerbaijanis still lived in Armenia. Тhеn, during the cycle оf pogroms and izgnaniya, the Armenians оf the neighbourhood had descended оn the mosque and torn it apart with picks and crowbars, and а bulldozer had соmе to level the pile. Оnсе in а while, after listening to аn Агmеniаn passionately list the uncivilized аnd genocidal acts of the Azerbaijanis аgаinst his реорlе, I would mеntiоn the dеstruсtiоn of this mosque. Almost invаriаblу, the rеsponse was аn indignant denial that such а thing сould have occurred. Even Rafael Papayan, the chairman of the new Supreme Soviet's commission on human rights - a man who served several years as a political prisoner in the pre-glasnost days - insisted that such a tale could not be true. "Absolute disinformation," he told me. "The only mosque that was in the city is still preserved, and I can show you where it is." He was not lying; he simply did not know what had happened. It was not the sort of thing the Armenian press would report. It was not the sort of thing the people of Yerevan would talk about among themselves. To do so would threaten their self-image as civilized victims.

Robert Cullen, A Reporter at Large, “Roots,” The New Yorker, April 15, 1991, p. 55

You can deny the fact of destruction, but we have sources that describe it. And de Waal also mentions this fact in his book. Grandmaster 23:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is only your WP:SYNTHESIS, and this is not what sources say. In terms of modern, reliable, peer-reviewed sources, there is a clear academic consensus that these mosques were not Azeri nor were they intentionally destroyed by an Armenian state apparatus, dozens of churches were also destroyed during the Soviet period in Armenia. Our Wikipedia article should reflect the consensus of existing reliable sources, not try to give undue weight to speculation and conjecture. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus to consider those mosques "Persian". And I don't know what you consider to be an "intentional destruction". In my view knocking down a mosque with a bulldozer is nothing but an intentional destruction. You may consider that an accident, but sources say otherwise. Grandmaster 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are built by Persians and under Persian rule within a Persian domain, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for the contrary with reliable, peer reviewed academic sources when the matter at hand is so contentious. In addition, you have not provided context for the destruction, for all we know the building was crumbling and threatening the safety of nearby residents.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that "the building was crumbling and threatening the safety of nearby residents"? Any sources to attest to that? Cullen and de Waal say that the mosque was demolished because of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Grandmaster 17:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hearsay in printed form, that doesn't even meet strict journalistic standards let alone academic ones. "A friend of mine told me that one day..."...it's not serious. For example this source (which unlike the former two is academic), says the those mosques in question and various churches did not survive to this day due to Soviet urban changes:[13].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hearsay, both sources that I quoted are reliable and and have no bias. As for your source, Levon Abrahamian, he provides the Armenian perspective on the issue, but says nothing about why those mosques did not survive the Soviet urban planning. We know that they did not survive the Soviet urban planning, and at least one of them did not survive the NK conflict. We just don't know why more than 200 mosques vanished in Armenia, while in neighboring countries Soviet urban and rural planning did not result in such massive destruction of Muslim cultural heritage. And it is not just the mosques, the whole old Muslim town of Erivan was wiped out, including Khan's palace, citadel, etc. But I think this discussion here is pointless. If you insist that no anti-Azerbaijani sentiment exists in Armenia and mass exodus of Azerbaijani people from Armenia and disappearance of their cultural heritage was a result of some unknown anomaly, you are entitled to your opinion. But I cited sources, and those sources are third party and reliable. This is what the rules require. Grandmaster 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Yerevan was a backwater village when the Russians incorporated Eastern Armenia into their fold in the early nineteenth century and despite their efforts it remained a dreary backwater village a hundred years later. Tbilisi and Baku were cities in every sense of the word. Yerevan did not neatly match the Soviets' own modern vision of what a city looked like and so in typical Soviet fashion they tore down every structure – decrepit buildings, churches, mosques – that got in the way of Tamanyan's layout. Eupator's right - you can't just selectively pick and choose this and that event from the past hundred years and present it as a phenomenon of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Studies on the Armenian curriculum, textbooks, statements by officials – like the numerous ones carried out on Ataturk's Turkey – and the like are far more better sources that what has so far been presented.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the sources presented. There was a mosque that was destroyed in 1990, it is undeniable fact backed up by third party sources. If you believe that this info should not be there, ask for the community opinion and follow WP:DR. But removal of the whole section time after time without any consensus like you and Eupator did is not acceptable, and next time I will have to draw the attention of the admins to it. We can trim down the list, but the statistics are appropriate to the topic. Grandmaster 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not purport to support the underlying concept of the article. How do we know that mosque was demolished because of anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and not, as Eupator muted, because its foundation was unstable or any other reason? Just because there is a source at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it necessarily is relevant to the article. You keep citing De Waal but he is not a historian nor a scholar for that matter, and his solitary interview with a Yerevan resident more than ten years after the fact cannot be used as the one narrative to maintain the line about willful destruction. I removed the entire section on mosques because whoever added it just copied the entire section from the Lists of Mosques in Armenia page, thinking that what passes muster over there surely will pass here as well. You should draw the admins' attention to it. If this is not open-shut case of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS I don't know what is. Again, can you find any sources or case studies done by sociologists or actual scholars documenting a phenomenon known as "anti-Azerbaijanism" in Armenia?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One does not have to be a historian to report destruction of a religious structure. It is sufficient to be a journalist, and two reliable third party sources reported this. They make it clear that the destruction was motivated by enmity towards Azerbaijani people. You may agree or disagree with it, and in the latter case you are welcome to initiate a discussion about reliability of those two sources at WP:RSN, but it is not a reason to delete this page, or attempt to delete a section without consensus. Grandmaster 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them witnessed it, though, correct? Neither of them, I am assuming, went back to find an original document ordering the destruction of the mosque and the idea some citizens of Armenia spontaneously decided to find a pickax in the midst of the Karabakh conflict to knock down a building doesn't come off as too persuasive. Recourse to RSN is not an option as I'm not interested in hearing the community's opinion of De Waal as a generally reliable author. The author may be so but the sources he uses can be questionable. The same applies to Cullen, whose information is, to reiterate, hearsay. Again, can you address my previous question?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sociologist addressing anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan. And it is not required anyway. It is a fact that anti-Azerbaijani sentiment exists, and mass murders, deportations of Azerbaijanis were motivated by hate, not by brotherly love. This sentiment is mentioned in many reliable sources in google books, and there are sources in the article too. And if you are not interested in community opinion, then you will have to accept that those sources will remain in the article, as there's no consensus for their removal. WP:DR is the only way to resolve disputes, and edit warring will be reported in accordance with AA2 arbitration ruling. I think further discussion about this is pointless. If you want to challenge the sources about the destruction of the mosque in Yerevan, you can do so at talk of the article. And we can ask the community opinion to establish the notability of those sources, as your opinion against my opinion will not get us anywhere. Grandmaster 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Azerbaijanis in Armenia. There is no need for these sorts of POV fork coatracks. Negative sentiments towards a group in a country can be covered in the article covering the subject of the group in the country.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Armenians truly believe (which they do as De Waal states) that the mosques in Armenia are Persian, how would demolishing them be an anti-Azeri provocation? It could might as well be an anti-Persian, anti-Muslim, or even an anti-Shiite provocation of some kind. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever little of Muslim heritage survived is declared to be "Persian", even though ethnic Persians did not live in the region in any significant numbers. For instance the only surviving to present day Blue Mosque was built by the Qajar ruler of Erivan, who was not an ethnic Persian, he was an Azerbaijani Turk, but the Armenian authorities still call the mosque Persian. This is what de Waal is talking about. The Azerbaijani cultural heritage is being destroyed, and whatever cannot be is declared Persian. Grandmaster 08:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are reaffirming my point. Armenians are not demolishing these Mosques because they personify "Azerbaijan". Why? Because they don't believe they're Azeri in the first place. Unless that is if you can find me a WP:RS which shows that Armenians actually destroyed Mosques because they had preconceived notions that they were in fact "Azeri". Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above, Robert Cullen from the New Yorker. He refers to an Azerbaijani mosque which dated to thе days when Azerbaijanis still lived in Armenia. Armenian leaders know that those monuments are Azeri, but they do not want to publicly acknowledge it. It is easier to deny the historical presence of Azerbaijani people in the territory of Armenia by wiping out their cultural and historical legacy or when that is not possible by assigning it to other people. This is what the sources say. Grandmaster 08:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No...the source says quite the opposite. Cullen clearly says that "He was not lying; he simply did not know what had happened." The same may go for those who demolished a certain Mosque without having the correct preconceived notions as to which ethnicity it belonged to. Thus de Waal and now Cullen prove my point. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, read again. Papayan did not know what happened, but those who knocked it down obviously did. And they did it because it was an Azeri monument. And this is about the same mosque from de Waal: [14] Grandmaster 08:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and I'm not denying anything. I came here with questions and I got answers. However, I don't see an all out program of demolishing Mosques from a governmental and institutional level in Armenia then and now. Especially due to the reasons of the lack of ethnic preconceptions I have mentioned above. A lot of these acts vandalism and demolitions still seem vague since Mosques represent Islam and not a certain ethnicity. Once again, I must reiterated that it is always unfortunate to see any of these Mosques in Armenia or cemeteries in Nakhichevan for that matter get demolished. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be a program or a systematic plan. The result is what matters. When people act spontaneously motivated by enmity it produces the same result as some preconceived plot. The article deals with anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, which is not necessarily governmental actions. Actions of individuals or groups motivated by this sentiment also count. And I don't see why would an Azerbaijani mosque be demolished at the height of the conflict if not for anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. At least, the sources leave no doubt about the motives of destruction. It is the recent history of our region, the sad reality. Grandmaster 09:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - evidently notable. Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia and Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan are documented realities. Whether they should be merged, well is that an AfD question? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an AfD question. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where you are only permitted to suggest two possibilities in a given process. If you think there should be a merger, the best merge would probably be the one I suggested, then say so here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge, either per Devil's Advocate's target Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia to Azerbaijanis in Armenia and the other AfD Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan to Armenians in Azerbaijan PLUS any WP:IRS-sourced content that doesn't fit those articles into Grandmaster's merge target Armenia–Azerbaijan relations. Note however that we do have dozens of Anti-Slavic sentiment Anti-British sentiment type articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment, so Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment and Anti-Armenian sentiment have as much claim (or more) to current notability as any of those other articles. Maybe move what's left of the article after Merges to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment stub. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR rename An article like this will cause issues. If it was to be kept it should be renamed and made into one article with both information about both groups so it can be seen as a page that is not taking one side.Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think of the parallel article Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan, should that one remain? Grandmaster 08:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not serve our readers properly by having articles under titles that inherently push writers towards one point of view of a long-running nationalist dispute. There seems to be some good reliable and neutrally sourced content in this article, but it belongs in an article about the dispute itself rather than under this title. There needs to be some discussion beyond a simple keep/delete decision at WP:AFD about how best to organise our content in this area. I accept The Devil's Advocate's point that AfD can result in a decision other than "keep" or "delete", but, in this case, I don't see how any such decision can be reached without consideration of the other related articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I was the first to propose the merge of both articles. And indeed both these articles need to be reviewed together, not separately, as they are related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But right now you can see that supporters of one of the sides of the conflict want to delete the information about wrongdoings on their side, thus the votes to delete this article, and keep or no vote for the other. I think this AFD should be in the format keep/delete, and once we decide on that, we can start an RFC about what to do with the articles (if kept). Grandmaster 23:20, 14 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) 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable list which fails WP:OR; consensus for deletion exists in this September 2011 AfD. The subject matter does not meet general notability guideline. Giant Snowman 16:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the near-identical article for the same reason:

Giant Snowman 16:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see List of Costa Rica expatriate footballers, a different article with same title on same subject. Delete by the way, too broad a topic, many players play at times outside of their country, no evidence that doing so bears special mention. --Jayron32 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've bundled the near-identical article in as part of the AfD. Giant Snowman 16:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this article was previously kept following this AfD in November 2011. I !voted to keep at the time, but now believe that it is non-notable. Giant Snowman 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I understand the concern about OR, I think it's evident that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources and while the contents of the list itself need additional work, the topic is certainly notable and worthy of being kept (and improved). I started adding some evidence of coverage, as major newspapers have tracked this topic for decades and there are plenty of articles about the Costa Rican players in the Mexican professional league during the 1950s for example. Jogurney (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, then it needs an overhaul. I don't think we should break down country-by-country - as this means duplicate entries for players who have played in multiple countries. This is a matter for the article talk page, rather than AFD. Giant Snowman 16:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the article would not be significantly different than Category:Costa Rican footballers. While by no means all footballers play outside their home country, certainly enough notable ones do at at least some point in their career. I just picked 10 random articles from that category; nine of those players had played at least some point for a non-Costa Rican team. If 90% of the Costa Rican footballers that have Wikipedia articles have played outside Costa Rica, then the criteria noted in the title of the list is insufficiently narrow to be a meaningful list criteria. One might as well have created a list of "Male U.S. Presidents" or "Kings of France born in France". The list does not provide a meaningful way to discern among "List of Costa Rican Footballers" and "List of expatriate Costa Rican footballers". It's substantially the same list, at least as far as those notable enough for Wikipedia articles counts. --Jayron32 17:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Costa Rican expatriate footballers is even more appropriate. Giant Snowman 17:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the obvious solution is to limit the list to footballers who are currently playing outside of Costa Rica (otherwise, as you noted, the list would be quite large). I can easily make this change, but don't want to invest the time if editors are planning on deleting what appears to be a GNG-compliant list. Jogurney (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this solution, because there are lots of retired players who would suddenly not be covered. I don't see a need for this list (it'll either be too big, or far too narrow based on Jogurney's proposal), a category would be all that's necessary, and indeed more appropriate, even if this does pass GNG. In fact, if it does pass GNG, rather than being a list, it could be a proper article (or a good section in Costa Rican football, or whatever) - but that wouldn't be a reason to keep this list. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although extremely well sourced and one or two players I have heard of, I still feel this is just listcraft. There are plenty of categories and they should be doing the job, I don't see the point of this list, if anything you should make the category better.You could certainly take that written paragraph on the top of the list and place it as the description for the category. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this true of every list? What list cannot be replicated with a category? Yet we have featured lists of various clubs' players (hundreds of them). I'm totally confused why those have been kept at AfD if the FOOTY project feels this way. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what the list is doing, is about, top scores, thats okay, list of season transfers, I think that covered by media fairly well, but this list is just the category in list form, it doesn't add anything the category can't do, it doesn't seem thoughtout. Govvy (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This list shows the player's clubs and the country they played in (similar lists indicate years/seasons active as well). It does contain information not found in a category and cannot be replaced by any one category. Jogurney (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this topic has been discussed in reliable sources as a group, passing the notability guideline for stand-alone lists. That a category exists is no reason to delete a list (and vice versa) per WP:CLNT, just like poor quality or too many entries is not a reason to delete. I would object against have a list of current expatriate footballers, as that is going to be outdated every other transfer window. (I've seem too many lists where the "current" is from 2008 or 2009). Mentoz86 (talk) 19:28, 24 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:16, 25 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) 10:52, 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) 00:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent; I really don't think the category is needed either. It really isn't defining and the list doesn't seem to be of particular encyclopedic value. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Costa Rican press have found it defining enough to cover the topic for years (e.g., look at La Nacion's reference in the article). Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 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 KXOL-FM. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raq-C[edit]

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

Article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and lacks any third-party reliable sources. Sudo Ghost 07:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 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 00:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant claims of notability here. I'm not finding significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KXOL-FM, as was done earlier today by User:The1Originator. I don't know that the case is there for individual notability - yet! - but her name is certainly a reasonable search term. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we have a major policy violation, we should not simply redirect an article during the ongoing AFD.[15] We best wait, allow editors to see if the article content is improvable, and then redirect if such is the decision at the end of discussion. While a redirect might well be the outcome, with respects to User:The1Originator and for the sake of proper examination by others, I am rolling back the well-meant redirect for the duration of this discussion.[16] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded search parameters:

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Franch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was restored on the basis that Ms. Franch had been drafted by Western New York Flash. WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes players who have signed but not played for a club, and the league the club plays in is not confirmed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per WP:GNG. Original article was previously nominated by Mr. Sputnik in September 2012; reinstated January 2013 per request to administrator based on player becoming a round 1 draft pick in the 2013 NWSL College Draft to Western New York Flash. Previous version of article has been expanded and additional citations added. League play begins April 2013 so I guess we can always revisit this page then (if necessary) to negate nominator's WP:NSPORT and have the article re-instated a second time or we can proactively contribute to Wikipedia so that articles are as current as possible and information is readily available to the general public about female athletes, including Adrianna Franch per Wikipedia:Five pillars. Hmlarson (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed are routine, making them insufficient for General notability. The first three inline citations and two of the external links are player profiles, four and twelve are match reports, five through eleven are routine transfer news, and thirteen is a squad announcement all of which falls under routine sports journalism. The third external link is self published and therefore not reliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, after checking the current sources, I think the article fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage and it fails WP:NSOCCER since she has not played in any professional league games yet. However, I think it meets WP:BASIC which accepts multiple independent sources but also requires sources that provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, a criteria some of the sources like [17], [18] and [19] meet. Nimuaq (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the sources relate to her being drafted - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG all failed. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL due to lack of pro appearances. Giant Snowman 09:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, due the significant media coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. --SirEdimon (talk) 19:33, 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]

Franch is the first goalkeeper picked by any team in 2013 National Women's Soccer League college draft, and the first pick of a player by Western New York Flash. With Hope Solo, Nicole Barnhart in their thirties and and Jillian Loyden at 27; as a member of U-23 team she might still get her opportunity with the national team. It is a matter of weeks when she plays her first professional match. Harvardton (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? Mentoz86 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the news. As of January 5, 2013, Western New York Flash has the following roster: Carli Lloyd (USA) (MF), Abby Wambach (USA) (F), Bryanna McCarthy (CAN) (D), Jodi-Ann Robinson (CAN) (D), Veronica Perez (MEX) (F), Pamela Tajonar (MEX) (GK), Adriana Franch (GK), Amy Barczuk (MF), Vickie DiMartino (F), Jaclyn Logue (D). I believe this is a discussion page. At this time I have no other comment. Harvardton (talk) 05:16, 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) 00:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. The editors will keep relisting this article, till they get what they want and delete this. "In general, debates should not be relisted more than twice" WP:RELIST.--SirEdimon (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Takamichi[edit]

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

non-notable on top of multiple old issues Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any coverage by reliable sources on either Google or Google Books. Doesn't seem to be notable under WP:BIO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 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 00:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources in the article. A cursory Google search turns up nothing. --Noleander (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A Japanese Google search actually comes up with quite a lot of hits, but I am having a hard time determining how many of these are RS. He seems quite popular among the otaku crowd, but it's hard to tell how much goes beyond blogs and non-independent sources. There are a bunch of articles in Natari: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here; and another in ASCII. But I am not sure how much we can call these RS. Perhaps others can help judge or do some digging. Michitaro (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage or reliable sourcing to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just too little, if any, coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Xpress[edit]

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

This article suffers from multiple issues which are no promotion history, no title lineage, and it's not up to Wikipedia standards in formatting. One major problem by what I can tell is that the promotion is not notable and may or may not have lasted a year. Also, having worked with the likes of Al Snow, Rick Steiner, Butch Reed, Jake "The Snake" Roberts, Hardcore Holly, and Jerry Lynn while having Simon Diamond and Shark Boy on the roster still doesn't make the promotion notable. Independent promotions bring in names all the time to attract fans. There are references, but they are poor references or in the very least not enough. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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 00:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence the notability of this promotion under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 10 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. Michig (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WAYVE[edit]

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

Apparently fails the general notability guidelines for having no reliable source coverage. And WP:NGO for being local in scope and have no reliable source coverage. Lakokat 14:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as no ghits other than blog sites, and limited content. While it is a good cause, Wikipedia is not here to promote causes. No prejudice to re-creation if it later attracts significant national press coverage. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly an admirable cause, it's a group whose notability is exclusive to one individual municipal area and whose article features no properly reliable sources, thereby failing both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 9 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:[20]. 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 [21], short article [22], very short article, basically a listing [23]
News sources: (both paywalled) [24], [25], short article (mostly mentions of bands) [26]

Additional sources have been found that are not included here, because they consist of passing mentions (e.g. [27]). —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 Withdrawn, no longer necessary. Jac16888 ^Talk 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valmet 361 D Tractor[edit]

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

Such a bad translation that this is basically gibberish Jac16888 ^Talk 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you give me a little bit of time to attempt to clean up the appalling English in the article? Lukeno94 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a big improvement to the article - I intend to get hold of a Suomi-speaking contact I have and ask him for further help. The article will need to be moved to Valmet 361 D if kept. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified the person who created this article about the discussion. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An already nice cleanup of the article prose and structure by Lukeno94 seems to have answered the the nominator's criticism of gibberish. I find the article easy to read and well structured. Of course further improvements could be made, but the motivation for deletion has been addressed. Are we done here? --Mark viking (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the English is all that is wrong, than this article shouldn't be listed for deletion. Just put up the proper tag and see if anyone and yourself can do anything about it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It had been tagged appropriately, when I made my edits, I removed the tag. :) Lukeno94 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll be getting further input from this Suomi-speaking contact within the next few days. Could the AfD be withdrawn please Jac16888? Lukeno94 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The motivation for deletion, that the article was gibberish, was well addressed by Lukeno94. He cleaned up the prose and structure so that the article is now easily understandable. --Mark viking (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work I did (bad argument, but it addressed the AfD reason). I'm a bit disappointed that Jac16888 didn't return to withdraw the AfD, but that's life I guess. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:46, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Pagnon[edit]

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

delete as non-notable: meets no standards for notability under either WP:BK, WP:NMUSIC, or WP:BIO. The article is a translation from French Wikipedia which also provides no sources other than the single book published by Pagnon, and two references in private correspondence of Guy Debord. The description of the contents of Pagnon's book is not sourced and appears to be WP:OR. No secondary sources (let alone multiple secondary sources) commenting on Pagnon or his work are otherwise to be found on Google or JSTOR. Pagnon's book has never been published in English. The article is an orphan. Smerus (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I first placed a delete discussion on the page. This was removed by the article's creator (whom I had informed) without comment, after he added a further reference from a letter written by another French critic, a certain Jacques Guigou (on whom there is nothing in English Wikipedia). There remain however no published secondary sources cited, or, apparently, any evidence of the availablity of such sources, so the grounds for my nomination still stand, I believe.--Smerus (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Debord doesn't seem to have had really that good an opinion at all! Still, the very fact that it got his goat puts it over the top of the WP:Academic "above average" notability criterion. From the very stingy Googlebook preview, the book summary seems OK to me. Sparafucil (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That letter by Debord is about another Pagnon's book, which was rejected by Champ Libre. En Évoquant Wagner was published in 1981 and greatly appreciated by Debord (cf. Correspondance, volume 6, page 59). The letter by Debord that you've mentioned was written in 1984, and as I said, it's about a book that was written after En Évoquant Wagner.

Geronimo355 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just as a reminder:

Per (WP:BK), notablility means that

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

The book referred to in this article does not meet a single one of these criteria, so our opinion of other people's opinion on it is neither here nor there.

As regards WP:Academic, one person not liking a book in their private correspondence canot possibly be conceived of as raising that book to the 'above-average' notability. On such a basis, everything published would qualify for a WP article.

But in any case, this article is supposed to be (according to its title), not about the book, but about Francis Pagnon, of whom the sourced evidence only tells us that he committed suicide, and almost nothing else. Nothing that Sparafucile mentions indicates that the author and the book are anything but utterly insignificant.--Smerus (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I ought to have written "he" instead of "it" above: as long as we're agreed that WP:academic is the relevant guideline, how do we apply this looser standard without creating a Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average? Jstore gives me pause since it includes Revue de Musicologie and R. Belge dM; are there other fr: periodicals missing from their index? We ought also to consider whether Pagnon has significance outside of musicology to situationism, in I am not specialized. Sparafucil (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm just not seeing any of the Notability criteria met. This person wrote a book En evoquant Wagner: La musique comme mensonge et comme verite (French Edition) ... but it looks like a very minor book (see criteria list above: it does not meet any of those). The sources currently in the article are trivial: passing mention in the letters of other persons. Where are the major books that mention Pagnon? Where is the major work he wrote? Google Books shows just a handful of trivial mentions. --Noleander (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any basis for an article, via coverage or any other means. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiyuki Nakanishi[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:NMMA, WP:NOR, WP:V... LlamaAl (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has fought for Deep (mixed martial arts) but is not recognized as a top-tier promotion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and ultimately does not meet WP:NMMA. No significant coverage outside WP:ROUTINE for his events and does not meet WP:GNG as the alternate policy. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a champion in a second tier promotion gives notability. Sepulwiki (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have your own guideline and criteria, but I prefer WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no fights for a top tier MMA organization so he fails WP:NMMA. The article's only link is to his fight record and there are no other sources given. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - LlamaAl above is correct, the "Keep" vote is not consistent with the WP:NMMA criteria. --Noleander (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization. Being champion of a second tier organization doesn't show notability and having no significant coverage doesn't help his notability claim.Mdtemp (talk) 16:11, 11 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. Michig (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God's America (band)[edit]

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

Band with no significant coverage in media to verify or build upon. Only one of three sources are about band specifically. Other only mentions band in passing, and third is about fundamentalist Christianity. I'm not seeing any other sources presented since tagged in 2008, and nothing else to satisfy the music notability guidelines. Optigan13 (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also old discussion I had with the article's author (single purpose account) back then when I prodded it. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 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 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of bands that are not notable put out albums. Fails WP:GNG. Search returns nothing for sources.
Delete I agree that there is no evidence of signifant media coverage, therefore notability is not demonstrated. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:48, 13 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. Michig (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lingwood[edit]

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

This journalist lacks RS coverage that would qualify him for an article under our notability standards. Article has been tagged for notability (and needing refs) since 2009, and for being an orphan since 2010. It was created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 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 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 14 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. Michig (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd “Timeless” Thomas[edit]

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

Not notable and no real assertion of any notability. Refs are self made videos , one dead-link and a promotional piece in a local paper (press release ?). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 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 00:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This local newspaper article is the only coverage I can find that could be suitable, but that't not sufficient to meet WP:BIO by itself. SmartSE (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sources (present or easily findable) to meet WP:BIO. A vanity piece about a non-notable individual. Pol430 talk to me 21:00, 10 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. Michig (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep: 50th Impact[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT with no well-sourced prose. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and article relies upon one source. LlamaAl (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability--article is simply fight results (WP:ROUTINE).Mdtemp (talk) 20:08, 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 00:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article consists solely of fight results and the only source is a link to same. No prose and nothing to show it meets WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just an ordinary sporting event without enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense math effect[edit]

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

Article is about a single mathematical paper with no references other to that paper. Notability unclear. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete It is a single peer-reviewed paper, but it seems to have made a splash in the media. Sources I found:

The first three sources are independent articles from reliable publishers and are in depth. The Mother Jones article is a little short to be in depth. The blog at EPJ may be more reliable than a typical blog because there is probably some sort of editorial review, but I couldn't vouch for reliability. The multiple reliable sources suggest that this paper is notable. From a science POV, the results have not been reproduced, so I would be cautious about their validity. ~~But from a Wikipedia POV, the notability suggests that this article be kept.~~ Update: Mike Agricola's argument that this article is about the effect, not the paper, and that the effect is only single sourced is convincing. I've changed my vote to delete. Once other sources become available, re-creation of the article is reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At this point, what we have a is a blip of coverage of a scientific study. This represent routine coverage that one often finds from studies sych as the umpteenth study showing some food item prevents/causes cancer etc. What hasn't been established whether this congitive bias has made an impact and at this point, it is simply too soon to tell. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 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 00:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Although the topic has received some media attention, the media reports mostly just describe the conclusions of Kimmo Eriksson's paper. Essentially that makes the topic "single source" from the standpoint of WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG. As the paper was published very recently, it's too early to know what lasting impact it will have and whether it will spur additional research (so WP:TOOSOON may apply). An additional (independent) source discussing the topic may already exist: "Friedrich Hayek in his important book, The Counter Revolution of Science, argued that social scientists, who employed empirical mathematical techniques, suffered from an inferiority complex by attempting to mimic the physical sciences, when the social sciences are of a different nature." [28] The description given is a bit too vague to determine if the book directly touches upon the subject at hand, but it seems to be worth looking into if anyone can access a copy of the work. At any rate, my "delete" is without prejudice to the re-creation of the article if and when other sources, independent of Eriksson's paper, become available. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The multiple RS reporting on the paper might make the paper notable, but the underlying effect the paper is investigating only has that paper as a source, and so the article on the effect fails by being only single sourced. I understand that reasoning. I agree that the Hayek reference is perhaps too vague to support this article. Any number of lit crit sources I've read mention schools like Structuralism and Deconstructionism being due in part to a desire to employ techniques from the quantitative sciences, but all these are more appropriate to a more general Math envy in the social sciences article. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:18, 9 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.