< 12 January	14 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julie C James[edit]

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

not notable Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 04:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT at this time. Gong show 02:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Mcewan (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoes ate my baby (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Everything here is either related directly to Azaria Chamberlain, or is a reference to the case made in another work. Howicus (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that is a correct observation, but that is not what the page addresses. The phrases use and references to it are varied. Unfortunately for many other editors here on Wikipedia, they do not understand this hence the creation of the page. Did you notice my message on the Talk page? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect to the article on the film? It seems to me that the creation of an "in popular culture" section for Evil Angels (film) would cover this subject better. Howicus (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This isn't a proper dab page, but rather a collection of trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of the most absurd pages masquerading as a DAB page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you wonderfully make my point, that is what the confusion is based on. The misconception is that the quote comes from the movie, when it does not. Its kind of a "We don't need no stinking badges" in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre situation. The phrase has been misquoted and abused so often that's bled into Wikipedia.

For example, the fictitious band in the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer is called Dingoes Ate My Baby and there is actually a link to the Azaria Chamberlin article. Any time the phrase is used or misused, it creates more ambiguity. Via this list WP readers will see that it can refer to a variety of related topics or uses. Granted, this is a subtle distinction and I don't expect every editor to get it.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of "popular culture" sections in articles. They muddy up the subject and create an ongoing need to update an article based often on vague references rather than quality information. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily vague references - this happens, with or without a dedicated section, but I would support it being restricted to sourced references that are significant enough to be mentioned in other articles. If it becomes a problem, maybe add a hidden note for editors. Peter James (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with a section in the film article is that the line did not originate with the film - the film is a dramatisation of the case and that line is effectively a summary of Lindy Chamberlain's defence in that case. The line is synonymous with Chamberlain's defence against murder charges - that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by dingoes. It's a notable phrase from a notable case which was turned into a notable film about a number of notable people. I think the disambig could do with an expanded lede, but I can't see any real logic in deleting it. Suggest something like,

"Dingoes ate my baby" was a phrase used by Lindy Chamberlain to summarise her legal defence against allegations she had murdered her daughter Azaria Chamberlain in 1980, suggesting instead that dingoes had killed the child. The phrase was made famous by the 1988 film Evil Angels based on author John Bryson's book of the same name. The phrase has since been used in unrelated popular culture, often in a satirical context.

Whether we need an article on the phrase itself is a different story. I think (given the number of times it has since been used out of context) non-Australian readers might conceivably google the phrase to ascertain its origins. Whether it is our job to explain it to them is probably what needs to be considered. Stalwart111 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually is was this...

"Dingoes took my baby" was a phrase used by Lindy Chamberlain to summarise her legal defence against allegations she had murdered her daughter Azaria Chamberlain in 1980, suggesting instead that dingoes had killed the child. The phrase is often misquoted substituting "ate" for "took" when the events leading the trial were made famous by the 1988 film Evil Angels based on Chamberlain's book of the same name. The paraphrased quote has since been used in unrelated popular culture, often in a satirical context.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also paraphrased then. My point was about the need for a better lede explaining the background - the actual text is much of a muchness. Stalwart111 00:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well known phrase which has appeared throughout popular culture. Its good to have a place to explain it to people, and show how it spread. A dingo ate my baby should redirect here. Dream Focus 15:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think this is a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page differentiates between three or more unrelated pages with the same name. All of the links here originate in one place, so it's not ambiguous. Howicus (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the links don't originate in once place. They relate to the same origin, but the phrase has since been misquoted and misused enough times that this origin has become ambiguous. Would it be better it if were just an article, versus a DAB page?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the (disambiguation) part should be removed from the name. Dream Focus 18:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a dispute over where this title should lead to, and although the RFD resulted in it remaining redirected to the incident, search results suggest it's mainly used for the band, with the film and the incident as other likely topics. A separate article or disambiguation page seems unnecessary, and if the band was notable, it could be primary topic, but as it only has a section, not an article to itself and the incident article already has a Media and cultural impact section where the band can be mentioned maybe this should just be merged and redirected to the section of the incident article. Whatever the result of this AFD the "disambiguation" part of the name is unnecessary and should be removed. Peter James (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with redirect to Death of Azaria Chamberlain. This is not a disambig page, so that's already one blow against it. While the phrase has entered the pop culture, that's pretty much all you can say, and the fact that the above Death of Azaria Chamberlain article has a section on "Media and cultural impact" is that all that is "new" on this page can easily fit with a few more sentences into the Death page. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a dab page and unnecessary. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivia section, not a dab page. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem and whoever said "absurd". Drmies (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied under CSD:A10. Redirected to Mike Corey. Hasteur (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corey[edit]

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

Article consists of nothing but a recounting of the fight card. No sourced prose to demonstrate why the article should exisist. Entire article depends on 2 sources (one being the fighter's database entry). Article still relatively new therefore it would be reasonable to WP:USERFY the article and pass it through the WP:AfC process to get an independent view on it's reasonablness to be added to mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. 2+2=5 PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By your own reasoning 2+2+"Wait some time for someone to fill in details"=BlueMonkey. Even from this point the article still demonstrates a significantly below the threshold layer of article quality. You, as the article creator, should have known that the article wasn't appropriate for mainspace yet, yet you created the article anyway. Finally, if you're going to use my name in an edit summary, please have the respect to use it correctly... Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh? He is presumed notable under WP:NMMA. He has 3 notable fights against 3 notable opponents. here is another ref to assert his presumed notability under WP:NMMA here. Remember the content can be trash as long as the person is notable. I added some prose asserting his notability. WP is not a bureaucracy. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look again... No cited prose. Only a database listing. ERGO it should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep Passes WP:NMMA for his last 3 fights alone. Somebody created it and only put a couple sentences on it. When it was pointed out, we started working on it. It has enough information in it already to pass notability, and the article will be finished. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No... Notabilit is not the only reason. There were no sentences. I can read the history and see that it has been only 24 hours since this was created with no cited prose. Notability is not the only threshold. Please stop your deliberate and obstructionist activities to dilute the purpose of Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep until inline sourcing and prose is added. Luchuslu (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Until Drmies pointed it out I did not realize that there was already a article entitled Mike Corey that has existed for quite a while. I note that 2 MMA competitiors, born on the same day, in cities quite near to each other, that have substantially the same MMA record, that have fought the exact same opponents at the same events seems to stretch the reasonableness of this new article. I therefore propose that this article in question be blanked and redirected to Mike Corey. I've already nominated the nacent article under CSD:A10. Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Yan (Lu Xun's son)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lu Yan (Lu Xun's son)

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

He was the subject of half of one sentence in the Records of the Three Kingdoms, vol. 58. (長子延早夭，次子抗襲爵。 -- meaning, "The oldest son [of Lu Xun], Lu Yan, died early; his second son, Lu Kang, inherited his title.") I highly doubt that there are additional sources that would give more information than that. I would say delete, as all the information we have on him is already incorporated into Lu Xun's and Lu Kang's articles. Nlu (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though my view is different, there are many editors here who believe that any figure mentioned in any sense of significance, in ancient sources is assumed notable. (By the way, what's with the in-universe tag?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, whoever tagged it felt that it would not be understood easily by someone who didn't know much about the Three Kingdoms period. I should note, I think, the character yao (夭) suggests a childhood death, so I really think it is very unlikely that he did anything notable. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to the information given here, there is nothing to said be said about the subject other than what is covered in his father's article, so that the "summary" is equal to the content of the entire article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A possible alternative is to redirect, but merging would be meaningless. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment in an edit summary in 2011. LDS _{contact me} 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, per WP:SOLDIER it is mentioned in a reliable source he held a historical rank equivalent to a general officer; however, there does not appear to be significant coverage per WP:GNG. Therefore, the subject does not appear to pass notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, his father clearly did (and was one of the most prominent generals in the era), but not he (at least as far as we know). --Nlu (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rebecca Barnes. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas)[edit]

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

not notable, deleted yesterday and put again Egeymi (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author keeps deleting cleanup tags; WP:N - no mention of notability -- nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone should examine the other Dallas articles created by the author, Maggie Barnes (Dallas) , Katherine Wentworth , Jamie Ewing -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article Rebecca Barnes. We seem to have to pages devoted to the same character from differnet runs of Dallas. They would probably be best served by merging them into one. Mathewignash (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment according to the current articles, they are two separate characters, one apparently being the grandmother of the other. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator of this article Peteerh (talk · contribs) keeps deleting the AFD tag -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a proceedural keep. The nomination is invalid. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

الكلية الجامعية المتوسطة[edit]

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

Incorrect language for English Wikipedia, can't determine the right tag, sorry I'm new :) HelicopterLlama (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NOTCSD 16. & WP:PNT article should have been tagged with not english (I have just tagged it) and been given two weeks to be translated. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a standardised process to follow for non-English articles, and while this article will probably be deleted anyway, an AfD is not part of the process. -- Patchy1 00:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've translated the page using Google Translate. I'm doing a search for sources and I'm not finding much out there to show that it's notable, unfortunately. It's sort of frustrating because the name looks to be a term that's somewhat commonly used in general for the prep colleges. There's a huge language barrier, so we'll absolutely need someone who is fluent in Arabic to make any decisions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as we can establish it actually does have university college status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Intermediate University College - invalid deletion reason and premature nomination. On the face of it, a degree-awarding institution and time should be given for research to be carried out. TerriersFan (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Procedurally, the nominator's rationale is invalid - we don't delete articles merely because they are in a language other than English. And it's impossible to determine whether this meets WP:CORP (since it seems to be a private school). When the AFD closes this should be moved to the title suggested by TerriersFan, and then sourced. Once notability (or lack thereof) is established, it can be brought to AFD if merited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cole (journalist)[edit]

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

Tagged for deletion for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see how this guy is notable. – Pee Jay 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He seems to have done some interesting work, but in my view it fails WP:GNG at the moment. I feel there can be an article here and that someone needs to work on it. Make it better, with better citation coverage. I am not sure if there is a wiki project for journalism. But he could be brought up on that. Govvy (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to WP:JOURNALISM, so it should show soon in that project's article alerts.-- Trevj (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Prosperity Sphere (art gallery)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; seems non-notable Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks pretty WP:MILL, nothing encyclopedic to say about it. For what it's worth, none of the 3 supposed reference links works. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ITSLOCAL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 propeller. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaver (propeller)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. I couldn't establish notability, but with so many other issues with this article, hopefully someone will find something. Boleyn (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chapman Piloting and Seamanship, Popular Mechanics, Motorboating & Sailing, New Scientist. Pburka (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka's good reference finds. Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to propeller and redirect there. Per the sources above it appears really to be a design variant. There doesn't seem to be enough to say to warrant a separate article but if the new section in propeller expands it can be spun out in the usual way. Mcewan (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sources found. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to propeller as above ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to propeller. Not enough sourcing and no claim to establish notability for standalone article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gonzalez (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter with none of the 3 top tier fights required by WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Technically passes WP:NMMA: four bouts for Shooto and one bout for Sengoku. Poison Whiskey 14:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions at WT:MMANOT indicate that only the original Shooto is considered top tier, not Shooto Lithuania (or Finland or whatever). Jakejr (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. But those changes need to be made quickly, because the way it is now, we can't make this differentiation. For the ongoing discussion, i'll just withdraw my vote and remain neutral (also, this article hardly meets WP:GNG). Poison Whiskey 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMMA. (talk) 29:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMMA based on Shooto. JadeSnake (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA since consensus at MMA project was that only Shooto in Japan was notable (and even that was questioned). Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 9 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 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top-tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. Very few sources, very little context given besides the fight table. Luchuslu (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks signficant independent coverage and fails WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This one is a bit of a mess. There is a clear dispute, not as to the subject's existence, but whether she actually won a competition that would make her notable. Rather than re-listing it, I am closing it as NC and strongly suggest to the editors involved that the article is improved so that it meets our policies or guidelines, or the inevitable result will be that it is nominated again. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Araksi Cetinyan[edit]

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

The article claims this individual to be the crowned first Miss Turkey in 1925, yet the first Miss Turkey contest itself was actually held many years later in 1929 and was won by Feriha Tevfik (in fact, a common general knowledge quiz question here). The list of winners is publicly available on the official Miss Turkey website and many other places on the internet. The claims in the article about the individual itself seems to originate from a Hürriyet piece in 2010 (also used as a reference in the article) which had a mention of a "Araksi Cetinyan" and seems to have proliferated from that through Armenian sites on the internet since 2010. No other detail is present; whether this person even existed is doubtful. Maviyengeç (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source says she was the first beauty pageant winner. Not the first Miss Turkey which started in 1929. I will change the information on the article to better reflect the source. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hate to say it, but couldn't find anything beyond the single article. Unless other sources can be found, it has to be a delete.Mabalu (talk) 17:57, 2 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, Courcelles 03:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Merge into Miss Turkey, see below. The only piece of information we have is half a line from the newspaper (admittedly, a reliable source); nothing else is known. This is insufficient to have a dedicated encyclopedia article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to [1] (Hürriyet newspaper), Gazanfer İbar's article Unutulan Tescilli Güzeller (Forgotten Registered Beauties) was published in Atlas Tarih (its members of board of referees: Hıfzı Topuz, İlber Ortaylı, Ersin Alok, Ruhi Ayangil etc.. ). The website of Miss Globe International also mentions to Araksi Çetinyan (not C but Ç). According to Cumhuriyet (3 Sep. 1929) newspaper, Gazetemizin tertiplediği Türkiye Güzellik Kraliçesi seçimi dün yapıldı ve birinciliği Feriha Tevfik Hanım, ikinciliği Semine Hanım ve üçuncülüğü de Matmazel Araksi Çetiniyan Hanım kazandılar. A. Holly (Ada Holland) Shissler's artilce "Beauty Is Nothing to Be Ashamed Of: Beauty Contests As Tools of Women’s Liberation in Early Republican Turkey", Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24.1, 2004, pp. 107-122. But this author wrote her surname as Çetiniyan. Takabeg (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you've shown that this individual is most likely a real person. But that still doesn't make her notable and the claims in the article are still for the most part unverified.

If she won the official and recognized 'Miss Turkey' national pageant and had a notable film career (like Feriha Tevfik), and that information was backed up by widely available multiple, credible sources, then she deserves an article . But simply participating in or winning any odd thing doesn't quite cut it. There are thousands of beauty pagaeants held all over the world, and usually all of them claim to be the definite one. Anyone can hold one anywhere. I could hold one in my basement and crown my daughter 'the most beautiful girl in the world' with the prize being a bar of chocolate :) I would also like to add that the real objective of this article isnt about providing information, but about promoting an ethnic nationalist-chauvanist agenda, judging by the parties pushing this. --Maviyengeç (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I'm not sure calling other Wikipedians "national-chauvinists" is constructive or particularly helpful. It seems to me that the page is now sourced and supported, therefore I have no issue with it. I have very little clue about the backstory here, I'm just saying what it looks like to an outsider. Mabalu (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please read above mentioned comment by Takabeg. There are numerous sources. Some sources reaffirm her first place win in 1925. I already added the sources. Please consider or revise your original positions. Im sure all issues have been solved now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning an minor, unofficial beauty contest a century ago doesnt meet notability guidelines.-63.141.199.99 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new sourcing being found. However, the picture in this article is debatably not of the subject as dress, hairstyle, jewellery, make-up etc are all obviously from the 1950s and not the 1920s. It may show her in the 1950s (in which case she looked unbelievable for 50-something). This needs investigation. Mabalu (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought so! Was Googling around and came across this. The lady in the photo is Günseli Başar. See this. She's not deceased, so will request the photograph deleted as there is no fair use rationale for pictures of living people. Mabalu (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough and sources have been added recently --Երևանցի ^talk 20:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioning the winner of the first beauty pageant competition ever to be held in the newly founded Turkish Republic is notable and therefore differs from other beauty pageant winners. Also enough sources are provided. --Markus2685 (talk) 21:18, 17 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 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Sources: Participants please see the TP of the article about "honest mistakes" in the use of sources and do not hesitate to ask me if there is anything not clear enough. --E4024 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we need to focus on the article itself as per WP:FOC and not on other editor's perceived shortcomings. Mabalu (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabalu, commenting on the sources is commenting on the article. I am referring to misuse of sources here. Some sources are only about the "first", as they state it, beauty pageant in Turkey which they report was in 1929, to begin with. (Ms Çetinyan came third in that contest.) So those sources do not support the "essence" of our article. On the other hand, one source says, with regard to the contest of May 3 (1925 or 1926? Any RS on the exact date?) it was disclosed that Ms Çetinyan was "favoured by the jury and her title was retrieved". BTW I believe "perceived shortcomings" of the concerned user are to be considered, if they have a pattern of "misunderstanding" the sources and repeatedly declaring "honest mistakes". I believe "sources" are very important in determining the notability of a subject; aren't they? --E4024 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided extra information and sources (see Talk:Araksi Çetinyan#One more source falsification) Takabeg (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that there are issues between Wikipedians going on here which are affecting the discussion. References to "someone" making "honest mistakes" and accusations of "chauvinism" kind of imply that this isn't so much about the article as about point-scoring against other Wikipedians - which works both ways. Yes, comment on the sources but apparent side swipes at other editors while doing so doesn't really help the case. I am WP:assuming good faith on everyone's part, but also feel like the odd one out here in that I'm not particularly interested in Turkish/Armenian/wherever issues and to me, this article seems well sourced and dependent on a number of valid sources. I don't care why this article was created, I don't care why anyone thinks it was created, and I honestly don't want to be questioning the motivations of anyone involved - to me it seems that it now more than passes notability requirements, and that's enough for me. Mabalu (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Mabalu says this is not a Turkish-Armenian issue (at least for me) because I see no difference among Turkish citizens regarding their ethnicity. This is about misuse of sources. The latest source provided above says, in Turkish:

1.1.Türkiye’de Güzellik Yarışmalarının Tarihi ve Türkiye’nin Modernleşme Sürecindeki Anlamı Günümüz dünyasının ilk güzellik yarışması Belçika’da Concours de Beaute adı altında 350 aday ile yapılmış 18 yaşındaki Bertha Soucaret ilk güzellik kraliçesi olmuştur. İlk resmi ve uluslararası yarışma 14 Ağustos 1908 tarihinde İngiltere Folkstone şehrinde, ilk “Dünya Güzellik Kraliçesi” yarışması ise 19 Nisan 1951 tarihinde Londra Festivali kapsamında düzenlenmiştir. Türkiye'deki ilk güzellik yarışması 1926 yılında İpek Film önderliğinde Melek Sinemasında (Bugünkü Emek sineması) düzenlenmiş ve yarışmayı sinemanın yer göstericisinin kızı Matmazel Araksi Çetinyan kazanmıştır. Fakat yarışma geçersiz sayılmıştır. İlk ciddi ve resmi organizasyon 1929 yılında Mustafa Kemal Atatürk direktifiyle Cumhuriyet Gazetesi tarafından düzenlenmiştir. 25 Şubat 1929 tarihinde yapılan duyurularda 16 ila 25 yaş arası her namuslu Türk kızının iştirak edebileceği ve bar kızlarının yarışmaya alınmayacağı açıklanmıştır. 2-3 Eylül 1929 yılında yapılan yarışmayı 19 yaşındaki Feriha Tevfik (Dağ) kazanmıştır.

Source:http://iys.inonu.edu.tr/webpanel/dosyalar/988/file/kultur.pdf

Let me translate for you the important content (the essence, I bolded those parts). The contest made in 1926 won by Ms Çetinyan was annulled (or "invalidated", I am not a native speaker of English; the result was considering it null and void). The first official and serious pageant was organized by the "Cumhuriyet" newspaper on 2-3 September 1929 and was won by Feriha Tevfik. (I add: Ms Çetinyan has taken the third place in this pageant per sources.) This is it. --E4024 (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By this rationale, I'd say the article needs to be updated to reflect that the first pageant was nullified and is not recognised as an official Turkish pageant - but the fact is that the subject is receiving coverage (regardless of the motivations behind such coverage) and that she was the first winner of a quasi-official pageant - even if that pageant was later nullified. That's noteworthy. In this case, it's not like the event was trying to claim kinship with a pre-existing pageant or event, which also makes it worth noting. There's an argument for merging this into Miss Turkey article as a historical note on a predecessor (particularly as Araksi did compete in that too) which I wouldn't object to, though I still feel the article - especially once correctly updated to reflect what the sources say - is a valid keep. Mabalu (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not see how we can keep this article. Merging into Miss Turkey would be fine with me, but as an alone-standing article - we do not know when she was born, when she died (and whether she died at all - though most likely so), what profession did she have, just nothing. We only know she run in two notable beauty contests, and several newspapers mentioned that. How could this be an encyclopedic article?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of equally dubious stubs for people such as Christopher Shannon (who I recently stumbled across) that lack key dates too... which is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I know. I am leaning merge into Miss Turkey as a result of all this, too - still better than a delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge this stub somewhere, the destination should be the "article" on Miss Globe Organisation (which is another problematic case, IMO, as it was edited several times by a user who has the same name with the "owner" of the Organisation and still seems to be a stub after several years of existence in WP). Please see this source (whose English gives an impression like the text was translated from another language, say Turkish or Armenian :-) to find out more about Ms Çetinyan and the "Miss Globe International". Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no need to merge. Ill just add the information onto the page. I dont get why anyone isnt doing so already. Its the first beauty pageant held in an Islamic country and was won by an Armenian. She deserves to have an own article whether she won or not. I dont care about the aftermath or the sociopolitical factors that "nullified" it. It is a momentuous event and the controversy is notable in itself. These sociopolitical factors is what is provoking users to even say she didnt exist (first comment). Why? Because she was Armenian? Please lets stick to good faith. If the Turkish public today cant swallow the fact that an Armenian won the first beauty pageant, imagine how it was 90 years ago! Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the other participants? Who came second and third? Maybe you stop insulting at the Turks and make an article for this "first beauty contest in an Islamic country" (Is it your own research?) which was "not official and not serious" and "received by istihza (irony, sarcasm, ridicule) by the press and people" (i.e. public opinion; I add) per two reliable sources, and you merge Ms Çetinyan into that new article; although I have a feeling it would also be deleted under these circumstances. --E4024 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insult Turks. I have many Turkish friends. Please don't get personal. Also I insist you stop calling me a "nationalist", "racist", trying to get me banned with "SPI"'s, and constantly trying to poke fun at my mentioning of "honest mistake". Please respect the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Civility. All articles I make reflect (mostly Turkish) sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User Malabu and others: I added more examples of "misuse" of sources (even after I reported this practice) by the main editor of the stub. This is not a talk about that contributor but their contributions which make this stub not acceptable as a WP article. --E4024 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of the providers of sources, I think that this person is notable from the point of view of sources. Almost of all sources deal this person as the first miss Turkey. "Misuse of sources" is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. Takabeg (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take it as a lapsus linguae the reference to "first Miss Turkey" as the "Miss Turkey" began only in 1929 (and as I noted several times, Ms Çetinyan came third in that first ever "Miss Turkey" pageant) but I would like to recommend you that while you are busy looking for sources find some reliable sources about when she was born, if she is still alive or died (when and where), what did she do for a living (other than the work in the theatre), if she married anyone, who were the other contestants in that pageant she won (sic) but her title was retrieved, who came second, who third etc so you can keep (or write from scratch after the deletion) this article. --E4024 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers spacecraft[edit]

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

The spaceships in Transformers are not notable, so there is no reason to have a list of them. Insufficient reliable secondary sourcing. Claritas § 08:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator says that Transformers spaceships are "not notable", but there are a couple articles on Transformers spaceships, who linked to on this list, who were nominated for deletion and found to have sufficient notability! So his argument is completely false. Also, there are many reference from reliable sources. On a personal note, I find this nomination of this article to actually be highly troubling. We had seperate articles for many of the lesser ships on Wikipedia at one time. Then there was a round of deletion nominations. Many editors came to the agreement to merged all the articles into one list page. Deleting this list would be sabotaging that solution. Mathewignash (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathewignash; the list article allows for an encyclopedic collection of fictional-world information without creating large numbers of articles which are prone to requests for deletion. A specific example of this is Steelhaven which was merge/redirected to the article under discussion here after an AFD (here) and a deletion review (here).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of fictional elements for notable franchises exist to merge non-notable elements into; removing the list without the underlying articles already being merged into it makes no sense. I'll further note that this nominator has previously been found to have abusively used sockpuppetry on previous Transformers-related AfD's. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, where are the third party reliable sources which cover "Transfomers spacecraft" ? If these are really so notable, there should be some good sources easily accesible. Claritas § 12:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are in the article. Read it. Mathewignash (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bullshit. There is a short list of references- some are clearly not reliable, others seem to mention the subject in passing. I am not seeing any decent sources that would serve to help the article pass the GNG. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a stand-alone list of red-linked non-notable things. It's a list with entries linked to Wikipedia articles about them. Sourcing looks reasonable too. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. In-universe drivel supported by no real sources. I challenge those supporting this article's retention to point to some reliable sources primarily covering this topic. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have three spaceships that link to main articles they each have, plus ten transformers that turn into spaceships with links to their individual articles. Its a perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 02:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as feasible spinout list from important theme in huge topic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing the policy based arguments. I'm seeing lots of explanations that this is feasible and notable, but Wikipedia isn't based on bald editorial opinion. Opinions need to be cited to sources. I'm also seeing people say "well this article exists because there are lots of non-notable entries that were merged here". Well, what if the whole thing isn't notable?
The guideline on notability says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. There are no such sources.
And there's no guideline that discusses the exception to notability described by some of the "keep" comments. If anything, WP:Notability says the opposite: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
There are no sources that discuss this group of things, making deletion the only appropriate response. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, right after that, WP:N also says "There is no present consensus for [...] what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". This means that being noted as a group definitely shows notability for the list; but other types or lists are not excluded. Wikipedia:LISTPURP explicitly allows navigation lists as indexes to content found at other places in Wikipedia, like this one. See also WP:SALAT, that accepts lists of similar topics as long as they can be split if they grow too much. Only cross-categorization lists are explicitly disallowed by policy, and this is not one of them. Diego (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2012 (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 04:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. We shouldn't nitpick the cruft, we should embrace it. The serious encyclopedia should have serious inclusion standards, a low bar here isn't going to hurt anything or anyone. There is sourcing showing, imperfect though it may be. Is the material accurate? That's the main thing. If it is, then this sort of gunk should be tagged for better sources, not hauled to AfD. Live, let live, build the serious encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are the place to discuss whether an article meets or violates policies/guidelines. They are thus not appropriate to discuss the value of policies/guidelines. Such comment doesn't provide any policy-based reason to keep and thus should be discarded.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comment by Carrite seems to be squarely based on how the article meets WP:V and WP:NOTPAPER. Diego (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nomination is based on the fact that the article may not meet WP:N, meeting WP:V or WP:NOTPAPER is thus irrelevant to this AfD. Besides, it seems on the contrary that Carrite indicates the article does not unequivocally meet WP:N, on the contrary, whole chunks of texts are still unsourced. I'm merely remarking that Carrite does not say the nomination is wrong regarding our inclusion policies, only that our inclusion policies are wrong, and AfD is not an appropriate venue for that kind of discussion. The questionning of a community-wide consensus on our policies regarding popular culture has to happen in a wider and more visible discussion, not a in small, time-restricted, confidential AfD. Carrite's views may have merit in another context, just not for an AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Citing applicable policy is never irrelevant to AfDs. ~~Carrite~~ Claritas (the nominator)'s views may be based on the GNG, but WP:N allows for other ways to determine notability (in particular in the context of lists as I pointed out above), so any view that predicates a way to establish N is consistent with policy and must be taken into account. Diego (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have yet to see any better reason of having such a list, when all the real-world info can easily and more efficiently be included somewhere else, besides "it exists so let's write about it", which blatantly contradicts WP:IINFO and WP:NRVE.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My, oh my, I had no idea I was being so controversial... In reply for FdF's seemingly furious demand that my opinion be ignored since it is not grounded in policy, I will cite the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES (translation: use common sense to improve the encyclopedia) and will remind him that site policy (rules) trumps site guidelines (strong suggestions) in the hierarchy of internal legality. I am a realist about WP. We have different notability standards for different sets of knowledge. A very low bar for things like garage bands and athletes, a relatively high bar for politicians, for example, in which bios about unelected candidates with dozens of verifiable, independent, published sources are tossed because, ummmm, they tend to be uninformative, self-promotional, and are frequently vandalized or edit-warred over. Or something. Point is, leave the Transformers cruft alone if it is minimally sourced, as this is, and move along to productive endeavors that will improve the encyclopedia rather than disimprove pop culture coverage. My opinion, just like others have theirs... Carrite (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with most related Transformers article. I won't go into detail since these fun related AFD discussions are just popularity polls anyhow ;-) BO | Talk 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Questions about notability would be more to the point it it were desired to make an article about individual spacecraft. This is a combination article, in which the individual items need not be notable, any more than any other item of content within an article. Whether to make such a list separate from the main articles is purely a question of convenience. I think it's a very good idea to keep this separate from the main article,as the best way to prevent an accumulation of details there. This is not fancruft--fancruft is in considerably more detail than this--true fan-level detail would be a list of every appearance of every craft in the series. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment seems to ignore the fact that lists are also subject to notability guidelines. It doesn't provide any policy-based reason to keep, and as such should be discarded.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shooterwalker.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a navigational list per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:LISTN - the Transformer vehicles have about three decades of coverage in all forms of media, making them "notable as a group" as described in the notability police. Diego (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also per WP:CSC#3, a "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" is an explicit accepted selection criterion for lists. Diego (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've trimmed down the amount of in-universe-only per conversation below. The original version when nominated was this one.

- Notability requiring "verifiable evidence", could you elaborate on what significant coverage there is on Transformer spacecrafts ? All I see in the article are episode summaries which just happen to mention some of spacecraft names, but that isn't significant coverage that would justify a SAL, in my opinion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sherman Roger's The African American Entrepreneur: Then and Now and Dan Fleming's Powerplay: Toys As Popular Culture provide extended reviews of the Transformer franchises as toys transforming into vehicles. Pop magazines have always focused on the vehicles when reviewing the video games (see from early examples (when the vehicles where mere "common" modern cars and tanks) to modern appearances in video-games and comics and movies covering the whole range of transformations for the day are also easy to come by with (cracked and Wired for example comment how ridiculous it's to disguise as a spaceship when all robots can travel to space on their own). I agree the current articles on the franchise are heavy on in-universe only coverage, but the cure for that is not burying the information but trimming the plot descriptions and adding the real-world impact of the toys. Diego (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right in that these sources provide good real-world coverage on the Transformer franchise, but do you realize they could actually be put to better use somewhere else ? The main Transformers articles don't even have any "Development" or "Reception" sections. The purpose of this list is to gather in-universe info only, I understand you only have good intentions, but I don't see how in the world you could incorporate your sources in this article, except by linking to them each time a vehicle is mentionned, and thus leaving out any info that doesn't mention a vehicle. Spreading out every little bit of real-world content across the wiki is the best way to ensure no Transformer article will ever reach GA status. My opinion is that justifying plot articles instead of working on real-world sections in appropriate articles is a waste of time. Support this article if you wish, but if you agree on the importance of real-world info over plot, maybe you can think about the other ways to deal with the issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could copy the the real-world content to both articles, for example. Diego (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        And make the content WP:REDUNDANT ? If you acknowledge the need to limit in-universe only coverage, I don't really understand why you have to go to such length to save trivia such as this. If the real-world content can work in an altogether different article than this one, it is unlikely to prove notability for Transformers spacecrafts.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that's giving the content WP:DUE WEIGHT - it can be summarized in the main topic article and expanded in more specific articles. I said limit fictional coverage, not to eliminate it. Wikipedia doesn't have limits of space nor requires perfect articles from the first day. If you wipe out everything that's not in pristine state, and forcing editors to start from scratch each time, you'll never advance in the process to write good articles - that's the reason why deletion is a last resort. If the proposal was to merging, stubbing or even blanking the page I'd be more sympathetic, but I have no patience for deletion discussions based on CLEANUP reasons and I see no value in limiting access to history for content that pose no legal risk. Diego (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If you "see no value in limiting access to history for content that pose no legal risk" then you are in a seriously minority view on how to deal with problematic content on Wikipedia, and should not be taking part in deletion discussions. J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        O RLY? Where do they give the membership card? :-P Diego (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Equally, I would expect anyone who (for instance) believed that the NFCC would be best ignored or that articles should be based on at least one book (as opposed to web or periodical) source would have no business taking part in GAC if they were going to try and enforce their minority view. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Moving off-topic discussion to my talk page - I've replied there. Diego (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Diego, you still haven't proved that any coverage you could extract from the sources wouldn't be limited to name-dropping on a few entries of this list. Nor that the actual substance of the sources does indeed go in-depth on the actual topic (which is fictional vehicles, not real life toys, as indicated in the introduction) instead of better fitting somewhere else, thus giving WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the article currently under discussion. You still haven't proved that your recommandation is based on anything else than ideology (rather than policy).Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What, Wikipedia:PRESERVE isn't policy now? I've described at least four viable alternatives to deletion. Diego (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yet you recommanded the only one that violates the WP:NOTPLOT policy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        How does stubbing the article violate WP:NOTPLOT? Diego (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Because I don't believe there is enough coverage from independent source to ever make this list WP:NOTPLOT-compliant. That's the whole notability issue, in case you didn't follow.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Grasping at straws here? Obviously, it doesn't violate NOTPLOT. It list all the spacecraft in this notable series, and list details about them as they appear in toys, comics, and animated series. Dream Focus 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Nitpicking here ? Yeah, 90% plot, the rest is too trivial to bring any notability. Obviously it violates NOTPLOT, because plot has to be kept a concise summary while the focus should be real-life coverage. This article goes the other way around.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The question was how a stub version, with only the 10% that's not plot, would violate the NOTPLOT policy. I think it's a valid one, given that Wikipedia:STUBBING is a recommended action by the guideline. Diego (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "because plot has to be kept a concise summary while the focus should be real-life coverage. This article goes the other way around", with no proof it can be changed. That's the whole notability issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List articles don't have to prove their notability. Look through some of the various List of articles, and you'll find some have nothing but blue links of similar articles listed in them, and nothing more. Others show information which is helpful. There are multiple blue links in this article of related things, so the list article is valid. And because it should be complete, it list additional things that don't have their own article. See List of characters for some examples of this. Dream Focus 23:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All article-space need notability in the sense of having third-party reliable sources enough to write thier content, but lists can be kept by criteria other than the WP:GNG. See this recent talk for how LISTN is interpreted by the veterans in the community. I've trimmed down the excessive plot (it was definitely doable, not difficult at all) and the result is actually longer than a stub. Diego (talk) 23:58, 8 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 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge As Per Diego Moya His reasons for keeping seem to be more compelling than the reasons for deletion. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of the points I agreed with WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:CSC --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder if all those supporting the retention of this article are going to go and sort it out if it's kept? J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not anyone's obligation, we are here to determine notability, not to improve articles. Carrite (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done it anyway. J Milburn doesn't seem to be paying attention. Diego (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite: I think that speaks for itself, really. Reread your comment, and have a wonder about how I may be seeing your intentions right now. J Milburn (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intentions to keep a notable article? AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Dream Focus 08:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not seeing any appetite for deletion here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better_Badges[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted before, then the delete got overturned with overturn and relist. It reads like a selfimportant advertisement. Maybe it can be improved but it should be relisted anyway. MarioNovi (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral ~~Delete~~ - having had a look at the sources, I'm not particularly convinced the sources are enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing broken links, blogs, passing mentions and sources that don't even mention the subject. Not much by way of "significant coverage". I've read the arguments made in the previous AFDs but I don't really agree with the suggestion that one source (that I can't seem to find) would meet our existing WP:GNG criteria. ~~Though not a reason for deletion, the obvious WP:COI does not help and there's probably a username violation in there too.~~ Stalwart111 11:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the sources aren't very in depth, but there's a few pages about the company in Neil Taylor's Document And Eyewitness: an intimate history of Rough Trade (Hachette UK, 2010). Joly MacFie might be more notable than his companies (this and Punkcast). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Regardless who wrote it, there seem to be enough sources and the article, despite the COI, is not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit to a direct interest in the article, which I created. I did my best to maintain NPOV and use available secondary references. I believe maintaining an accurate article is especially important now as the recent 'Punk: An Aesthetic' by Jon Savage contains a major error, misidentifying MacFie of Better Badges as KifKif of Fuck Off Records. Note that this article survived an earlier AfD soon after it was created. In response to Colapeninsula above, I think that - in the case of Better Badges - the company is more notable than MacFie, and it has changed ownership. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note While any AfD stands or falls on its merits, if you look at the contribs of the nominator, it would appear to be a WP:SPA, what's more an inexpert one. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the issue is the suggestion you have a direct conflict of interest, not just an interest an the original author. You are not required to declare a conflict of interest but conflicted editing is always strongly discouraged, and it would be good (for other editors) to get that cleared up. Regardless, it would be good if you have a few more sources to contribute. I'm always open to being convinced. Stalwart111 07:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there would seem to be some underlying COI in the nomination, too, which doesn't help. Stalwart111 08:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but two wrongs don't make a right :) I have a direct interest in the subject of the article. I am a seasoned Wiki editor and this is only one of many articles I have contributed to. Which is why I have been careful to maintain NPOV and secondary references, where possible. I wish there were more to find, but, as people get around to writing histories of the period, they are appearing, however inaccurate. I will look into adding some from the Rough Trade book mentioned above. BTW which source could you not find? Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and respect your added comments. The linked sources in the article were fine (the links themselves) I just couldn't find any additional ones having done a general Google search. But I respect the views of those above for whom the sources were enough. Look forward to seeing anything else you can find. Stalwart111 08:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - understand what you meant now. The one I "couldn't find" was the one mentioned in the previous AFD. Doesn't matter now. Have also struck my COI comment and username comment. Stalwart111 09:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paging through Google Books there are a few. I've added a couple, although not this one that I loved but deemed too trivial, from a book on Tom Robinson - "By the following spring, one of the best sellers at Better Badges mimicked the TRB clenched-fist logo, but bore the legend 'Gay Whales Against The Nazis'. " - an indicator that BB was pretty apolitical back in the day. Unlike under recent management, where I found a ref to the firm making half-a-million anti-IRAQ war badges in the early 2000's.

Yeah, for lack of large in-depth articles, I would be including a few of those less in-depth passing mentions. Why not? They might not help with depth but they do contribute to breadth - something some are more willing to take into account than others but still worth considering. Stalwart111 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of depth, punk rock in general, and Better Badges in particular, are gaining recognition as pioneering P2P media. I've added an EL to a talk by MacFie at a New York Law School Copyright Conference that touches on this. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if mainstream media pick up on that then notability would be put beyond doubt, I'd say. But the primary source is a good start. I'm still not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG but there's probably enough there to convince me it was notable to some people. Niche notability maybe? Anyway, I'm changing my !vote to neutral - a closing admin can weigh the arguments. Stalwart111 08:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hello Wwwwhatsup. I don't think that I terribly need to respond but I will. Whether I have edited before without a username isn't relevent, but the instructions for deletion say that "You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." Why are you pointing this out, if you say "any AfD stands or falls on its merits" then why even mention it? If I have a motive for doing this it isn't stronger than your motive for creating the article. I'm sorry if you feel like you have that many enemies here but accusing me like that I don't think helps you. If I do have a COI as you do it does not matter. If someone with a COI nominates an article for deletion out of spite and it shouldn't be deleted then no one will vote delete. That's the wikipedia's protection. If someone with a COI creates an article about their business and is the only editor, then anyone can nominate the article, and it will be at AFD. That's wikipedia's protection. Everything is going like it should. There's no reason to accuse me of spite because if my AFD had no merit it would get all keeps. Or am I wrong here, you're right I'm not that seasoned. If I'm wrong please tell me. Now I wish I didn't do this because people are accusing each other alot. I'm sorry if I seem angrered but I feel that you're accusing me. If the article's improved the it shouldn't be deleted that is obvious. But it seems like no one else edited it alot and it doesn't have alot of good sources. So I hope people see why I did it. Doesn't a company need more than a few passing mentions? I'm sorry for my long reply. MarioNovi (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it was me that suggested the duality of COI here. It's strongly discouraged in all cases, for a range of reasons and this is a pretty good example of a few of those. Anyway... Stalwart111 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was here [2] that he first accused me but you probably didn't see that. It's ok anyway. Thank you for your help. MarioNovi (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see SPA suggested there, not COI, but you're right, it doesn't matter. Both would be discouraged. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a regular purchaser from Better Badges in the '70s I found the wikipage informative, interesting and wholly free from any bias caused by asserted COI issues - despite it's origins being in the now distant past those days are frequently discussed on various forums and on facebook etc by collectors or members of interest groups from that geographical area, or that area of historical interest - these are impossible to reference as they are frequently transitory but I can assert that Better Badges is discussed and written about by many more people than the original owner Joly MacFie. Furthermore The article does not, in my view, advertise Mr Macfie to any greater extent than any other person mentioned. Online discussion groups are lucky that he is accessible enough to contribute to questions of historical accuracy when needed, and does so without bias or self-interest. It is certainly an area of historical significance, the business crossing the perceived gap between hippies and punks at that time and even contributing to a cultural unity. I wish I could give more in the way of practical support but I firmly believe the page should stay - it would be enlivened by pictures of some/all of the products. I have just used it as a reference and would have been hard pressed to have found some of the information as by the very nature of the business many of the original sources (such as fanzines) are transitory by nature and have long since disappeared except in the hands of collectors. I do not feel lack of external referencing, or the question of the bulk authorship, is enough reason to delete in this case and would urge that the page NOT be deleted.

(User slim tim slide 15.44 Monday 7th jan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimtimslide (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bad-faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 13 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 20:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think most people would agree that buttons, or badges as they were known in the UK, are, along with the safety pin, and spiky hair, one of the essential stylistic elements associated with punk rock. If you dig deeper you will find the reason for this is the formation of Better Badges in 1976, with its "Image as Virus" philosophy. Better Badges went on to make the majority of the punk badges. This is pretty well described in the 1981 The Face article that is the primary source. Later there were other significant contributions in terms of open-access fanzine publishing, resulting notably in the launch of i-D magazine, again sourced, and cassette duplication, utilized by Fuck Off Records, a pioneer in DIY. which needs better sourcing and detail, especially given, as noted above, recently published misinformation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; not much in sources but probably just enough, and topic appears significant enough for an article. Peter James (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Baseball Bugs. Reasonably well sourced and established notability, if short and incomplete. Bad faith on the part of nominator. Rutebega (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I had initial suspicions, I do not believe there is bad faith on behalf of the nominator, perhaps a minor case of WP:COMPETENCE. I am happy that the deletion nomination has brought attention of other editors to the article. If you look at the talk page, I appealed for same 5 years ago. I have added a 'connected contributor' tag there, just to clarify my interest. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some details of recent coverage in the Rough Trade and Punk, An Aesthetic books to the talk page. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oop. Here's another source, hot off the press! Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Yager[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Last AFD was a no censensus because the votes werent there, but this article still fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Yager was closed 24 hours and some minutes ago. Uncle G (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he doesn't meet the three-fight minumum, he did appear on two MMA reality TV shows on major networks (TUF on Spike TV and Iron Ring on BET) and is scheduled to fight for Bellator next week. Taken all together, I feel he's notable enough. Luchuslu (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had exhibition fights on Spike's TUF as well as his pro UFC fight. Passes WP:GNG and WP:V. You might want to also see WP:NOTTEMPORARY in regards to his notability gained via TUF and his UFC loss to Rich Antonnito . Please also see WP:TUF for a compelling essay noting reasons why the TUF fights these guys had should count. also has notable refs here, here, and here PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could look at the many previous AFD discussions, including the original at WT:MMANOT, to see why TUF fights (except for the finale) are not counted. Jakejr (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't say that TUF fights don't count because if you read the guidelines the do count. They are top tier and they are professional fights. There are a few people that don't understand how sanctioning works that are trying to argue they aren't professional fights. Where the argument fails is that once you are a professional MMA fighter, the only MMA you can compete in is professional fights. If they weren't sanctioned, professional fights, then the fighters and Zuffa executives could be arrested and charged with holding illegal fights. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one notable fight so he fails WP:NMMA. Entity of the Void (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only 1 top tier fight of the 3 needed, he certainly fails WP:NMMA. While I think the closing admin made a mistake by closing the previous discussion as "no consensus" (it looked like a delete consensus to me), I think it's strange to reopen the discussion so soon afterwards. Jakejr (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Jamie not pass WP:V] in regards to WP:SOURCES, which happens to be a policy? I'd say he is Generally notable as per the WP:GNG. He also has gained significant coverage to be notable as per WP:NTEMP PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:NMMA --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jamie now has enough WP:SOURCES with my additions to pass the WP:GNG easily. It would be a travesty if this page were deleted PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PortlandOregon972217 comments, fights for 2 different top tier promotions, appearances on television program twice in TUF and Iron Ring, which aired on Spike and BET. Sepulwiki (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close as non-consensus just as the first AfD was closed was the day prior to this AfD being opened.

Other comments PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs) has canvassed users favorable to their position to comments on this AfD.[3][4][5] In regards to eight sources cited in the article one is from a forum and two sources are from a Yahoo/MMA blog (these are not reliable sources), one source is the Bleacher Report (which has been questionable in the past a reliable source), two sources are from the UFC (not a secondary source), leaving a single MMAJunkie article about a routine fight announcement for the TUF finale, and a citation about his date of birth. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete link to my page Please delete the link to my talk page. PortlandOregon WAS NOT CANVASSING my page. I was already a big part of this discussion and he was pointing something out to me. I feel like by doing this you are trying to discount my input and deflect the facts that I had already stated that show that this person has clear notability. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These can pass WP:V as per WP:NEWSBLOG. Please review Jamie's latest WP:SOURCES. Oh, and MMAjunkie is apart of USATODAY PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep PASSES WP:NMMA. This one isn't even close. He has 5 Professional fights for a Top Tier organization and is only required to have 3. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a clear fail since he has only 1 of the 3 required top tier fights. Jakejr (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You exaggerate. They aren't required. They only help him along passing an essay as to what constitutes a top tier fight. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and re-count. 3 of them are written up in the article and 2 more on the table. 3 + 2 = 5. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment struck since editor is topic banned
Comment I have no interest in keep or delete, however from reading the article it should be able to be kept, however at the moment the sourcing as it stands is not from quality reliable sources (it is mainly from blogs and MMA websites). I urge those advocating keep to ignore the finer points of WP:NMMA and look past it and go for passing WP:GNG; it does not matter if he has fought in 2.89472 fights, if you can demonstrate the subject passes GNG you make all of the rationales for delete based on WP:NMMA void. ✍ Mtking ✉ 10:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the voice of reason appears. Thank goodness. And not a moment too soon. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per GNG, BIO, etc. --Nounique names 14:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- For what it's worth, the afd nominator is a sockpuppet. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the sockpuppet of the person who originally nominated it. Are we allowed to close this out? Willdawg111 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and doesn't meet any other notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep He clear fails WP:NMMA. However, there is barely enough coverage to pass GNG, even with several dead links in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 18:01, 9 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 20:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment he just fought for Bellator today. I think this one is a wrap. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CaseMap[edit]

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

Seems more like an advert with only primary sources. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was easily able to find a good deal of secondary sources in books, including a book with this subject as its title itself of the book, and other books as well. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for looking into it. The article doesn't currently have reliable sources. If you have found some, could you please add them to the article? Thanks. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books about CaseMap: [6], [7], Books covering CaseMap: [8], [9], [10], [11], and a Journal article: [12]. And that's just from the first few pages of a Google Books search. --Michig (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy[edit]

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

I'm filing this AfD administratively for an IP, whose rationale was given to me as: "Subject not notable according to Wikipedia criteria; lacks multiple secondary and tertiary sources, inclusion in Marquis' "Who's Who..." books unreliable, subject is not widely cited by other authors in her genre, Evernight Publishing has no entry in Wikipedia, recent digital book by author (Home Fires of Christmas) only ranks #483,928 on Amazon Kindle Store, subject does not contribute to major news agency or publication, Subject was affiliated with The Joplin Globe (only 30,000 Sunday circulation according to Wikipedia) and is currently affiliated with the Neosho Daily News, which she cites as a reference."

(I'm to be considered neutral for now, my action here is procedural.) j⚛e decker ^talk 20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I am Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy. I have twenty-seven published works of fiction with four publishers (Champagne Books, Rebel Ink Press, Evernight Publishing and Astraea Press). I am a member of Romance Writers of America, Missouri Writers Guild, and the Ozark Writers League. In addition to my own titles, through 2012, with seven more upcoming in 2013, I feel there is every valid reason to NOT delete my Wikipedia entry. A google search of my name reveals thousands of pages in multiple languages. I also own and operate four ongoing blogs and in 2013 have been named as part of the top authors at Rebel Ink Press, the Rebel Elite team. The Joplin Globe - if you checked their stats, not Wikipedias - has extensive circulation in four states.

I personally feel the request to remove this entry is an act of jealousy and personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Ann Sontheimer Murphy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the issue is whether or not you've received coverage in sources that Wikipedia feels are reliable and shows notability. I haven't done a search yet, so I can't really state if you meet it one way or another. All I can say is that publishing a lot of books in multiple languages doesn't guarantee notability. It makes it more likely, but it doesn't guarantee it. I know, I know. It seems backwards and at times I get incredibly frustrated because I've had to watch pages on big name authors get deleted because they lacked RS to show notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These are people who routinely get on the New York Times bestselling mass market lists, but don't get the coverage needed for their own article. I can't guarantee that the IP that nominated the page did so out of a malicious intent, but it's best to assume good faith. As far as publishing with notable houses go, that doesn't mean anything. Notability isn't inherited by publishing through big name houses. It just makes it more likely that you'd get that coverage. I'll see what I can do, but I'll recommend that right now saying that this is a personal attack against you isn't always a good way to argue your case. It puts a lot of people on the defensive. (WP:RS, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:PERSONAL) If I feel that you pass notability guidelines I'll fight for this page to the very end, but if you don't then there's really not much that can be done about it. I'm optimistic that I'll find stuff, but I want to stress that there is a chance that you won't pass notability guidelines. It was hard enough for people to argue for notability for authors such as Lora Leigh, who is not only a NYT bestselling author but also one that has published through Berkley and has put out a ton of work.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Sontheimer Murphy, just because I do not believe that you deserve your own entry on Wikipedia doesn't mean I have some sort of vendetta against you. In fact, I had never even heard of you until recently when I was researching Hermann Jaeger and saw your name below his in the Neosho, Missouri entry. Of the four publishers you listed, all four are small, independent publishers and Epublishers. According to http://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=521, "All individuals who have attained the age of 18 and who agree to accept the purposes of RWA and to faithfully observe and be bound by the Bylaws of RWA [and pay $10-$95] shall be eligible to apply for membership." Inclusion in the Missouri Writer's Guild is more noteworthy, but if Wikipedia went by their criteria (http://www.missouriwritersguild.org/mwg_membership.shtml), it would be overrun with authors. The Ozark Writer's League only asks for $20.00 and a 35-word bio. Finally, on the topic of blogs, Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." I really can't say fairer than that. 69.151.66.141 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)69.151.66.141[reply]

Delete. I'm a bit disappointed that I wasn't able to save this entry, but here are my reasons why:

First off, there are a lack of reviews from places that Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. I went through about 30 pages of a Google search and all of the reviews I found were through review blogs. Blogs are almost always considered unusable as sources that show notability. The only exception is if you have someone writing a blog that's considered to be an absolute authority. Most bloggers aren't. An example of a reviewer that would be considered an absolute authority would be someone along the lines of the editor in chief of say, the New York Times, or a college professor that's routinely quoted as being the top person in their field of study in several reputable sources. This usually means that the blogger is someone notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. Not always, but usually in my experiences.
There is no in-depth coverage of Sontheimer Murphy in news sources. The only source we have in the article or in general is a news article by the paper that she writes for. For many, this would make it a WP:PRIMARY source even if it was published before she began writing it for the paper. Even if we don't count it as such, one source isn't enough in this instance to show notability. It's very rare that one or two sources shows that someone passes notability guidelines. It can happen, but it's incredibly rare. The other coverage is predominantly in blogs and in sources that can't be used as reliable sources to show notability. Wikipedia is very specific in what it can use and what it can't.
As far as writing for various sites go, this in and of itself doesn't give notability. You have to show that the author's blog and news posts have been extensively commented upon by reliable sources. As above, this hasn't been commented upon by any reliable sources. Any commentary by the places that publish her work is considered a primary source.
Now when it comes to being a member of various organizations or publishing with a specific house, this doesn't guarantee notability. Notability isn't inherited by publishing with or being a member of various organizations. It might make it more likely, but it doesn't in itself guarantee notability. Now when it comes to being part of the governing body of an organization, this doesn't guarantee notability either. Like the one source rule, it's rare that being part of the governing body of these types of organizations will give you notability. Being the president of a local writing group isn't the type of thing that gives that level of notability. This isn't a slight against being part of these groups, just that notability guidelines are very strict.
Finally, I was unable to show where Sontheimer Murphy is seen as a notable writer within her genre or has started a new line of writing. She's published a lot, but this in and of itself isn't guaranteed to give notability. It used to be enough, but not really enough by today's guidelines.

In the end, there just isn't enough at this time to show that she passes notability guidelines. Please don't take this personally. Like I said, it's really hard to show notability for even the big name authors that have published far more over the years than you have. Everything really boils down to coverage in reliable sources and you just haven't received this yet. I understand that it's really hard for indie authors to get this coverage, but it's essentially what we need for someone to pass notability guidelines per WP:AUTHOR.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some local coverage, but that is insufficient to establish inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic R1a Y-DNA Project[edit]

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

This seems to be an attempt to conduct an original research project through a WP article. That is so not what WP is. RebekahThorn (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no evidence of significance or impact beyond just another DNA project on the FTDNA website. Jheald (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the topic of Norwegian or Scandinavian R1a heteorgeneity may become a notable topic in time, I could find no secondary references for this project and the primary sources were discussion boards that are considered unreliable. Until this project publishes notable peer-reviewed results, this article is an example of WP:TOOSOON; it should be deleted, with an option to re-create once reliable secondary sources become available. Mark viking (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable third-party sources Jebus989 ^✰ 15:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Special:DeletedContributions/Abc4104 tells me that this is a person writing joke articles named after xyr friends. Let's not waste everyone's time and effort on this. Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eaad[edit]

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this with the rationale "Neologism which is a non-notable WP:DICDEF." The Prod has been removed by an IP with the comment "(n)" so I am bringing it to AfD. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MUD trees[edit]

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

Article attempts to build family trees of MUDs. There is no indication that reliable sources have covered this topic and the content appears to be primarily original research. The closest thing to a reliable source in the article is Keegan's paper which may have been published in the Journal of MUD Research, an extremely obscure, short-lived, on-line only journal. Note that there was a previous VfD discussion in 2004 with an inconclusive result. Pburka (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep I like the nice family diagrams and most of the boxes are in fact Wiki links. One could make a case that this is a sort of list-class article. However, at least some of the information implicit in the trees is already contained in the Family, Codebase and MudLib fields of the list in the Chronology of MUDs article. As the trees add useful information that would be hard to discern from the list, it would be useful and on topic to merge the trees into the Chronology of MUDs article. Update: Keeping the article would be reasonable, too. Mark viking (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to check if the trees were accurate, and they do appear to be. I would liken the article to an Outline article, useful for navigation purposes. ROM (MUD) has a reliable source verifying its history. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the tree contains links to other articles which include numerous reliable sources. Those sources could be copied into the tree article as well, although it seems a bit redundant. KaVir (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate informational + navigational list article per WP:LISTPURP, and Keegan's work (which I believe this article to be largely based on) is entirely valid, as demonstrated by its citations in dozens of other works. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced, well referenced, and continues extremely interesting, useful, and valuable information. This is not ORIGINAL RESEARCH (OR) according to the Wikipedia definition of WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambios (talk • contribs) 09:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. I agree with Mark viking, this article is already contained in Chronology of MUDs under the Codebase column. Likewise, a page that lists MUDs in colourful balloons as in Keegan's paper, figure 1 wouldn't be any different in content. The only difference in content is that Chronology of MUDs only contains notable MUDs and MUD trees does not. 87.67.187.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely appreciate the effort to collate this information from the sources listed and present it in such a concise format. The geneology of codebases is a valuable encyclopeadic reference and has merit. -- Gth-au (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and provides useful information not found elsewhere. While some of the information may be available in the Chronology of MUDs article, most of it isn't. Further, the chronology lists specific servers, while this page lists codebases - the two are as different as a list of discovered fossils versus the graphs of species by category. The original research warning tag should also be removed. Opening a book to look up the print date isn't original research any more than looking at the copyright and history notices in a codebase. We shouldn't need to reference a research paper to make obvious data available for use. Flying hazard (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't "useful information not found elsewhere" a synonym for WP:Original research? This article seems to meet the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What novel conclusions is it reaching? —chaos5023 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do we have a reliable source which says that MAGMA was derived from AberMUD? If not, a family tree which shows such a derivation is a novel conclusion. Pburka (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - FYI, the historical codebase archives available at http://www.mudbytes.net/file-2692 trivially show the derivation history. As I said before, I don't feel that the WP:OR warning tag is even remotely warranted. Flying hazard (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "useful information not found elsewhere" on Wikipedia. Of course the information can be found outside of wikipedia, in the same way that publisher and date can be found in every copy of a physical book. Flying hazard (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 German football transfers summer 2011. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bayer 04 Leverkusen football transfers summer 2011[edit]

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

This is a pure content fork from the master List of German football transfers summer 2011 and from Bayer Leverkusen's 2011–12 season article. A discussion to split the master list (found here) failed to reach a consensus, with a majority opposing a split. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Transfers in a window for a single club are not notable and should be kept only at the national page, where they were originally merged from without consensus. C 679 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. (Please note that these articles were added after the delete !vote above). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per original rationale at 18:42. C 679 18:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nomination. Remember to revert List of German football transfers summer 2011 when deleting. Op47 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - Since redirects are cheap, let's simply redirect all of the articles back to the main article, if they are not to be kept as articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects may be cheap, but in this case they don't add any value either. Given the complexity of the titles, they are not really plausible as search terms, and no article presently links to any of them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all WP:NOT#INFO, a list of routine sports transactions per team isn't encyclopedic and its an unlikely search term. Secret ^account 01:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - This info should be in club season articles and in a summary of all transfers that happened in that transfer window. There is no reason for it to exist in standalone articles. – Pee Jay 16:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I go with what PeeJay said above, it should only be on either the club season page or a full transfer window article. As for some of you people saying "non-notable" or "no evidence of notability" I don't understand that, transfers of players always get plenty of coverage, this deletion is all about how we use information to represent the player transfers. So I sugest you use a better rationel. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of German football transfers summer 2011 - to me this is a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. These are non-notable content forks, and should be merged back to the list where they came from, and the redirects should be left in place. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect all to the "Transfers" section of the relevant club season article (for example, 2011–12 Bayer 04 Leverkusen season#Transfers). While player transfers are a valid subject for inclusion on Wikipedia, I don't feel they warrant a separate article (even if they were padded out with some prose - at the moment, these all consist of a single table). ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there is interest in transwiki-ing, let me know so that I can provide the content. Tone 20:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Bury St. Edmunds or Newmarket, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. This is particularly true given that the article proclaims that "All routes are up to date as of 4 April 2011" -- almost two years ago. This article includes only one source citation, leaving all but one sentence of the article entirely unsourced. Furthermore, the article includes asterisked footnote calls (* and *****) that don't correspond to any footnote text, and a color scheme for the route numbers that was noted on the talk page in March 2011 as being unexplained, and it still has not been explained to this day. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. This belongs on Wikivoyage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, because a bunch of them are listed at AFD with clear consensus to delete, I think a mass nomination of all these topics are valid here. Secret ^account 00:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend against a mass nomination. Looking at past nominations of this sort, some lists like this have been kept in the past. I would prefer for lists like this to be nominated separately to ensure that each will be judged on its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage - Previously I would have said delete, but now the transwiki option exists we should use it. I've started a discussion at the appropriate wikiproject regarding a mass move of all of these bus route lists to wikivoyage where the information is in scope and isn't required to be encyclopaedic or notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If appropriate then trans-wiki for sure, but I haven't looked at that place yet so don't know if it's appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if appropriate. Not notable here.--Charles (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parshvanath College of Engineering[edit]

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

As per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%202608612p.txt) the college has been ordered to shut down permanently. To prevent misleading of Indian students I propose closing down of this article. Greencottonmouth123 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Parshvanath College of Engineering[reply]

Keep This article shouldn't be deleted just because the college is no longer open. Instead, the article should be changed and re-written in the past tense. Howicus (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. We do not delete articles on institutions just because they have closed and our remit is not to provide careers guidance to Indian students. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Necrothesp. Perhaps someone who understands legalese better than I do, could summarise the Supreme Court of India ruling in the article. Has the College actually closed, or are further legal cases waiting? This needs to be explained also in the article. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, degree awarding institution. No valid deletion reason given by the nominator. The way forward is a careful rewrite to fully explain the present status. TerriersFan (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peculiar rationale of nominator! What kind of "misleading" you are worrying about? We can easily change all "is" to "was"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable fringe theory. I can't see any peer-reviewed journal article discussing this theory. Salih (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, the copy/paste move from User:Harryflatters/sandbox will need to be fixed. Ryan Vesey 18:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking straight when I did the copy/paste move. Can an admin help me move it from User:Harryflatters/sandbox to Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory please? — Rosscoolguy^CVU | My Talk 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already done. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was prior discussion of this some years ago, and Conrad Ranzan's own arguments, that this was presented at a conference in 2002, can still be seen at User:Ranzan. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it be reasonable to suggest that the Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory (The cellular universe) is, in respect of Wikipedia:Fringe theories, an "Alternative theoretical formulation" which "tweaks things on the frontiers of science"? --Senra (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be reasonable; but that is only to say that it is not "pseudoscience". It still has to pass the notability and no original research tests. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC). JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge --> Big Bang#Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory or Standard_Model#Challenges @Mark Viking: agrees this theory is at the fringe (see my comment above) and also says this article discusses one alternative to the Big Bang hypothesis, so merge it --Senra (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- falls way below the notability level at which a theory would merits its own article. a13ean (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one peer reviewed paper, which serves as a primary source, but could find no reliable secondary sources discussing the theory. As such, it falls below threshold for notability. I think this qualifies as a fringe theory of cosmology (see WP:FRINGE), in that (1) it is an alternative to the big bang hypothesis and associated lambda CDM model that is the current mainstream theory these days and (2) it has few adherents. Mark viking (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at this point this is a non-notable fringe theory.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ranzan's argument, linked by Uncle G, is that the theory was presented at a conference in 2002, and so the lapse of time means that it is no longer "original research"; but passing time alone is not enough, what is needed is evidence of independent discussion and comment on the theory. The relevant sentence from WP:NOR is: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article fails the notability guidelines. The only non-primary coverage I could find myself was the non reliable source Marmet (2013) which I added to the article. The article is not original unpublished research in the Wikipedia sense because, whilst all known sources are primary sources (e.g. DSSU Relativity —The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space. Physics Essays Vol 23, No.3, p 520 (2010), the original research policy does not prohibit such sources. The policy actually states: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Incidentally, I wrote to Ranzan (talk · contribs) off-wiki via cellularuniverse.org asking "Has the [DSSU] theory received any coverage (positive or negative) in any peer reviewed journal, book or news article by any authors other than Conrad Ranzan?". The reply did not contain any links to any such coverage other than Ranzan's own papers or web site. If I get a reply to my further request to Ranzan I may change my view --Senra (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE. Non notable. PianoDan (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Business Continuity Management[edit]

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

Another editor previously placed a WP:PROD on this article on grounds of lack of notability. I endorsed the Prod with the rationale "No evidence of meeting WP:ORGDEPTH criteria; the article is now associated with a set of pages on the organisation's internal grades, without indication that these have wider recognition or notability." The Prod was removed by a new editor, who has also stated their case on Talk:Institute of Business Continuity Management. With respect to that case, Wikipedia does not feature articles on anticipation of future notability nor on the wishes of an organisation's membership to have an entry, nor on the honorability of the organisation: achieved notability is the key and is not evident in this case, hence I am bringing it to AfD on the same rationale as my earlier Prod endorsement. AllyD (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, I agree with the nominator that notability has not been demonstrated, and I can't find anything more about it other than their own website and mentions in Linkedin and other wikis. PK T(alk) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Also delete its associated stubs such as AIBCM. PamD 13:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have looked through the article and the history/references, sorry the organisation isn't yet notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. That's not to say it won't be in future, as its work becomes more talked-about. Really need to see a major inclusion in a mainstream news publication or business magazine.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Any potential future accomplishments are purely speculative. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automa[edit]

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

Self-referenced, and otherwise non-notable product Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only references are self-published and there are no non-primary sources that I could find. Vacation9 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No non-primary sources readily available as far as I can tell. Plus, given what it is, not likely to meet the requirements of WP:NSOFT even if sources are available. -- BenTels (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After (2012 film)[edit]

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

A film festival film with no significant coverage Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage exists, e.g. [13], [14], and others. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither article is really about the film. They're about the production company and only touch on the film in relation to that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. As long as the film is spoken of directly and in enough detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content, even if not the main topic of the sources used, then we're just fine allowing the film article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AFTER performed by User:Michig finding significant coverage, and per WP:NRVE. Article and project will benefit from expansion and use of available sources. It does not serve the project to delete even stubs on notable topics simply because their articles require work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the independent RS'es Michig has found. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notability for films has been established... Albeit only one source cited. This has potential for expansion. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Smith (footballer)[edit]

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

Telfordbuck (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any chance of providing a rationale for deletion? --Michig (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a rationale. Fails WP:Athlete having never played or managed in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, admittedly, i forgot, it wont happen again Telfordbuck (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played or managed a team in a fully pro league, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boa language[edit]

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

Declined WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all either WP:PRIMARY (1, 2), mere conference announcements of presentations by the authors (3, 4) or fail to mention this language at all (5). Googling turns up nothing useful, which is not surprising given that the language is only a few months old. It's possible this language may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a promising domain specific language for mining code repositories. While there are a number solid primary references, including three peer reviewed papers, the only secondary references found were inclusion of Boa in a list of mini-languages and a discussion on Usenet; both these references are unreliable. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has passed for news or review articles, etc., to be written discussing the subject. When reliable secondary references become available, article recreation would be reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with Mark viking: WP:TOOSOON. -- BenTels (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep This looks too much like bias against DSLs in general. Of course they're only of niche interest, that's rather the point of them. However from the sources presented even so far, I'm happy that this meets our standards as a topic with sufficient sourcing to support notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sourcing do you rely on, Andy? Every one of them cited that even mentions this language is WP:PRIMARY. Msnicki (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

+ Delete - As things stand, it is pie in the sky. Best to wait and see how this develops.--Zananiri (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IJSME[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with reason "New journal, not a single article published yet. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODDed by anonymous IP with reason "has filed application for ISSN Number and is under consideration". Of course, having an ISSN or nt has nothing to do with notability. Hence: Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attained Notability. AllyD (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: New journal, no publications yet so nothing to be notable for. Let's have a positive outlook and call it WP:TOOSOON (WP:CRYSTALBALL is so glass-half-empty...) -- BenTels (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I checked the website and IMO it's a fake for fishing e-mail addresses or whatever they do intend.--Eusc (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding any coverage in reliable sources for this new journal; fails WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no reliable sources cover and very suspicious website. Might be a speedy A7. Probable scam. Mcewan (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Codreanu[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod for notability expired a month ago, but it's been re-created, so I'm taking it to AFD. Altered Walter (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in RS. bogdan (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article fails WP:GNG, as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. People actually are concerned about the entigrity of this page, as if it's some kind of national threat. I don't know if anyone can see what I wrote, so I'm going to post here aswell: what seems to be the problem with this page? Wouldn't you rather try to fix it instead of deleting it? If you're not familiar with the eSports scene then why do you even bother posting here (people such as 'bogdan'). This is not a page about J.K. Rowling or Gheorghe Hagi. At least do some research before you mark something as spam and try to delete it. If it's such a problem for you guys, and it's violating whatever rules you have or imagine to have, then I'll simply post it somewhere else. I simply prefer Wikipedia because of its interface.

Peace out, and guys, seriously, get a life. MortimerCartita (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If the only reason for posting here of the interface, then try someplace else like Wikia. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rooney[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Player has not played at a notable senior level, thus failing to generate significant coverage and failing WP:GNG. C 679 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom, fails both specific & general guidelines. For clarity sake I was the PRODDER when it was deleted previously for the same reasons as this nomination. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated above. Govvy (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Fausto-Sterling[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF Buzz47 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)— Buzz47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. She's the Nancy Duke Lewis Professor of Biology and Gender Studies: criterion #5 of WP:ACADEMIC. She'd also qualify under criterion #1 (her work is highly cited and influential), #2 (recipient of numerous awards), and #3 (she's a fellow of the AAAS). Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Alexrexpvt -- holder of a named chair, meets WP:ACADEMIC. -- BenTels (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above; subject clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, flies over GNG. Insomesia (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cites in GS enough to pass WP:Prof#C1, even in pop-biology. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Along with the multiple criteria of WP:PROF cited above, I found over 100 hits for her in highbeam, including many detailed reviews of her book Sexing the body, most in the popular press (I added three to the article). So I think she also passes WP:AUTHOR #4 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that this AfD nomination was the red-link nominator's first ever edit on Wikipedia. Is this a bad-faith nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Kinda wish I had noticed that. Just another sign that the SNOW is falling. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. Possible bad-faith/vandalism nom. Jokestress (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canon New Fisheye FD 15mm f/2.8[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it seems to exist, but I can't see any non-trivial coverage. A lot of ghits seem to be copies of this article, or perhaps copied from the same source. Tigerboy1966 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another consumer product, no reason to consider it notable. -- BenTels (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tubal Rabbi Cain[edit]

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

Has been tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a few fleeting mentions but no detail. Not ONE hit on gnews archive. No significant coverage. Not convinced that the subject exists. Tigerboy1966 18:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found some stuff about him on Google. Self-published. Not convinced of notability at this time. -- BenTels (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The ISBN given in the article is not valid. Another book by the author is held by the Library of Congress, which of course has a valid ISBN: ISBN 9789780392079. (There is, however, no indication online that this is a notable author. The name is rather obviously a pseudonym.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 19:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Stratego Association[edit]

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

Article tagged for notability and unreferenced for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to suggest this organization is notable. --Michig (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero media notice. I've also nominated List of Stratego players. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Stratego. It might be worth adding to that (by way of merger) that the assocaition exists as the GB regulator. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercer Hotel[edit]

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

Article about a New York hotel located in quite a nice building. The building might be food for an article. The hotel, not so much. No sign of real notability, article is essentially an ad (or content lifted from an ad). BenTels (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building would appear to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primarily for the building. I've added two book sources on that and toned it down a little. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic passes Wikipedia's threshold for notability. Source examples include [15], [16], [17], [18]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reservoir simulation. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (software)[edit]

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

Notability not established for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: In and of itself reservoir simulation software is interesting since it is a specialized niche market and requires lots of computing power and (usually) parallel processing. But more sources are necessary to support this article, and none are obvious to me at this stage. Merge: Per Yworo. -- BenTels (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found some coverage of this in seemingly specialized sources: Petrominer: Petroleum, Mining & Energy, An Ensemble Kalman Filter Module for Automatic History Matching(!), SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, and Asian Oil & Gas. The previews available don't really suggest in-depth coverage. --Michig (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reservoir simulation. Yworo (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be reasonable - maybe summarize the simulators that exist in that article. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reservoir simulation The software is verifiable, but I could find no in-depth secondary sources. I agree, merging this to the reservoir simulation article is the best choice here. Mark viking (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above - a product in that field that does not appear to be independently notable. Mcewan (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mark viking (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Crummey[edit]

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

He is an unelected candidate and not a notable writer. Aaaccc (talk), 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. No sign of notability in any category. -- BenTels (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another Green candidate article, trying to make the Green parties more notable than they are. 117Avenue (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RollBack Rx[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for nearly 6 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Right now, the referencing consists of product reviews, which means little to me -- products get reviewed, big deal. The article claims that the software uses a patented algorithm, though. If someone can find that patent, I'll buy notability under WP:NSOFT. -- BenTels (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:NSOFT would that meet? I don't see anything about patents showing notability, and I'm not sure simply owning a patent makes one notable, because patents aren't necessarily hard to come by. If that patent were itself notable, or was shown to be used by other companies or something it might be different but I don't think simply having a patent is sufficient for notability. - Sudo Ghost 17:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:NSOFT would that meet?

Significance in its particular field. If this software is an implementation of a totally new invention, that would count as significant in my book. -- BenTels (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merely having a patent isn't significant in itself, even I have a software patent that's been implemented into applications but that doesn't make me notable just because it's a verifiable patent. If reliable sources were to show that the patent were notable in some way that would be different, but merely having a patent doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NSOFT, because that's not significant, especially when WP:NSOFT says "software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field"; reliable sources have to say its significant in some way and I doubt there will be any sources that say this software having a patent is in any way significant to the software/recovery field, unless this patent has been implemented by others or has some effect on the field outside of a single program. - Sudo Ghost 19:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If software is an implementation of a non-trivial patent, that means its underlying algorithm is a totally new invention. That by definition makes it significant since it enlarges the knowledge in the field of computing science. The patent is the reliable source. And unless you are claiming that you personally are a piece of software, no, being noted as the owner of a software patent does not make you notable. -- BenTels (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT requires reliable sources discussing the significance of the software; short of reliable sources saying that the patent makes the software notable, it doesn't. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability notes that patents are self-published sources, and are (1) not acceptable as sources and (2) do not give notability to the subject, and if Wikipedia policy weren't enough, looking through the archives at WP:RSN seems to show a consensus that concurs with the policy. - Sudo Ghost 19:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are self-published sources? That's ridiculous. Patents are written by the entity that is requesting patent, but they are examined by an international searching authority to determine if the applied-for protection can be granted with respect to newness and inventive step. Which is why you know for any given patent if its contents are truly new or not. And to dismiss a patent as self-published is to completely deny the value and even the existence of that review process. Which idiot came up with that? -- BenTels (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia consensus came up with that policy. It doesn't matter if the patent is processed, it (1) is not hard to acquire, just a little expensive, and (2) unless the patent is tested and held up in court, the courts have shown that receiving a patent is not some end all and be all guarantee of anything. If the examination was as thorough as you're suggesting, there wouldn't be all of these court cases with successful motions to dismiss on the basis of prior art or even sometimes because the patents are concerning things that are unpatentable. It is not Wikipedia editors that are suggesting that review process isn't reliable, but the courts themselves. However, this is ignoring the fact that even if the patent were a reliable third-party source, it still wouldn't show notability for this article, because this article is not about the patent. Using notable technologies or properties does not convey notability to other things, notability is not inherited. - Sudo Ghost 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's even more ridiculous. Yes, mistakes happen in patenting -- the whole of human invention is a large subject matter. That doesn't change the fact that patents have been examined by subject matter experts to determine their applicability for protection with regards to the known state of human knowledge, which is a better hint of whether something is truly new and therefore notable than most of sourcing used on Wikipedia. To introduce a blanket dismissal of all patents because there have been cases where a patent was overturned is nothing more or less than the stupidity of throwing the baby out with the bathwater -- borne from community consensus or otherwise (and serves only to show that the community can be as wrong as an individual). Worse, given Wikipedia's human-knowledge-must-be-free roots, it smacks more of anti-intellectual property bias than anything else. -- BenTels (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Wikipedia policy is wrong and nobody else knows what they're talking about. That still doesn't make that patent relevant for this article. Does it verify that the patent exists? Yes, but that's about it. Does it mean that anything that uses the patent is notable? Unless reliable sources show that it's a notable use of the patent, no. Is the use of the patent significant for the relevant fields? Unless reliable sources show this, then no. Without reliable sources showing that the patent is relevant or important in some way, it doesn't contribute towards the notability of the article. - Sudo Ghost 20:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, based on what you have said above, I am going to assume you don't really know what a patent is. A patent is a monopolistic right for a limited time to exploit an invention. Patents are granted for the protection of the inventions that meet (as far as can be determined at time of application) certain criteria, including that the invention be new (i.e. not exist yet) and is not, in the estimate of an expert in the field employed by the issuing patent office, a trivial development of something that already existed. Once issued by the patent office, the patent includes a report by that expert that lists what in the patent is and is not questionable with regards to these criteria. If the central algorithm of this piece of software is an invention that was granted a patent by the U.S. Patent Office and the report cites that the claimed invention is indeed new and not trivial, that is by its very definition notable because it increases the knowledge available in the field of software engineering -- for an engineering discipline, new and not trivial is essentially what notable means. And no, that does not cover everything that uses the patented technology -- just the first thing. After that it's not new anymore. -- BenTels (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not doubt that you gave an educated and researched guess, it was still a guess and was ultimately incorrect. To claim that a patent is "is a monopolistic right for a limited time to exploit an invention" is inaccurate:

"A patent is not the grant of a right to make or use or sell. It does not, directly or indirectly, imply any such right. It grants only the right to exclude others. The supposition that a right to make is created by the patent grant is obviously inconsistent with the established distinctions between generic and specific patents, and with the well-known fact that a very considerable portion of the patents granted are in a field covered by a former relatively generic or basic patent, are tributary to such earlier patent, and cannot be practiced unless by license thereunder." - Herman v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 191 F. 579, 584-85, 112 CCA 185 (6th Cir. 1911)

A patent is not a right to exploit an invention, it isn't the right to even use the invention in any way, it is only the means to stop others from using the invention, nothing more. The software is not the patent, and the patent is not the software. That the software uses something that has been patented is both routine and unremarkable, unless you can provide reliable sources that show otherwise. "New" does not and never has equated to "notable" on Wikipedia under any circumstances without reliable sources showing notability. About one in three patents get approved, and there are on average over 1,300 patents approved every single day, so having a patent on something is wholly routine and unremarkable. Short of having reliable sources say that it's a big deal, it isn't a big deal, and isn't notable. That it was "the first thing" that used a specific patent means nothing without reliable sources showing that this is somehow significant. - Sudo Ghost 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable software that fails WP:NSOFT. - Sudo Ghost 20:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since it is at the non-notable end of WP software articles (I know, that is a sort of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but applicable and usefull in these marginal ones) and there is the well known and well documented systemic bias towards computing topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that constitutes a reliable source with significant coverage. —Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to be non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage requirements, as per WP:NSOFT. According to an internet, there are no reliable sources that prove the subject's meeting of significant coverage requirements, so this is not suitable for an article in an encyclopedia. This topic also exists at the Swedish Wikipedia, which I will tag for deletion, although it is not my general language. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Hall[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Everything I could find was copied from the WP article. No other evidence that he existed. Tigerboy1966 17:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make redirect to Mel Hall. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Ka Boss[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep. I did find some coverage ([19][20][21]). It seems reasonable to assume that more coverage exists in Indian sources, and Google searches in English are likely to miss these. --Michig (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable game show. Other than the few sources added above (good work), more sources can be found using Google News and Google Web search. I have copyedited the article and hate the gif logo. -Tito Dutta (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Tito. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Haigh[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 203.51.102.197, rationale is as follows: This page is little more than an advertisement for Mr Haigh. He is not notable in Australia or elsewhere and it should be removed. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 11:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am interested in hearing other opinions, but there do appear to be some reliably sourced references to him as a correspondent and other references to him in conjunction with Biko [22][23]. Location (talk) 19:49, 10 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- regardless of 203.51.102.197's agenda (since when are admins proxies for IP's?) - the article and references seem sufficient and not deserving of an Afd. Satu Suro 08:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Is notable under Wikipedia:Notability (people) under the creative professional section as "an expert source by major news agencies or publications". There is a couple of decades worth of opinion pieces by him and articles about him. Hack (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner (Beaumont)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years, unreferenced. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources added since this nomination push the subject across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established through secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Blis[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: He is mentioned in multiple sources as a very important founding figure in the history of the once-large Jewish community in Cuba [24]; [25] (also duplicated in another book, presumably by the same author); [26]; [27]; [28]. Note that several of these sources call him, in various languages, the "grandfather" of the Jewish community in Cuba. The sources which probably cover him in the most depth are Cuban Yiddish publications, which are probably hard to find now. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is some coverage on him in Yiddish: [29]; [30]; [31]. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blis' role in the Cuban Jewish community is a credible claim of notability, and the claim is supported by sources. I don't doubt הסרפד's contention that additional sources that may well be challenging to find on the Internet. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject qualifies as WP:N and for WP:BIO. See the Jewish Virtual Library's entry on the history of Cuba's Jews that states: "The founder of the Zionist Movement in Cuba was David Blis who was nicknamed 'The Grandfather of the Jewish Community.' He settled in Cuba in 1913 and cooperated with Shevet Aḥim in its early Zionist activities, particularly after the Balfour Declaration. Blis presented a memorandum on the Jewish question to prominent politicians, and thanks to his endeavors the Cuban Senate approved, on April 30, 1919, a resolution in favor of a Jewish National Home in Palestine."[32] and there are many more like this. The article should be improved but not deleted. IZAK (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone is able to add those references to the article it would greatly improve it. Thanks for looking into it. Nomination withdrawn Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:WP:N and for WP:BIO Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Release[edit]

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

I declined a WP:CSD#A7 on this article on little more than it has had many contributors to it over the years, and hopefully one of them might be able to find some reliable sources. I can't find any to establish notability, though the band's name makes it frustratingly hard to find anything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to suggest the band is notable enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability standards.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Citations should be improved, though. Tone 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biju Phukan[edit]

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

A non-notable actress. Fails to meet WP:GNGACTOR. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is a popular actor (not actress) from the state of Assam. This article has lot of scope for improvement. It can also be translated from the corresponding article in Assamese wikipedia. I strongly oppose the delition of this article.--SlowPhoton (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable actor from Assamese film industry. Search within wikipedia itself shows 13 articles noting his name.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assamese article looks promising and Assamese language search results should be included too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Fitzsimmons[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the current fires across Australia, the subject has been quoted a lot in the press in recent days, so basic verification has been possible (now added refs). That leaves the question of whether his role (state level official) is sufficient for notability? AllyD (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject satisfies WP:BASIC. He has been featured in the media over an extended period: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2003 and also reported in other nations including New Zealand, India, USA, Philippines etc. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has been covered extensively in news media in relation to bush fire seasons over many years (if nothing else, at least since his appointment as Commissioner in 2007). Even without the routine coverage he would receive as spokesperson for the rural fire service (5,500+ GoogleNews hits for "Shane Fitzsimmons"), there are much broader personal profiles in major newspapers like this one that I would think allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. Stalwart111 04:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TCB, Inc.[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years. Couldn't confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has survived as a completely unreferenced article for a long time. Aside from a brief press mention on the award of a Port of Houston contract in which they were one contractor, I am not finding anything, so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:CORP. Reyk _YO! 04:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow baby[edit]

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

tagged for notability for over 5 years. Seems to have been created as an advert for Mary Morrison's business. Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 13 January 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 January 13. Snotbot t • c » 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
… but appears to be about an encyclopaedic topic nonetheless. Amazingly, this article has no mention of Josephine Diebitsch Peary and Robert Peary. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uncle G is right, as usual. See 200 Years of Dolls for an example of detailed coverage. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references and further reading show that this is a notable topic deserving of a proper article. LadyofShalott 01:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – LadyofShalott 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotolock valve[edit]

Advanced search for:
"service valve"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Advanced search for:
"Rotalock valve"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Advanced search for:
"Rotolock valve"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for over 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk)

keep, maybe better to merge somewhere? but if no suitable target exist, I'd keep it. They evidently exist, a simple search pops up lots of companies selling them - I added one of those catalogues as a reference (a poor one, but it is a start). Note that we have lots of valves in WP, quite likely we could have a nice set of articles if those where better organized. - Nabla (talk) 11:22, 13 January 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 January 13. Snotbot t • c » 12:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
… also known as a Rotalock valve. I agree with Nabla. There's a lot that Wikipedia doesn't tell readers about service valves for refrigerators and HVAC, including the differences between stem service valves (which is what these are) and Schrader service valves, and all about back seating. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rotaclock seems to be a more common name (about twice ghits). If kept, seems worthy of a move (and surely worth a redir) - Nabla (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Myself, I'd move it to service valve and expand from the likes of ISBN 9781428311497 pp. 1572–1573. But you know me. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of valve seems widely used and has been for decades. I've added the Rotalock alternative to the article and a journal reference verifying it. I'd have no objection to renaming the article to Rotalock valve or even service valve. Mark viking (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--yeah, service valve is the way to go. I haven't found the perfect hit yet; unfortunately page 43 is not available to me. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article a bit in possible preparation for a move which, I think, will be the result of this AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian_Railway_Historical_Society. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian Rail News[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a very valid reason and valid point made - as the Tasmanian, and Australian rail editors are very very thin on ground, will try to verify or otherwise of the notability within a short time - so am sitting on the fence for the moment. cheers Satu Suro 13:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Absorb info into Australian_Railway_Historical_Society, and perhaps rather than delete - make this a redirect to ARHS article Satu Suro 13:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per SatuSuro. There is unlikely to be anything more than can be said about the publication, but within the context of the ARHS it is certainly a notable topic (even if not notable on its own) and is a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Could also go with delete because Trove shows very little referencing it. --LauraHale (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient significant coverage in third party sources as shown by trove search. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment classic more editors here than there either in Tasmania project or tasmania rail articles in 5 years, as for coverage per third party sources - the whole reason for merging into the ARHS article is that the title of the item itself (Tasmanian Rail News) is an important under-utilised source of info for Tasmanian rail materials - and to see the connection as Thryduulf has made above is what is a practical way of understanding why such items are not really AFD but merge candidates Satu Suro 00:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neuroepistemology. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructive pragmatism[edit]

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

Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable. PROD was replaced by a merger notice to Neuroepistemology, but that article suffers from the same problems and currently is also at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a stale post-modernist hoax. Sokal did it first (and better). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge – Unsurprisingly, as I was the one who originally proposed it, I am in favor of merging this article with the very similar and related Neuroepistemology. There is considerable overlap between the two articles. Furthermore, in response to Xxanthippe, being a postmodernist theory wouldn't disinclude an article from wikipedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid grounds for deletion. This article might, however suffer from WP:UNDUE. Like you said, it might be a hoax, but without any knowledge of neuroscience, I cannot, myself, vote for deletion on those grounds. Bensci54 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creator joined Wikipedia a few days ago and has been adding junk articles since. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That fact that the editor is new doesn't prove that his article is a hoax, or anything else for that matter. Bensci54 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not. People can come to their own conclusions. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Borderline G1 speedy. "One of the central points of this field, is building a gap." I think that says, it all. Actually, "deconstructive pragmatism" does get some hits on Google scholar, but they're for a paper by Biesta in Educational Philosophy and Theory 2008 that seems to have nothing to do with the present article. Even if this were a real discipline (which I am not convinced of), Wikipedia articles are supposed to explain their subjects, rather than being examples of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Now that there is a short stub at Neuroepistemology, the phrase "deconstructive pragmatism" can be added there, but there is no justification for a separate page on the subject. The pro- and con- arguments have already been given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuroepistemology, and perhaps the AfDs should be combined. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that there is the short stub as you say, is there any continued justification for the merge? The subject of that stub does not look to be closely related to what can be sourced about the title of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming we can keep the stub stable against reverts, I'd say the limit of a possible merge would be – at most – a brief definition of "deconstructive pragmatism" in the context of the newly revised page, and a redirect. It's not like I'm advocating moving a significant amount of this text to there. (Heaven forbid!) If, as you say, what's on this page does not really relate to the new stub, then a simple delete is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neuroepistemology. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protein episteme[edit]

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

Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable. PROD was replaced by a merger notice to Neuroepistemology, but that article suffers from the same problems and currently is also at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RK, about your concern in all these topics and by this page. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. We are following your suggestions changing OR, POV and improving redaction. --Karol Alexandre (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Now that there is a short stub at Neuroepistemology, the phrase "protein episteme" can be added there, but there is no justification for a separate page on the subject. The pro- and con- arguments have already been given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuroepistemology, and perhaps the AfDs should be combined. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Unsurprisingly, as I was the one who originally proposed it, I am in favor of merging this article with the very similar and related Neuroepistemology. There is even more possible now that Neuroepistemology has been stubified. Bensci54 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no consensus about whether this event is significant enough for coverage in a separate article or whether it should be covered as part of related articles such as E1 (Jerusalem). Sandstein 11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bab al Shams and Babalshams village[edit]

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

No RS. Not news. No substance in the article. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babalshams village. A redirect now. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babalshams village has been merged into Bab al Shams and now is a Redirect.The AfD for that page nowis idle I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nom: "no RS" was already untue when you nominated. Anyway, it's sourced now. "No substance" - please be more specific (in case you still think so for the current version), or retract the word (written this way, it doesn't sound like an argument to me). As for "no news", that sounds like a misunderstanding (or a too easy usage) of WP:NOTNEWS. It does not mean that WP should not report news facts (or: when some topic is in the news, WP:NEWS does not say it is delatable for that reason).

Delete—maybe in the future we will see some kind of long-term significance for this, in which case I'll advocate for an undeletion, but so far it seems like a tent camp set up and evacuated after a couple days. It definitely doesn't satisfy the notability requirements for populated places. Regarding other notability guidelines, it might just barely satisfy GNG, although then it walls under WP:NOTNEWS. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On notability: before and after your post there were developments and additions, like the High Court involvements, notable persons spoke out, and the notings that this is a combination of special or first-of aspects: a "counteroccupation" (New York Times), varying reports (evacuation or eviction), involvement of High Court, Israeli PM, Palestine Authority. Your description is missing all of the aspects that do make it remarkable. You say it's only a "tent camp set up ... and evacuated": maybe you did not get the issue (can happen), but one can not conclude "insignificant" or anything else. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- 7,000 plus hits on google [33], 600 plus in google news [34]. It has certainly received significant coverage in international news media. I guess the main question is whether the topic will continue to have enduring notability.

If the article is deleted we could always use the sources for E1 (Jerusalem), and break out a spin off article later if the topic continues to receive coverage in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bab al shams refers to many things, not just the few tents set up for a day or two. it should be part of the E1 article. Soosim (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence contradicts the second. The first sentence points to the many aspects that argue for a stand-alone article. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename First note Babalshams has been redirected to Bab al Shams. Rename to something more appropriate like Bab al shams protest or Bab al Shams tent protest or Bab al Shams camp protest. An actual link to news sources shows more than enough stories to illustrate it is a notable protest. CarolMooreDC 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to E1 (Jerusalem). While parts of the article are clearly POV-pushing, the basic facts which are not in dispute are still very relevant. I'm not sure this has enduring notability, and I doubt it will unless something happens in the future to bring it back into the news. For now it's really just a part of the debate surrounding E1 - I don't see it as newsworthy on it's own. --Bachrach44 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that article and have included ref'd material there from article. That also is acceptable. CarolMooreDC 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The location may be within E1, but that does not define it as a "E1" topic. Really, it is not subjugated to nor derived from E1. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The event has received massive international press coverage. Currently 21,400 google hits for search term: "bab al shams" e1 west bank [35]. 1,400 on google news for the same term. [36]. The event has received extensive coverage in the Israeli press:-
Jerusalem Post [37], Ynet [38], Haaretz [39], Times of Israel [40]

In Arab/Palestinian sources:

Palestine Chronicle [41], al Jazeera [42], Hürriyet Daily News [43],Al Arabiya [44]

International Sources

New York Times [45],Washington Post [46], BBC [47], AFP [48], Reuters [49], The Guardian [50], The Independent [51], The Financial Times [52], Sydney Morning Herald [53], Globe and Mail [54]

I am only scratching the surface here in terms of sources covering the topic to try and give a feel of the breadth and depth of coverage this topic has received. the UN secretary General,[55] the Israeli prime minister[56] and Palestinian leaders [57] have all commented on or given statements about the event as have academics such as Majid Suweilim, a professor of political science at Al Quds University [58], [59].

WP:EVENT states that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards."

The event has certainly had widespread national and international RS coverage in diverse sources. Articles such as this [60] have begun to analyze the event in retrospect. I believe the topic clearly meets notability requirements for an article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sources used and added. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a terrible article at the moment, but that is not cause for deletion. As Dlv999 shows, there is extremely wide coverage from reliable sources, both in terms of factual news reporting and of citable opinions of notable people. Besides that, tiny Israel settlement outposts get articles with even much less notability. Zero^talk 12:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— No long-term significance demonstrated for this. Ankh.Morpork 15:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because demonstrating long-term significance would in fact be impossible since the event only occurred 6 days ago. What we have demonstrated is that the topic has received massive national and international coverage, and has lead to comments by heads of state and academics. The topic is still receiving fresh coverage as of today. [61]. Your comment is indicative of the systemic bias issues we face in the topic area. Impossibly high standards are often placed on sources/topics/significant viewpoints that do not chime with Israeli Foreign Ministry narrative of events in the conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - time and again it has been demonstrated that "articles" on news events that are covered by the international press are "notable". In fact, many of those people voting to delete this article are among the people who have succeeded in making that the case (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bat Ayin ax attack). If those are notable because, to quote from somebody who has voted to delete this article but keep those, other aspects of WP:EVENT are satisfied, like global coverage and diversity of sources, then so too is this. I dont particularly agree with the idea that anything that is picked up by international news organizations is "notable", but thats the precedent that has been set, and its been set by a number of the users who are oddly voting the other way now. nableezy - 15:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments of "no RS" and "POV", posted ~~by the nominator~~ here before the template of "stub" was dry (and reused by others), are not deletion arguments at all. They are reason for a tag+talk, not deletion. Anyway, they are improved or even undone already by regular wiki editing process. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added.

Notability of the village and the protest is clearly high, based on the sources: high profile people spoke out (PM Israel, UN leader Ban Ki-moon). Major institutions are involved: Israeli PM, High Court, Palestinian Authority). Most newspapers have follow-up stories even within days, and various first-of aspects are pointed out multiple places (especially the "occupation"-mirror comparision). -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into E1 (West Bank) - Jonathunder (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that it is in E1 space, what else does it have to do with E1 at all? How is it E1 based or related? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into E1 (West Bank) - Seems to pretty clearly fall under purview of the E1 article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Apart from the fact that it is in E1 space, what else does it have to do with E1 at all? How is it E1 based or related? (For example: why not merge into West Bank?) -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenet - based on what i am reading, it only exists because of E1. it is E1, body and soul. Soosim (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure what that comment means, but E1 is a location. Bab al Shams was a notable event that occurred within the area known as E1. Dlv999 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soosism: it only exists because of E1. Well, please read some more sources. It is not a protest against E1 per se, it is protest against occupation of Palestinian land. Without any idea of E1, it would still be a notable protest. Without occupation, it would be a non-notable camping site. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In a new development Bab Al Shams has set a precedent for a new form of protest against Israeli settlement in the Palestinian Territories. A new protest camp has been established in East Jerusalem with all RS citing Bab Al Shams as the precedent.[62], [63], [64] [65] [66]. This shows the the lasting significance of the event. It also shows that merging the article with E1 is not appropriate as Bab Al Shams set a precedent for a new form of protest against Israeli settlement in general, not specific to the E1 site. Dlv999 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there's not enough to say about this event to justify an article. There are better locations for what little content is currently present in this article. The Editorial Voice (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors, including me, above have pointed to noteworthyness with arguments. Also the "notnews" arguments have been discussed. Could you at least react to these? Just throwing out guideline links is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of my !vote. I'm not here to argue with you. I just don't think there's an article here, much as I don't think that every single 'Occupy X' occupation (many of which lasted significantly longer than two days, and received significantly more press coverage) should have an entire article devoted to it. The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask to argue with me. I asked what your boilerplate remark says wrt other arguments already made. I could repeat them here to the same effect. The comparision you added hints that you have not taken a look at the notability points available. -DePiep (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be more clear? I'm not here to make an argument. I'm here to express my opinion that the article under discussion should be deleted, for the reasons I identified. I've read your opinions, and I'm not swayed by them. The Editorial Voice (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek Smash n' Crash Racing[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't eastablish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Separate IGN reviews for the Nintendo DS, GameBoy Advance and PlayStation 2 versions. Also; Games Radar review. Metacritic's subpages [67] [68] indicate it was reviewed in PSM Magazine and Nintendo Gamer also. Someone another 14:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another themed racer. Not particularly significant in terms of WP:NSOFT. And yes, it's been reviewed -- big deal, consumer products do get reviewed. Doesn't show notability. -- BenTels (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's strong consensus at WP:VG that detailed reviews count towards notability, and there's consensus than these sources are reliable at WP:VG/RS. It may be a bland, cookie-cutter product, but it's still getting sufficient coverage. Being original isn't a criteria for meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that there is a conceptual fault in the Wikipedia assumption of notability as recorded in WP:GNG that gives consumer products a free pass. Doesn't mean I have to agree that a totally non-notable thirteen-to-a-dozen game is notable simply because a lot of reviewers have taken the trouble to say that it is a non-notable thirteen-to-a-dozen game. And therefore I will not. -- BenTels (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're free to do as you chose, but don't expect any closing Admin fo act in favor of your own personal subjective definition of notability. (Where does one draw the line in interpreting notability according to "originality" like that? Would New Super Mario Bros. 2 be too much like New Super Mario Bros. so it's not worth it's own article? Or every yearly iteration of games like Call of Duty?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're making a mistake here -- your argument regarding an admin agreeing with me or not suggests that you think I am trying to win a contest, which I am not. To answer your far more sensible question of where one is to draw the line, one might begin by actually reading the reviews being offered in order to address the grave conceptual error that exists in WP:GNG. This error, you see, is the following: when you strip the guideline to its essentials, what it boils down to is "if a lot of people are talking about X, then X must be worth talking about". Which sounds reasonable, but completely misses the point that those same people might be saying that X really isn't worth talking about. And that occurs often with consumer products (video games, but also books, movies, cars and so on), because they are reviewed exactly for the purpose of telling people whether or not they are worthwhile. But GNG ignores that and opts simply for counting the number of people talking about X. So if you have, say, a video game and 15 reviewers (let's call them domain experts for the occasion) saying that it is a mediocre game and not very noteworthy at all, then GNG turns around and says "15 people are talking about it, so it must be notable" et voila, the thing becomes notable for not being notable. So how do you compensate for that? Well, as I say, you could start by actually taking into account what reviewers are saying rather than just the fact that they are saying something. And no, that is not as black-and-white as GNG often makes things. But then, there is no good reason that it should be so black-and-white. -- BenTels (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "Well, as I say, you could start by actually taking into account what reviewers are saying" - This is what I'm against. WP:GNG just asks for significant coverage, not what the coverage is saying. There's no precedent for interpreting the GNG like that. Furthermore, I'm not saying you're "trying to win a contest", I'm just saying that you appear to have cared enough about this topic to participate in this discussion, and if you cared enough to participate, you may as well participate with a rationale that an Admin would take into consideration. (Closing Admin typically ignore, or put less weight into, arguments that don't adhere to policy. What you're saying isn't backed by policy, but by your own personal belief on how you'd like to improve things.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Someoneanother. Having multiple reviews qualifies it as notable for a videogame. In WP:SOFT it says

The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

qualifies a software to be notable. Jucchan (talk) 00:49, 14 January 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) 13:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Someone Another's sources. (It seems there's a recent wave of people nominating these terrible licensed games for deletion. They may be awful, but they still pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game received a surprising amount of press as Someone another has shown. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Someoneanother, the game has received press by sources, which are reliable by WP:VG/S. Zappa O Mati 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mirzapur Cadet College. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Khorshed Memorial Library[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirzapur Cadet College, where the building exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mirzapur Cadet College - I'm not seeing any grounds for independent notability (a library of 18,000 books isn't all that big) Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plains Conservation Center[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can get part of the way to doing so. This has been studied by scientists, who have published their research. It's also documented as a part of history. There's an article in Colorado Outdoors magazine (either volume 45 or volume 46 in 1996) that apparently gives history, explaining the deeding to the West Arapahoe Soil Conservation District of part of the WW2 Lowry Bombing Range in 1949 and the designation as a "state natural area" in 1979, neither of which are explained in the article at hand. I'd cite it for the benefits of those with better access to sources, but I am unable to obtain author and title information. There's another article in the same magazine from either volume 25 or volume 26, in 1976, that appears to be similarly informative. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important site for palentologists, significant public open space/education facility, covered in reliable sources, I've added some sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now demonstrates notability, indicated by RS coverage in a variety of sources over a period of more than a decade. --Orlady (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Pond Farm[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years, couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A worthy cause but I don't think a 2007 state award for the quality of its milk is enough to establish notability for the venture here and I am not finding other substantial coverage. AllyD (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single newspaper article does not constitute "significant coverage" to establish notability.--Charles (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winning one local award doesn't seem sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keadle[edit]

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

I have put off tagging for deletion. Gave the benefit of the doubt while election was ongoing, but he lost again! Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Do not really think he meets WP:GNG either. Only real possible claim is a single two year term on county commission. Otherwise, just a perennial candidate. We don't generally keep those who are just candidates for office and the other info doesn't really amount to notability. Some bio in article is only sourced from his own site. Just smacks of electioneering from either his campaign or supporters. See strange history of being moved in and out of WP:AfC. Don't think AfC questions were really answered before made live again last time. Wait until he's actually been elected or appointed to something higher up. JoannaSerah (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete Under the current interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN, a losing candidate of a major party for national office is not considered notable. Personally, I think that's absurd, and would hardly fill up WP, for it amounts to about 600 people every two years. But that's the established practice. Given that the person who moved it from AfC is a well-established editor here, I'm notifying him DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a wannabee cum also-ran. will reconsider when/if he gets elected to any significant elected office. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't get too excited about this one, and obviously I have to keep in check my "continued desire to override the wishes of the community" but it seems that there are two or three articles about the guy in the Statesville Record and Landmark. He also gets coverage form the notable blog Redstate [69]. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Also covered in Huffington Post [70] and McClatchyDC over slightly embarrassing "birther" remarks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 2 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 00:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 8. Subject does appear to have some local notability, but generally fails WP:POLITICIAN. That being said, the article can be recreated as a redirect page, and small but neutrally worded content regarding his 2012 primary run can be added to the area where the redirect will be targeted. Otherwise, delete per failing notability as described in WP:ANYBIO, as insufficient significant coverage can be found outside of the context of the election.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Redirect to a particular election does not work since he ran in three years for Congress, once as the Republican nominee. Under WP:POLITICIAN, he appears to just meet criteria #3, with some national coverage of his 2012 race and (probably) his earlier race where he was the nominee. The fact he was elected to a local office indicates he is more than "just" an also ran.Enos733 (talk) 06:48, 11 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, Michig (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like he generated attention for being a Birther. That in conjunction with his election I presume him notable under WP:GNG. If he had run an airtight campaign and lost he probably would have failed. But he goofed up a couple of times and gave the press fodder. A token consolation for him. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, doesn't rise to notability levels for any of his other activities RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek Society[edit]

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

LSE student society that used to produce a written journal which went defunct and was been recreated as a website, can't find evidence that it meets our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ – clicks on Scholar and Books (above) come up with lots of results (which need parsing). A search on HighBeam Research for the editors came up with many more results. It's latest (perhaps last) Journal was issued in 2011 [71]. The 2010-11 Journal editors are all associated with the LSE. Perhaps it is defunct, but is notability restricted to current notability? I think not. Recommend retaining the article -- it needs development, not deletion.--S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)15:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, they need parsing. I can see that the journal is used as a source but not discussion of the Hayek Society at LSE. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Here's an idea. First, Hayek Society gets put into the LSE or History of the LSE article as a subsection. I'm not sure what to do next. As there are different HSs around (Bulgaria, Japan, Germany, and the LSE), a DAB page is set up rather than a simple redirect. Until the DAB is done, a redirect to the LSE would work.--S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- I cannot beleive that a student society, even in such a prestigious institution as LSE, is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have added HS to the LSE article and ~~stricken~~ my opposition above.--S. Rich (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Group FMG[edit]

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

Looking at the references, none except the NYT are notable, reliable sources. The NYT article is primarily about another companies acquisition by Group FMG, not group FMG itself. Skrelk (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2012 (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 03:22, 5 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} 03:47, 5 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divided - I'm giving a lot of thought to this one because my searches have provided several results but the bottom line appears to be that their biggest accomplishment appears to be Ceros. Google News searches provided this (mentioned in the columns January & August), this, this, this, this and this. Several of these news articles have said "FMG" is short for "Fresh Media Group". A different search including the full name provided more results here with several of them being acquisitions from 8 years ago (Vision, Devil7 and ISDN Media) and are through the same sources, PrintWeek or press releases. I also found a deal with American Media Inc. and this article from 2007 suggests they were originally based in London but a deal with an Indian company created connections to India and the United States. This also mentions one of their former employees, who nows works at Wyndeham Press Group. It seems they haven't been very active recently but I found this Pod1 deal with Fluid, Inc. which Pod1 appears to be the most recent FMG acquisition in June. The Exec Vice President, David Bonthrone talks about the Pod1 acquisition here but aside from that, it didn't receive much attention. A News search with the CEO, Dilip Keshu, provided several press releases. I'm divided, I think they haven't achieved much notability despite these acquisitions but I also think the article could be improved a little through adding them, especially with large coverage from PrintWeek. I would like to hear what other users think. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 6 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial Suspension[edit]

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

WP:RS and WP:SYN. WCityMike (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability PianoDan (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know anything about this, so let's write it up in Wikipedia. is not a correct approach to encyclopaedia writing. There's no verifiable content to put here to replace content that even acknowledges that it comes straight off the top of a Wikipedia editor's head in violation of our no original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quasi-hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment – This is actually a ~~valid scientific term~~ phrase used in various contexts, but the article is not about it ~~the term~~, nor is it written in a manner that convey's the scientific context of it ~~the term~~ whatsoever. The article in it's state is about a neologism that hasn't received coverage in reliable sources. Here are some sources that utilize the phrase ~~are about this actual topic~~, which varies, and is used in the context of water filtration and treatment, bivalves, nematodes, and other animals. Here's some stuff from a GBooks search: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not a coherent topic. That's a random admixture of partial phrase matches, including sources that are actually about suspension feeders that occupy the interstitial water of a sediment. Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck parts of my comment above and !vote below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this is a thing, it's not this thing. Unverifiable original research. Mcewan (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~I may someday create an article about the actual term and concepts that are associated with it.~~ This article would require an entire rewrite from scratch, (if it's even actually notable as a concept, rather than just being a phrase *) and fails WP:NEO in it's current form. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* An addendum to my !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultra Monsters. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultra Q monsters[edit]

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

Non notable, unreferenced list of fictional characters. Does not pass WP:GNG. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Monsters. The same list of monsters from Ultra Q is already there, and this seems like a plausible enough redirect. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Monsters. As Lugia said, the list of monsters is already there. Also, this is non-notable and unreferenced. Vacation9 02:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultra Monsters. —Ed!^(talk) 03:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per listed above. TheMesquito (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Casimir of Bourbon-Two Sicilies[edit]

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

An individual who appears to be of interest simply because of membership of the house of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Apart from the referenced genealogical records in thepeerage.com and similar I can find no coverage to meet WP:BIO. Mcewan (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete:
1. Independent notability must be established per WP:NOTINHERITED; this is generally the deciding factor in such cases.
2. I recall seeing thepeerage.com tagged as an unreliable source. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be what I meant: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 121#thepeerage.com (update). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability except for the membership of the house of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Not otherwise notable. Vacation9 02:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN person. Fails GNG as well as notability guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of All UFC Fighters From Inception[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE #3, WP:FANCRUFT. Part of the topic is covered at List of current UFC fighters. LlamaAl (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Shouldn't discriminate, this makes it seem like a club. Vacation9 02:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary fancruft, List of current UFC fighters gives similar information in a better format. CaSJer (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alsbridge[edit]

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

Not notable and no substantive claims to notability. All refs are own press releases and one that makes no mention of Ashbridge. Reads like a puff piece. Fails WP:CORP. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - I'm concerned by the enormous amount of original or republished press releases on Google News, two searches here and here although I did find a few decent Dallas Business Journal articles there and, through a different search, this. It seems the company hasn't received much attention from news sources these past few years but they are still active with one press release for 2013 here regarding an expansion. Google Books found results here (briefly mentions the company but the preview doesn't provide much), here (minor mention) and here (second result from the bottom, Consulting magazine mentions them as part of a "morale" list). A different search found this which is from a website that Alsbridge acquired, outsourcing-center.com and I also found this which talks about a new acquisition and what has happened since. At their website, they list three awards they have received, 2010, 2011 and 2012 from IAOP for "World's Best Outsourcing Advisors" but it seems they've never received news coverage for this as is the same with a few other awards I searched for. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 4 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:37, 6 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) 01:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Any sources are self published as SwisterTwister said. Not notable and fails WP:CORP. Vacation9 02:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came across this article Alsbridge, Inc. while going through the backlogs, which seems to be a duplication of this by the author. Can't seem to find any sources that confirm WP:COMPANY notability Funny ^Pika 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Alsbridge and Alsbridge, Inc.. I can't find anything that supports the notability of this company. Both may also qualify for WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion because the author of Alsbridge, Inc. is claiming to also be the editor that created Alsbridge and he is requesting deletion of that article. Peacock (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. While an author's COI isn't reason enough to delete, it appears that this article has multiple authors with a COI. Seems like a pretty clear case of promotion via meatpuppetry. Given the number of editors involved, article should be salted to prevent re-creation by one them (already attempted in the case of Alsbridge, Inc) ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Kingdom Ministries[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. On a general Google search I found only social media, sites directly associated with the subject, and listings of events at the church. In the News archive I found three entries, two of which were apparently on the InsideToronto site, but now return 404 errors, although the snippets suggests one was an event listing, and the other something about government funding; the third is an event listing on Broadway World. Books and Scholar searches were (rather unsurprisingly) equally fruitless. A search on the former name of the church produces similar results. Alexrexpvt (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(with some regret) Delete -- as far as I can tell from this minute stub, it is a NN church in Scarborough. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 8 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) 01:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yukihiro Yoshida[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability; see International Skating Union bio Hergilei (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2012 (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 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 6 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) 01:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, junior achievements do not count towards notability anyway; otherwise, the best achievement - the 7th place in the national championship - does not make hm notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Sulaiman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghit and Gnews of substance. Article references only mention individual in passing.reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject works with a couple of companies, one of which has an article on Wikipedia. No evidence that he is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rasheed Sulaiman is notable within the entrepreneurial community - I looked him up on here and was confused as to why you don't think he's notable. i've heard about him because of his work with NFL, NBA (artwork) and And1, the shoe company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemanondeck (talk • contribs) 00:05, 2 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
  - And where, exactly, did you hear this? Because when I follow the citation in the article that purportedly supports that claim, I find that it doesn't say anything of the sort at all. It doesn't say anything about pursuing degrees, either, and doesn't support that content. Indeed, it barely even mentions this person. Why pursuing, by the way? Are they running away? Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 6 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) 01:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is concerned with current notability. Doubtless as a successful businessman Mr Sulaiman will become notable in future and attract the attention of the wider press, but that notability needs to be demonstrated when the article is created. The notability endorsement above should be viewed as a possible WP:SPA or WP:COI as the account was created to make a similar comment on the article's talk page.—Baldy Bill (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage of him to be considered notable at this time. --Michig (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Carlini[edit]

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

I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. GB fan 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable, independent references in the article and none to be found on the web except for Allmusic. Artist's Direct Database ref is just a copy of Carlini's biography on his website. Allmusic doesn't go into any detail. Bgwhite (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found to indicate that the subject meets the WP:CREATIVE criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. but this was not a good bundling of AfDs. At a quick glance at least some of these articles look non-notable whilst others don't; individual articles should be sent to AfD and this can be done at any time after this AfD closes. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Buffalo State Bengals football team[edit]

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

Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. A similar discussion has already taken place on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chicago Maroons football team, and this nomination includes multiple articles on Division III college football seasons. Edge3 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also non-notable Division III football seasons:

--Edge3 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Press coverage drops off exponentially as you go from Division I to II to III. Only perennial powerhouses/national DIII champs like Mount Union [79][80][81] and Wisconsin–Whitewater [82] get even a modicum of attention, and they don't have season articles. The 9-1 2009 St. Norbert Green Knights barely register on a few obscure sites. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails notability guidelines. —Ed!^(talk) 03:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did you people even look at the article and the sources? The first one, 2012 St. Norbert Green Knights football team has in its second source a college football game played in Ireland. That's significant. The remainder season articles I would personally rather Merge into conference season articles or into a combined article on the individual programs themselves, unless other information comes to the surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It might possibly be significant for a single game (though I'm inclined to consider it borderline WP:ROUTINE), but that's hardly enough to support an entire lackluster season. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Routine there's nothing routine about two college football teams traveling to Ireland for a regular season football game. Wanna transfer it to an article on the game itself, fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any of the NFL International Series games got a heck of lot more media coverage than these two schools in Ireland, but do you see any articles on them? Nope. Because, unlike real estate, location, location, location is not an overriding factor. It's what happens in the game. And what happened was routine. No 15 laterals. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please cease participation in AFD discussions until you learn to preview your comments. It's terribly misleading and others shouldn't have to check your work. 1 John Carroll 40, St. Norbert 3: Blue Streaks win big in Ireland, 2 College football: St. Norbert vs. John Carroll in Dublin, Ireland: Aug. 31, 2012, 3 College football: John Carroll will open its season as part of Global Ireland Football Tournament, 4 Video Update: St. Norbert FB in Ireland, 5 Saint Norbert defeats John Carroll in GIFT American Football match, 6 http://www.cleveland.com/university-heights/index.ssf/2012/08/john_carroll_university_opens.html, 7 John Carroll, Notre Dame College football teams open season with victories, 8 St. Norbert drops football opener in Ireland, 9 College football: St. Norbert vs. John Carroll in Dublin, Ireland: Aug. 31, 2012, 10 D-III goes worldwide: John Carroll arrives in Ireland, 11 College football: St. Norbert vs. John Carroll in Dublin, Ireland: Aug. 31, 2012, 12 John Carroll University participating in Global Football Tournament, 13 John Carroll, St. Norbert to open in Ireland, 14 John Carroll University football team heads to Ireland for game, 15 John Carroll football team in Ireland. A simple search turns up a whole lot more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Please cease ordering people about. You can't base the notability of a entire season on a single game, even assuming the latter is itself notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles have existing references, and lack of editor interest on other (potential) articles is NOT a valid reason to argue for deletion. WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts both ways, remember. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It is the established policy of WikiProject College Football, as expressed in WP:CFBSEASON, that articles for college football seasons that are marginally notable or not notable may be combined into clustered articles by decade or other logical grouping. None of these articles presently has enough substance to justify its existence as a stand-alone article; they are merely season schedules with brief introductions. Rather than arguing about notability and sources, let's follow the established precedent of WP:CFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles where notability is shown and merge the rest. Deletion is not a solution here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dirtlawyer's comments above and WP:CFBSEASON. That said, is there an existing article that these can be merged into? Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pick one: I suggest the oldest article for each team as the merge target. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the material, either in individual articles or merging as appropriate per Dirtlawyer's reasoning. The latter is editorial and doesn't require AfD's imprimatur. Paulmcdonald has raised real doubts about whether the information is, in fact, routine, so a bundled nomination probably wasn't appropriate here. Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Paulmcdonald has only shown that one game has attracted any media notice. The seasons themselves all rely on the same site for game results. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technical keep - too many articles, some of which may be notable, bundled together. I have no objection to another re-listing instead. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you from work on CFB articles, Bearian. Have you read WP:CFBSEASON? This is a perfect bundled set of candidates for a merge. At most, one of these articles is notable enough to sustain a separate stand-alone article, and it's marginally notable at best. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Malaysia relations[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable bilateral relation of two arbitrary countries; there is nothing but trade information (everyone buys Malaysian products) and a NEWS-like description of a visit to Chile by the King of Malaysia. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The topic is notable. --Dede2008 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (tal k) 01:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dede2008: Please explain. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 20:47, 6 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, MJ94 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dede2008 98.80.31.136 (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Dede2008 didn't really give a reason to keep; do you have any? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like all the other ones that should never have been created. Unless there is something specifically notable about the relationship, an X-X relations article should not be created. Stalwart111 02:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International relations are notable. There are plenty of official interactions between two countries to cover, ranging from one country reacting to events in another to two countries going to war. It's not "exciting" to read about, but it's politics. It's not valid to say the whole range of pages shouldn't exist when there are an abundance of studies and reliable sources covering interactions between countries. —Ed!^(talk) 03:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed: Do you really think that all forms of international relations are notable? As another user pointed out at one of many similar ongoing discussions, there are tens of thousands of such "combination" bilateral-relations articles conceivable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear - I'm not suggesting that all such articles be mass-deleted or arbitrarily deleted. Only that a good many such articles were created, some based on one document, one visit or the mutual endorsement (along with dozens of other countries) of some obscure non-notable treaty or multi-lateral agreement. There are some (like Canada–United States relations for example) that obviously would never be nominated for deletion and I think we should tackle these individually. But I don't think this one should be in the keep category. Stalwart111 04:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient secondary sources to establish notability for this bilateral relationship. PianoDan (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one off high level meeting does not make a bilateral article. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this encyclopedic topic per WP:N. The topic has received a plethora of WP:SIGCOV. Examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read a few of Northamerica1000's sources, and they satisfy GNG IMO. --99of9 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000's sources. They are reliable coverage, and that works for me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parts Models[edit]

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

Hand models form a notable occupational niche, but there is no evidence that this company is notable. The references are all slightly disguised PR. The argument for inclusion would have to be that they were selected for interviewing because they're the leading firm, but since none of the sources seems to actually say that, it's at least as likely that they were interviewed because they have the most energetic PR agents. Most of this is based on interviews with them. Sometimes they can be usable, but here they are used as a device for the article to include quotes from the owner. I'm open to the possibility that the company is actually notable , but then someone should write the article who won't write it as a press release. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 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, MJ94 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found several sources discussing parts modelling as a concept (e.g. [83][84][85]), and there may be enough to support an article on parts modelling in general, but there seems little coverage of this company. --Michig (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rapid Eye Movement (album). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

02 Panic Room[edit]

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

No sources, no reason to suggest notability, fails WP:NSONGS JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I am able to find are some reviews on Polish metal webzines such as this; not sure if those are considered reliable sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:50, 6 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rapid Eye Movement (album), the song's parent album. I'm not seeing much to support an individual article, but redirecting seems reasonable as a plausible search term (a single from a notable/charting album). Gong show 00:45, 7 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, MJ94 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gongshow's reasoning. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gongshow's reasoning. Longevitydude (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newfane, New York#History. Michig (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newfane middle school[edit]

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

contested PROD with no rationale given, non-notable school FrankDev (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect: redirect is my first option, but I'd rather delete the article than keep it outright. Normal procedure would be to redirect to the school district's article, because middle schools aren't independently notable. However, there's no article for the district. Next best option is to redirect to Newfane, New York#History, where the school is mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newfane, New York#History. Conventionally, such schools are covered under a school district article (e.g. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District), but since there is no article on the Newfane School District, creating an "Education" section in the town's article might be a good idea. utcursch | talk 05:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there is a long standing agreement that these types of school articles redirect to the area article. --Guerillero | My Talk 08:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 01:12, 7 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, MJ94 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that the school has any notable impact on the history of the town, so it doesn't need to be merged. —Ed!^(talk) 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Deutschland (song)[edit]

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

No proof of meeting WP:GNG: just one reference to a book, where the song is mentioned in a single sentence. That's good enough for the article's single-sentence first paragraph; everything else is unverifiable. GregorB (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: here is a paragraph devoted to the song; this book has a chapter named for the song (though the song is apparently mentioned in the second half of the chapter, which has no preview, see Note 21 to Chapter 17). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 23:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 00:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, actually, this is quite known... This slogan somehow became quite popular in ordinary life. But, it would be nice to have a little more references and data... --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you in that the song is not exactly unknown. My point is rather that its notability needs to be backed up by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Even if the song inspired a slogan: a) RS must confirm it, and b) this fact must be demonstrated to have an importance that is beyond trivial (globally, there must be thousands of slogans or catchphrases inspired by popular media, that is films, songs, even commercials, which does not make them necessarily notable). GregorB (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In particular, WP:NSONG applies. GregorB (talk) 11:06, 11 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, MJ94 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WW - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless anyone can suggest a suitable merge target. This was fairly widely covered, e.g. [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], but there isn't so much to be said about it that it couldn't be summarized in another article - Croatian War of Independence seems the nearest we have to a suitable target but I think it would be too trivial to add there. --Michig (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moise Rimbon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable enough fights for a number of notable promotions and against a slew of notable fighters, mostly wins. Sepulwiki (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you creating your own criteria when WP:NMMA already exists? Jakejr (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. JadeSnake (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC) JadeSnake blocked as a sock of the blocked JonnyBonesJones. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So his 2 fights with a defunct top tier promotion and fight for K-1 the top kickboxing promotion in his kickboxing debut does not meet the notability guidelines? Not to mention almost half of his fights are with top tier promotion fighters. Sepulwiki (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to WP:Kickboxing any fighter who has fought for K-1 is notable. "it is presumed that a kickboxer is notable if he/she has competed in promotions K-1 and It's Showtime." It may be just one fight, but it meets their criteria for notability. Luchuslu (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Luchuslu. Meets kickboxer notability requirments PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Luchuslu. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. I couldn't find any reliable sources to show he fought in K-1, although I did find a blog post about it. More importantly, I don't think the kickboxer notability requirements can be used since it was the work of one person at the then "inactive" kickboxing group who put up a proposal for a few days and then entered it when there were no objections. I don't think that's a "consensus" that can be used. Mdtemp (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so now kickboxers are being put into the same consensus as WP:NMMA? That would mean every kickboxers article should now be deleted, unless of course they meet WP:NMMA. On a side note I think with the recent consensus being decided by users who have made every debate a democracy. After almost 5 years of editing MMA articles on Wikipedia I can honestly say I will no longer put forth any effort in helping the MMA project.

Anonymous poster, I believe you're misinterpreting Mdtemp's post. He's questioning the validity of the guidelines used. He says nothing about kickboxers meeting MMA guidelines. Papaursa (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing that in mind, every biography which does not meet WP:NMMA would be deleted. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A "mixed martial arts" consensus should not apply to "kickboxing" articles. There is a huge difference between a "mixed martial artist" and a "kickboxer" for those wondering. I cant wait to see when one of the users run into a mixed martial artist with a above .500 record in professional boxing and nominate it for deletion because the professional boxer who just so happens to be a MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA.

Another anonymoust post. Sigh. This discussion is on the martial arts AfD page, not just MMA. I think Mdtemp has a valid point. It's hard to see how notability guidelines that were posted on a user's page can be claimed to represent WP consensus when it's also mentioned there were only 2 active participants for the kickboxing project. Papaursa (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no fights for a major MMA organization (failing WP:NMMA). He apparently has 1 fight, a loss, as a kickboxer in a non-notable event. The event was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 Spain Battles 2009. The Spanish WP did a google translate of that now deleted article and it says Rimbon was in one of the 16 bouts that night. The K-1 website does not list him as a fighter. Papaursa (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because K-1 went bankrupt and all the content on the original website was lost. The new website has one page talking about its Grand Prix tournaments and who's currently fighting for them, but that's it. I already gave quoted the guideline for notability via WP:Kickboxing. What else do you need to prove he passes under that criteria? Luchuslu (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He may well not have been listed on the old K-1 website since I know they didn't always list fighters unless they fought multiple times or in major K-1 events (like those leading to a K-1 champioship) and the Spanish event wasn't one of those. Also, it's hard to see how one gains notability by competing unsuccessfully at a non-notable event. Papaursa (talk) 21:10, 13 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 00:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment World Victory Road is top tier as it had top ten fighters in Hirota, King Mo, Siyar, and Jorge Santiago. And that is just one card I am looking at of theirs. That is the card Moise Rimbon was on. His other Pancrase fight should be Top Tier as well. The guy he fought had 3 fights in the UFC. Plus, Josh Barnett and a multitude of other Pancrase fighters are/were top ten. Josh Barnett] is their Heavyweight Champion. Bodogfight should be top tier because it had lindland,Fedor, and Eddie alvarez, among others. Yeah, Moise is a keep because he has fought in more than a few top tier events.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He had 2 fights with WVR (considered top tier). There's no official UFC fights on his record and claiming Bodogfights and Pancrase are top tier is just making up your own standards instead of going with consensus. Papaursa (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:MMATIER? That is just an essay. The evidence presented,in conjunction with common sense, lead me to believe he is notable enough for Wikipedia. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least it was done by consensus. You, on the other hand, prefer to use your own criteria instead--going so far as to make up your own tier rankings. Papaursa (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in that notability thread one of the people I was arguing with said he would support Pancrase being top tier; Josh Barnett is their champion after all. There are also so few people involved in the mma project that to call anything churned out of there a consensus is laughable. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnett hasn't fought in Pancrase since 2003. If he's still their champion, I don't know how you make a case that it's an active top tier organization. As far as not many participants, that's not surprising when editors keep getting driven off. In the past week or so both Mtking and Jakejr decided they needed a break from the MMA abuse. Papaursa (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article does survive this AfD, it certainly needs some more sources and prose. I'll add it the List of fighters that need full articles when the AfD closes. Luchuslu (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter since he fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts and not notable as a kickboxer since he lost his only bout at a non-notable event and I don't know how you become notable doing that.131.118.229.18 (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In three weeks we don't seem close to a consensus either way, and it seems unlikely that relisting again will change this. Michig (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia[edit]

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

Contested PROD, my reason for the PROD was "Unnecessary content fork, all pertinent info presented here which isn't WP:OR is available in the main article". I have since removed most of the OR. This list serves no useful purpose. So far, Virgin Blue/ Virgin Australia has operated a total of five different types of aircraft, with four different models of the Boeing 737. All of the info regarding the current and former fleet types is in the main article in tabular and prose form; that article is not so large that a content split is justified and that article was not at all reduced following the creation of this list anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What YSSYguy said. LK (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary content fork that duplicates existing information. It also presents it in a less concise manner, so is no improvement. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Virgin Australia any content that isn't already there. The airline's fleet by itself isn't an encyclopedic topic, see WP:IINFO. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apart from the info about the previous operators of the Boeing 737-300 that was used by the airline (which is irrelevant) and the fact that it was painted mostly white when all the other aircraft were painted red (which is of marginal interest and is probably WP:OR), everthing is already mentioned in the main article. I don't think there's anything to merge and, unless someone thinks that "List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia" is a more viable search term than say, "Virgin Australia fleet", I don't think we need to keep this as a redirect either. YSSYguy (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they dont really have much of a fleet that needs information duplicating outside the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list is modelled on List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines, which has recently been made a featured list, and which includes wet leased aircraft. There are several other similar lists/articles, created by various editors, and covering various types of airlines – see Category:Airline fleets and Category:Lists of aircraft by operator. One of those airlines, Imperial Airways, flew for only 15 years; Virgin Australia has now been flying for more than 12 years.

Nearly three years ago, List of aircraft of Imperial Airways was nominated for merger, but that nomination was not successful. The rationales posted at Talk:Imperial Airways#Merge proposal of List of aircraft of Imperial Airways for not merging that list are also justifications for not deleting this list (ie this list in its present form, without the wet leased aircraft, which should all be put back into the list). On the other hand, none of the alleged rationales for deletion mentioned above is consistent with the fact that List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines is a featured list, nor with the fact that similar lists are published on other websites, including commercial websites, and therefore obviously serve some useful purpose for the people who read them, including people who work in the aviation industry. (Some encyclopedia readers are interested in the aircraft, but not in the other details of the airline. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia has many separate pages consisting solely of lists of things.)

In the case of this particular airline, the information in the Virgin Australia article about the airline's fleet (including its wet leased aircraft) is presented as an untidy and difficult to follow mixture of prose, table, list, and random photos of some of the airline's aircraft (including one of its wet leased aircraft). In fact, the entire Virgin Australia article in its present form is a bit of a dog's breakfast, not worthy of its subject matter; it also focuses mainly on the pre-Borghetti airline, and not on the airline as it is today.

In any case, a person wanting only to know about Virgin Blue's / Virgin Australia's fleet would be better served by a separate list of all of the airline's aircraft (ie owned, dry leased or wet leased), illustrated with one photo of each type, if such a photo is available on commons (that's what List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines does). The mere fact that Virgin Australia has not (yet) owned or dry leased many aircraft types is not to the point. On the contrary, that fact is notable in itself, as is the fact that in the course of its relatively short life, the airline has been transformed from a single-aircraft-type Southwest-style airline into something very different. If an airline notable enough to be included in Wikipedia has operated several different aircraft types, each of which is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, then that's reason enough to have an article listing all of the aircraft operated by that airline, particularly if some or all of those aircraft have left the airline's fleet, and/or if the airline's and/or its fleet strategy has radically changed. Also, most articles in Wikipedia about airlines tabulate only the current or recent fleet of the airline, not retired aircraft. That fact makes "all times" lists particularly useful.

The wet leased aircraft in List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines, and some of the other lists referred to above, were operate(d) under the lessee's flight numbers only, and the seats on those flights are/were not marketed by the lessor. The services are/were not code share services. From the passenger's perspective, these services are/were therefore operated by the lessee. If it is the industry's view that such services are nevertheless not really operated by the lessee at all (and I dispute both this view, and the view that this view is the industry's view, because wet leases are drafted by lawyers, who would be well aware that a contractual arrangement under which the owner would retain total control of the relevant asset would be a license, not a lease – see Street v Mountford), then, again, that fact in itself is notable enough to be mentioned in an appropriate list drawing a distinction between owned, dry leased and wet leased aircraft and including them all (which is what List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines does). Bahnfrend (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. Also, be careful of the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - An "other stuff" argument is essentially an argument that an article should be kept because another article exists. My arguments are not really "other stuff" arguments. Rather, my arguments include arguments that (1) this list should be kept because a similar list survived a merger discussion and the same reasons for retention apply to this list, and (2) there are two similar lists that have been made featured lists (List of aircraft operated by Braathens is also a featured list). As WP:OTHERSTUFF indicates, arguments like these are valid arguments. WP:OTHERSTUFF also says that "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." So, eg, if a List of aircraft operated by Qantas or List of aircraft operated by Air New Zealand would survive a deletion debate, it would serve no useful purpose to have a debate about whether List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia should be deleted. Also, if the editors who want this list to be deleted are serious in their claims that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, they should nominate both of the similar featured lists for deletion or merger, and see what reaction they get to those nominations. Bahnfrend (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough - however your last sentence there is very much in the argument to avoid camp. WP:ALLORNOTHING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ATA links to WP:OUTCOMES. According to WP:OUTCOMES#Lists: "Lists are generally kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." All of those points apply here. (As the existing lists indicate, verification of information about what aircraft have been operated by a particular notable airline over the years is generally available in books, online versions of newspapers, and/or on reliable websites behind paywalls.) Bahnfrend (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list satisfies the last criterion "and have a logical reason for their construction", at least your argument that "this is in the same format as the lists for other airlines' fleets" is not a logical reason. The List of SAS aircraft has over 50 entries, the list for short-lived Imperial Airways has more than 30; this one would have 10 if the ATR-72 and F100 were to be included, or eight without them - of which four are different models of the one type. Comparing this list to them is a bit disingenuous IMO, as they represent considerable extra information not contained in the parent article, whereas nothing of this list is not in the parent article, except the info regarding the two F100s and the total numbers of each type operated, which is unencyclopaedic fanboy cruft that the fanboys can find on the (non-RS) ch-aviation et al. If the Virgin Australia article is a dog's breakfast and focussing too much on its history with Brett Godfrey running the show, then edit it; the solution is not to create a new list that does nothing to address your concerns regarding the parent article. YSSYguy (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the eloquent responses from Bahnfrend. Satu Suro 15:20, 1 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is already in the parent article and there's no reason for a separate one. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses

To YSSYguy:

Nobody is suggesting that the other, similar, list articles should be deleted. As indicated above, it is pointless to argue about whether a list relating to a particular airline should be deleted from Wikipedia merely because that list is shorter than equivalent lists relating to other airlines. The important point here is that this list concerns a notable airline that has operated more than 100 aircraft of at least eight distinct types made by at least four manufacturers. The list should therefore be retained.

In that regard, it is misleading to suggest, as is suggested above, that there is no real difference between a 733 and a 73H. The two types have different length fuselages, different seating capacities, different exit configurations, different interiors, different flight decks, very different avionics, different wings, different engines, etc. Most "fanboys" and airlines would already know all of that sort of thing. For example, Virgin Australia removed the E170s from its fleet, but retained the E190s, because the former were different enough from the latter to be uneconomic to operate. But most other people have difficulty telling even the difference between a Boeing and an Airbus, and are therefore likely to be enlightened by an "all time" table showing images, brief details, and links to other articles with further, encyclopedic, information about the various types, in chronological order. The parent article does not include such a table, and there are no such tables in the "fanboy" websites.

Contrary to what is asserted above, this particular list does not include "fanboy cruft". A true example of an article with "fanboy cruft" is this article in French Wikipedia (which lists Air France's aircraft individually, with regos, exact dates of entry to and exit from the fleet, etc). If you're looking for "fanboy cruft", it's in the parent article, eg the stuff about the Boeing customer codes.

To Presidentman:

The reason a separate article is appropriate is obvious. It is quite normal for English Wikipedia to have separate articles about the company that runs a public transport system (eg British Rail, Yarra Trams) and about the infrastructure of that system (eg List of British Rail classes (which is only a short list), Trams in Melbourne), because many readers are interested in only one of those two alternatives. That's all that's being done here, and also in respect of Qantas (see Qantas and Qantas aircraft).

To both YSSYguy and Presidentman:

Much of the information in the parent article should be in the list article instead, eg, the detailed information about Virgin Blue's former policy of giving its aircraft silly names. The inclusion of such information in the parent article is one of the reasons why it is presently such a dog's breakfast; the parent article is supposed to be an article about an airline, not an article about aircraft, but at the moment it doesn't seem to know what it really is. (The British Rail article, by contrast, includes almost no information about British Rail's locomotives, and the Qantas article has information only about the current and future fleet.) Contrary to some of the assertions above, the parent article also omits significant information about the Virgin Australia fleet, eg, the reason why the A330s were acquired (to operate services to and from Perth), and that the 777s are used only on international services. However, I am not going to modify either of the Virgin Australia articles while there's still an ongoing debate about whether one of those articles should be deleted. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should try for a certain amount of consistency. That other very similar articles exist in Wikipedia is not a good argument; most of the time that argument is raised, either the others should also be deleted or the others are for much more important subjects. But when other articles have been consistently accepted by the community at AfD, then I think it takes an argument why this one is different and less notable (or otherwise deficient), or an argument that consensus has changed. Judging by the comments, I don't think it has. We don't follow precedent in any strict sense, nor should we, but we should be informed by it. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 5 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 00:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in two minds about this. I think the airline is here to stay and in the future the number of aircraft used with be sufficient to justify an article as the information will be too much for the main article. That is not the case now. It is the case for the examples that this list is being compared with. So there is an argument to merge this list (i.e. make it a redirect, as there is little information to add to the main artcile), and maybe the redirect will be moved back to a list when the information in the main article gets too large. There is also an argument to say that this list should be left, as it is well written and will expand to contain more information than the main article does. I am also partly influenced by DGG's argument above, so I come down to a weak keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Skychurch[edit]

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

This band is not notable. Electric Skychurch does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND, and the only sources are All Music Guide and their My Space page, A Google search resulted in nothing more than that. Zacaparum (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search resulted in plenty for me: [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The results of your Google search, Mishig, are simply mentions in the All Music Guide (which includes virtually all released records), or some minor press mentions, obviously the result of a standard publicity campaign that occurs when a record is released. This does not mean that the band is notable, within the confines of WP:BAND. It just means they had a publicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacaparum (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. These demonstrate that the band pass both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zacaparum (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not started correctly, I have added it to today's log. I am neutral in this discussion. -- Patchy1 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject of this AfD has received multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable sources; that being said none of those mentions IMHO pass significant coverage as described in WP:GNG. Failing this, the lesser guideline of WP:BAND, which it also does not pass, is not as important.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with non-trivial coverage in such varied sources as Billboard, the Sun-Sentinel, Allmusic (a biography and reviews), CMJ New Music Monthly and a full article about the band in Option. I added some of the sources to the article just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Michig and Paul Erik have demonstrated that this band meets WP:BAND through coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 13:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 02:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska[edit]

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

An academic journal that seems quite unremarkable; the claim for notability is for having published "several key papers in Alaskan anthropology", a claim marked as "citation needed" since the page was created in April. (It has not been edited since.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn — הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 23:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expected to find perhaps two dozen holdings on Worldcat from specialist libraries; to my surprise, there are 245 libraries. Clearly a major publication in its subject, and published for over 60 years now. I know circulation isn't a formal criterion, but it is also indexed in full in the only major indexing service in the field, Anthropological Index Online, and that is the basic formal criterion. All this could have been found before nominating. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...by someone who knows how to identify "major indexing services"; I don't. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 06:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notable pieces will either be references or articles. No need for an article that doesn't include that. Best case is a list of notable articles. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indexing in AIO, meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 11 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 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as it seems that I misunderstood the definition of a major index (I thought it meant one encompassing many fields, as with the examples given in WP:NJOURNALS). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: there is one delete !vote other than mine. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. The last two relists have not resulted in any further input so there seemed little point relisting it again. Michig (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian football transfers summer 2011[edit]

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

Delete as "excessive listing of statistics", WP:IINFO. I have removed all the unreferenced transfers, gutting the article. The transfer is important to the player, for which he should have a note at his article. Nothing more. C 679 18:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am trying to see what is wrong here. Transfer articles are very common on wikipedia (See articles in Category:Association football transfers).--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm glad you removed the unsourced content but these type of lists are notable & have long been viewed as such given the amount of media coverage of the transfer window. These lists are often some of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia at certain times of the year (not specially this one). Not sure why you have single out the Hungary list? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a previous discussion at WT:FOOTY, questioning such lists and I thought that it doesn't give any encyclopaedic information. Sure it's popular during transfer windows, but WP:POPULARPAGE is not a reason to keep it, either. The purpose of a list is threefold, information, navigation and development. I believe this information is severely limited and of niche use only; navigation is already provided by categories such as Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I players and development is not applicable. C 679 19:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see why you targeted the Hungary article, but that is a very old discussion & I think views at WP:FOOTY have changed sustainably. Do you not remember discussing what was the best type of flag policy for these articles which was discussed for a month with many editors included & nobody questioned their notability. PS Popularpage was just a statement not my rationale. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know about this one, as my knowledge about Hungarian football are limited, but in general these lists are notable as they have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and passes WP:LISTN. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in general these lists are notable, but is this the case for this list? Even looking at one of the references, which is in Czech, it just says Marek Heinz returned from Hungary and quotes the player expressing his happiness to return to the club. There is no explicit link with the list in question in this discussion. Also, from the 44 references in the list, only four are not sourced from a primary source (one of the clubs involved). I would be happy to see a reliable source discuss such a subject as "Hungarian football transfers summer 2011" but I have yet to see such a discussion, rather only an assumption it is notable because a similar list such as England or Germany is. Let's go on the merits of this list. C 679 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course primary sources don't normally establish the topic's notability, but it was agreed in this discussion that primary sources where perfectly fine for transfers as news agencies frequently jump the gun, making prematurely announcements. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An important caveat, mentioned in that discussion by Struway2, is that "club sources only" should apply only to current transfers and that we should not consider the situation to be the same in an historical context, i.e. a year after they happened. Anyway to me, it looks like these primary sources deal with the player and not with the transfer window itself, so both of these things considered, that's why I sent the list to AfD. C 679 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 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 00:41, 13 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) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of FC Seoul transfers[edit]

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

Stats overload, blatent violation of many Wikipedia policies including WP:NOT. This nomination also extends to the spin-off lists which I will note below the original nomination, these are six sub-lists grouped by date. C 679 18:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing the sub-lists here for consideration with the main article, for reasons discussed above:

C 679 18:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Transfer lists for individual clubs are not notable & total overkill, this type of content belongs in the clubs season pages. Transfer lists by nation such List of Japanese football transfers winter 2010–11 are ok however. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articles fails WP:NOTSTATS and this information belongs in the individual season-articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never Delete - Individual clubs transfer list is also notable. Not notable is just Cloudz679's opinion. I don' understant why do you delet detailed article? Transfer list By nation or Transfer list By club are both informative. As yo u Know I invest much time to write this article. But you want to delete by just your private opinion. private opionion was just 3-4 lines to write 1-2 minites. I really have spectisism on wikipedia. I crated andm improve this article 3 years. But this article can delete by just 2 person's private opinion to write 2 minites. In this manner Who contribute articles on wikepdia.03:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Footwiks (talk)

I really want to see only transfers page by club category like FC Barcelona, Manchester United. But In order to see transfers.....I have to look into club season page or League transfers page. But this page is not informative and not detailed. transfer lists are not accurate. South korea club transfer lists are not created before 2012 season. Article regarding transfers list by club are informative and important page. Dataes are too much and detailed. league transfer list page don't express detailed facts including transfer fee, trade person. dates. It can express just summary facts.. for example. A players from A team -> B team.

Please keep this article. I really invested much time. I investigated old newspapers and football magazines. If this article keep on wikipedia. Does Wikipedia go bankrupt? Take it easy. Don't happen to on wikepedia.Footwiks (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split - The info in these articles should be split into individual season articles about the club, which should include fixtures and results, statistics, transfers, etc. – Pee Jay 23:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough meaningful content or notability. Giant Snowman 11:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Merge into season articles I disagree it needs deleting it's good information and have you guys seen the club season pages? They don't mention the transfers. It's just in the wrong format. The transfer info needs to be added to the right pages, not seperated. Govvy (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information already exists at the season articles, which include relevant season information as you would expect, also unreferenced, e.g. 2012 FC Seoul season, 2013 FC Seoul season. C 679 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first looked, I thought it wasn't there, change my vote to delete then. Govvy (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before 2004 season, FC Seoul don't have all season page. Actually, I created transfer page first and somebody copied it to season page. Many people want to see transfer status at independant aritcle.Footwiks (talk)

No other club has a separate transfer page. C 679 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your reason. Many people really hope other clubs have sperated and detailed transfer page. Do you know that all football clubS don't have separate season page and records page when the wikepdia began in 2006. At that time, All wikepdia controller were lik you, Maybe We can't read football club separate season page and records pages at the momment.Footwiks (talk)

You don't accept his reason, but I don't accept your reason. There is no reason for there to be separate articles for each club's transfer history. Create season articles or delete this content. – Pee Jay 16:20, 14 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 00:41, 13 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) 01:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six delete votes (including me as nom), one against (author) and one author requesting split, which has already been done prior to this listing. Unsure how much more clear this discussion can be? C 679 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with C679 here. I'm not sure what the exact figure is for consensus but there doesn't seem to be any substantial objection to this deletion. The author is begging to keep a content fork that is covered elsewhere here. Funny ^Pika! 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see why this relisted either, because I strongly disagree with the creator's arguments, and no one else has argued keep. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kryshen Valerii[edit]

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

Prodded for lack of notability, deprodded by anon/creator. Aside from being a total mess, I am struggling to find any evidence of notability. If on some weird chance this is not delete, please wikify this as a draft, my eyes bleed after trying to read it... PS. Considering the creator's username (Kryshenvalery (talk · contribs)) this also seems like an WP:AUTOBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable surgeon, needs better sources and a truckload of copy editing. Howicus (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO PianoDan (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, I think he is notable. This is a crude translation of the article on him in the Ukrainian WP. [106]; even the Google translation of that article gives a more readable version. he's a professor in one of the major Ukrainian medical schools, and apparently has been elected to their national academy of sciences, and is included in their national encyclopedia. I admit, tho, I cannot verify it. And although normally I accept the judgment of the other language WPs for subjects in their own national area, biographies can be an exception, since the other WPs are as liable to spamming as we are. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to rewrite the article from gibberish into something readable then? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to establish notability for the English Wikipedia, you need reliable secondary sources in English. PianoDan (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. English is not a requirement. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total mess, and, as far as I can discern the meaning of the next, not actually notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs substantial work, but findings above plus this Pubmed search indicate notability (my impression is that these 28 publications are attributable to this surgeon). -- Scray (talk) 01:05, 7 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 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG Longevitydude (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In between Starblind's "total mess" and Scray's "needs substantial work" I actually edited the article so that it was more like coherent English. The article owner, who is clearly the subject (both by account name and where the IP address geolocates to), immediately put many of the spelling, punctuation, and grammatical mistakes back in. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest reverting him. For now I tagged the article with a bunch of applicable tags (if this AFD is keep, notability one can probably go). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really have the incentive to clean up after Valerii Pavlovich a second time. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the national academy membership and WP:PROF#C3. I did a little cleanup but a lot more is needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article has already been redirected, which seems uncontroversial given the existence of the other article on the same subject. The other article on this subject is not AfD tagged and was not originally part of this discussion. Should deletion of the Josh Vietti article be sought, a new AfD should be started. Michig (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Vietti (Violinist)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :(((News sources added|Josh Vietti (Violinist)))) Best FiddlerBest Fiddler (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has been redirected to the existing article at Josh Vietti. I'm looking now to see if that article needs to be nominated as well (likely separately) - the artist does not become notable simply because there was an existing article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:32, 10 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 00:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Josh Vietti – Pop violinist who performed nationally on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, with some decent local coverage cited in the article such as CBS L.A., plus I was able to find some coverage internationally such as this from Italy. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. (non-admin closure) I'm closing this AfD since the page has since been deleted by User:Jimfbleak, possibly speedied. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Atheist[edit]

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

I can't find any sources verifying the existence of this religion. Bottom of article says "New uncharted religion, no founder! No known followers? Appeals to those new order religions and religious mappers Found info on floor." Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean[edit]

Hi sorry, as its not a traditional religion it is hard to chart, but seems common where I live in ealing. Will try engage some followers soon, seems like something I may even be interested in. D.hyatt 00:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, made-up, possible hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, possibly hoax, definitely promotional. Written in format that is unencyclopedic. GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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