< 10 July	12 July >

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

The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx (children's game)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2008. Only source is someone's webcomic. Completely unable to find any sources that aren't regurgitation of this article. I know this exists, but can't find sources of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found three sources in various psych journals/books, as well as a book source in general. This is pretty frustrating since this is one of those things that is widely commented on in various books (over 80% of the hits in GBooks are for fictional and biographical books) but not entirely referenced in many things we coudl really use as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's findings. I added a couple external links, as well, though I'm also finding that most mentions (in GBooks, especially) are in fictional books and otherwise non-"reliable" sources. Still, there appears to be enough written about the game, in my view, to support an article. Heck, if it's good enough for Stink-O-Pedia, it's good enough for me. ;) Gong show 04:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional links/references. Jinx is a very common children's game, in the US at least. --Jeremy Butler 18:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Fowler[edit]

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

The subject of the page is clearly not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Furthermore, most of the links in the references are dead. jm6852 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that a parliamentary candidate does not warrant a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser93 (talk • contribs)

Delete There are 650 parliamentary seats in the United Kingdom - probably with an average of 5 candidates per seat. Excluding notables entries (e.g. sitting MPs, former MPs) that would mean a huge number of entries. Seems patently obvious that being a prospective parliamentary candidate and a borough councillor alone does not make a person notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jm6852 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a local councillor and selected as a prospective parliamentary candidate are not sufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN. When she wins a parliamentary seat or makes a name for herself in some other way then an article will be justified. --AJHingston (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is partially information that would be relevant to include in her article should she, in future, become notable enough for her own article. As it is, she's given an extensive biography right down to very minor roles in student politics she ran for and with details of her campaigning activities so specific that they must be sourced from her local Labour Party offices. Much like Emily Benn, the only thing to date that separates her from thousands of councillors and thousands of prospective parliamentary candidates in the UK who do not have Wiki articles is that her parents are politically notable - and in Fowler's case we are talking 'notable' at a much lower level than wikipedia recognises. Being *selected* as a PPC means nothing in terms of mass visibility - they can often be selected by committees in the low single figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweedelemental (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and the above, though note that the usual caveats apply. If she gets elected, an article would certainly be appropriate - and, in that case, I would support a WP:REFUND so that the history here could be of use. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would support a redirect to the election page e.g. United Kingdom general election, 2015, but that page has not yet been created (it redirects to Next United Kingdom general election). Enos733 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, AJHingston, and UltraExactZZ. Not much more to add except a fine coating of snow. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Demarce (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA because he has no top tier fights and WP:GNG because his coverage is routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No top-tier fights and little non-routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks both top tier fights and significant coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Steele[edit]

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

Subject fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG since he has no top tier fights and only routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No top-tier fights and not enough non-routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Luchuslu (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks top tier fights and significant coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ronson[edit]

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

MMA fighter who hasn't even fought for a second tier promotion and has only routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some non-routine coverage, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria. Being the champion of an MMA organization that isn't even considered second tier doesn not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gate to the Northwest Passage[edit]

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

Insufficient independent reliable source coverage to warrant a separate article. The only mentions are in books and are brief and mostly in passing with the bulk of them being passing mentions in various editions of travel guides and walking tours. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Note: I created the article.) This subject passes the notability threshold (a nice little article can be created from the sources already used plus the following):

http://www.racns.co.uk/sculptures.asp?action=getsurvey&id=393
~~http://vancouverbiennale.com/pdf/Bikennale_Art_Tour.pdf~~ (number 15)
~~http://www.conexaocultural.org/2012/03/arte-nas-ruas-de-vancouver-capitulo-1/~~ (French)
~~http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=1cc44823-ad58-4a88-b12d-16f03ae6ef3e&sponsor=~~
~~http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=565c48e2-a560-4a8f-b9dd-6bb223ce60cb&sponsor=~~
~~http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/chronology1969.htm~~
- Update: Stike out sources that now appear on the article page, either as an inline citation or an external link. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Vancouver Public Art Registry source alone provides specific information about the sculpture (including dimensions, measurements, artist statements, reception, etc.) Even better if we can find original sources for the quote by the curator of the Maritime Museum and the Globe and Mail article.--Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems that the bulk of the above references amount to passing references and original research. For instance, in the two Canada.com links the only mentions are respectively, "Simms, clad in a thong and socks, was found hanging from the Gate to the Northwest Passage sculpture in Vanier Park." and "That investigation began when shady stock promoter Caldwell Simms was found dead, hanging from the Gate to the Northwest Passage sculpture in Vanier Park. He was clad only in a thong and socks." In case someone might think they should then search for a murder involving the artwork, those two mentions (and the entire links for them) were a sunday serial thriller - hardly a reliable independent source to establish notability. The racns.co.uk source is a non-reliable source database listing. The Vancouverbiennale listing is just an art guide where the artwork is given small reference, along with dozens of others. Nothing to suggest notability. The Conexaocultural is a similar listing of numerous artworks, with nothing to suggest specific notability. Overall there is nothing to suggest this artwork is anything notable, and at best could be included in a broader article about artwork in Vancouver. I notice there are several other similarly non-notable artworks currently with their own articles such as: Aerodynamic_Forms_in_Space, Digital_Orca, Girl_in_a_Wetsuit, LightShed, The_Birds_(sculpture), The_Drop_(sculpture). Perhaps the best solution would be to merge all of those into a single article such as Public_art_in_Vancouver? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Each of the works deserve their own articles. Though I think there is enough material for a Gate to the Northwest Passage article, this is the article in the bunch with the least amount of information available. The others are certainly notable! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vanier Park. I don't see the significant coverage about the sculpture that would establish notability. However, it is mentioned a lot in guidebooks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that could work - merging it to the park. The sculpture certainly does not seem to have enough independent reliable source coverage to establish notability for its own article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because large public art installations are often deemed notable on Wikipedia, and I believe that the references to the City of Vancouver's Public Art Registry meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. PK T(alk) 23:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Public Art Registry is a reliable source. I am not sure why "original research" tags keep being added to the article. I have removed them once and plan to remove them again. Please help to improve the article by discussing changes on the talk page. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As to a redirect and merge to Vanier Park, the park article may end up a coatrack of this article. This article is close to 10k and the park article is only 3.6k. Notability is a definite with all the details in the reception section. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is long enough to stand on its own and should not be merged to the park article. The park article just needs to be expanded further. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anymore crap like "spraypainted dots" and unrelated comments about other works by the artist get re-added, this article is sure to be deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse people; whether or not trivia is added to the article is largely inconsequential to whether or not it is deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its inclusion in Public Art in Vancouver: Angels Among Lions and the CoV's public art registry satisfy the GNG in my mind. No need for redirecting or merging - there's content here for a stand-alone. The Interior (Talk) 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel its meets the GNG between what's already in the article, and what it likely to be found on such a large, major public piece of art, whether Google searches reflect that or not. Seems to be enough content to avoid a Merge or Redirect either... Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Sinphony[edit]

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

Associated Pages - Revent (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infamous sinphony (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) redirect from alternate capitalization, redundant (delete) Infamous Sinphony - DEMO - 1987 (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Infamous Sinphony - DEMO - 1988 (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Wild Rags (album) (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Manipulation (Album) (edit \| subject \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) articles for albums by the band, obviously not notable if the band is non-notable (delete or userfy) Infamous Sinphony - DEMO (1987) (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Infamous Sinphony - DEMO (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) redirects from shuffling of article locations in mainspace (delete) Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Infamous Sinphony - Manipulation (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) redirect from misplaced AfC creation (delete) File:Manipulation .jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) album cover (non-free, fair use claim) (delete)

Associated Pages - Revent (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect from alternate capitalization, redundant (delete)

articles for albums by the band, obviously not notable if the band is non-notable (delete or userfy)

redirects from shuffling of article locations in mainspace (delete)

redirect from misplaced AfC creation (delete)

album cover (non-free, fair use claim) (delete)

I'm unable to find any reliable sources on this band, other than their own website. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author of this article came to IRC asking for help with image uploading, and has been 'in-and-out' trying to work on album pages (which I discouraged him from in preference to a discography in the article). I agree, there do not really seem to be 'findable' online references, however, the band's main period of activity was pre-web and they are 'listed' in various databases. My inclination was 'give it time' based, generally, on my 'vague' recollection that they were for a time marginally notable, but I have no real objection to a deletion if the consensus is for that. I suspect that an offline search of music magazines from the time period would find some sources, but I can't 'attest' to that, and I definitely can't 'claim' that the sources would be enough to establish notability. Basically, I'm just chipping in because I did have some involvement. I think this would be a good candidate for the WP:ARS people to take a look at during the discussion period, to see if more sources can be found by someone with access to tools such as HighBeam.

Essentially, this is a please don't speedy close before someone searches beyond Google !vote. Revent (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a listing on allmusic. I was unable to verify the existence of the label it was released under. All the listings in the various databases I can find seem to be crowdsourced, and generally extremely brief. I am unable to see if any of their work ever charted. In the article there isn't really any information around the first full album. The second album was released on cassette only, the third album had 1000 copies pressed. I don't think any notability is there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I can appreciate the difficulty in finding sources. It's pretty common- actually no, it's usually the norm that non-mainstream bands that predate the internet will have a lot of trouble when it comes to sourcing. It's almost always the case that the sources (if they exist) will almost always have never been uploaded to the internet. However, we can't keep an article based on the hope that off-internet sources exist. If someone can show proof that RS exist I'll change my argument, but right now this just doesn't have notability. Being listed in various databases does give off the hope that sources exist, but it's not always a guarantee. Sometimes people are in databases because a hardcore group of fans are meticulous about ensuring that they're added. But I see no reason as to why this can't be userfied until/if the point comes that sources are found. This does need some very slight editing to make this a little more neutrally written, as the tone in the article is a tad bit too casual in places. Phrases such as "However, the Infamous combination of talent, personalities, drive and dedication would see the San Diego based Infamous Sinphony enjoy a level of success that very few reached." come across a little more like a fan's perspective than a neutral entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe language of the article, never mind the citations, concerned me a great deal when I first read it and after a quick Google search, I found out why. The "Introduction" section is a complete copy and paste from ReverbNation's Infamous Sinphony biography. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 04:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding this, I've deleted the introduction. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After having done some looking around I can't find anything that would suggest that this band is notable per any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Even with bands from the 80s (ie before the web), if they were notable or historically significant one can usually find some quality references that have come since the web took off. Not the case here. I see nothing wrong, however, with the creator or other interested party userfying it while doing an archeological dig for more info. -Wine Guy~Talk 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close Beerest355 Talk 15:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wolff[edit]

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

I failed to find significant reliable sources after a Google search. Plenty of first-party ones, but nothing independent of the subject proves he is notable. Beerest355 Talk 21:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Stunningly high cites on Google scholar. Please will nominator explain why he ignored these? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please give some examples of the third-party sources you're talking about. Beerest355 Talk 03:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link above and read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of self-published work, but little to establish notability. Beerest355 Talk 04:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had understood WP:Prof#C1, where the matter is spelled out clearly, you would not need to make that comment. See also Citation index. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Beerest, when you click the little scholar link, you see the little numbers like "Cited by 1013" below each entry? If you then click on those you will get to thousands of sources, usually by other people, that cite Wolff's work. The problem with academics like this is not too few sources, but too many (and finding the good ones among many trivial mentions). That's why we have criteria like WP:PROF#C1, to shortcut discussions like this one where there are so many sources that we can make a presumption of notability without having to go through those thousands of citations one by one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 I'm seeing a lot of nontrivial coverage of his research in Google news search e.g. The New York Times (2001), The New York Times (2005), Newsweek (paywalled). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, not a deletion issue. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkville, Mississippi[edit]

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

Kirkville (disambiguation) renders this article very redundant. Beerest355 Talk 21:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Instead of deleting this it should be mergered with the Kirkville disambiguation page. Merging is the better solution. Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think there's anything to merge. Beerest355 Talk 21:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could withdraw the nomination and asked for a special deletion or redirect this. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the majority housekeeping non-admin closure: 23:13, 11 July 2013 Kww (talk | contribs) deleted page Ratchet (song) (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) Redirect Artpop (song) and Princess Die. czar · · 04:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet (song)[edit]

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

Plmnji (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up and adding to a nomination started by User:Plmnji. All of these songs and the content therein is purely speculative with no reliable sources and certaintly don't meet any notability requirements. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep all they can be improved on as time passes.—User:ChrisWiltroutRhapsody —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Jinx, Princess Die, Artpop, The Applause, Ratchet, Tea have leaked music.mdash;User:ChrisWiltroutRhapsody —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

ChrisWiltroutRhapsody blocked as a sockpuppet of LadyGaGaDDDisco (if there's any doubt, compare to ChrisWiltroutWritter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Most of the articles have been deleted using G5 as a rationale. Princess Die survived RFD, so I have restored it to a redirect. Artpop (song) has been too heavily edited for me to apply a G5 to.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question So basically this is only about Artpop (song) now? Maybe someone should close this and start a separate one for it, since the bundle is mostly gone. Ansh666 20:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why, actually. The arguments about poor sourcing and speculation apply to Artpop as well as it does to the rest of them.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, though I can't see the others to judge. But the answer to my actual question is "yes"? By the way, I'd say redirect Artpop (song) to Artpop (the album) as a somewhat plausible search term (WP:CHEAP, anyways). Ansh666 20:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Artpop (song) to Artpop. Far too premature. If the article keeps popping up, perhaps protection may be needed. As for Princess Die, keep as the redirect; not notable alone, but seems to warrant inclusion in the controversy section of Born This Way Ball. Adabow (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Clarence Pillsbury[edit]

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

This is a bit of a difficult case. This is nearly completely uncited, and searching seems to show that the only actual source is, in the end, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, for whom the article serves as something of a coatrack. The only source that gives any evidence of independence is the exhibit leaflet, and the evidence is reasonably good that its source is Pillsbury-Foster. Pillsbury himself seems to be a real person, but I don't see good evidence that he took the photographs that are attributed to him, and that's the basis for the claim to his notability. The text of the article was added into two places in 2005 through an IP that is now blocked as a proxy, with one addition from User:JohnClarknew much later which I think is innocent but perhaps bespeaks a friendship with Pillsbury-Foster; at any rate I don't think he intended any malice. In the end I think we need to back away from this until more plainly reliable sources are forthcoming, because at the moment there's sufficient reason to suspect that we are being used to push a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is absolutely no doubt that Arthur Pillsbury took the photos in question, and is notable. Pillsbury was an important figure in the early history of photography in California and especially Yosemite National Park. His work was featured in a traveling exhibition at four major art museums as documented in Yosemite: Art of an American Icon] published by the University of California Press. Pillsbury is also described in 1921 in Yosemite and Its High Sierra, a classic book that features many of his photographs. I own copies of these two books. The classic 1921 book of essays edited by Ansel Hall called Handbook of Yosemite National Park: A Compendium of Articles on the Yosemite Region features a chapter by Pillsbury on photography in Yosemite. He is mentioned five times in Yosemite National Park in Vintage Postcards. THe current article is in bad condition, but the solution is editing it rather than deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His photos of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake are included in American Treasures of the Library of Congress. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find sources which testify to the notability of the subject, e.g. "Arthur Clarence Pillsbury(1870-1946) was a U.S. photographer of great significance". AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational and encyclopedic and historical. — Cirt (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DVD-Audio Explorer[edit]

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

I found nothing to show that this software is notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. There is no sourcing in the article. The external link leads to a web forum which is not useful as a source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS references. Search reveals no RS, just download and user-editable sites. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tynwald Hill International Football Tournament[edit]

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

Contested prod with no reason given. Non-notable football tournament for non-FIFA teams. Fails GNG no real indication of notability seems to be a random locally organised tournament not even one organised by one of the bodies attempting to regulate non-FIFA football. Fenix down (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable tournament for non-notable teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safir T-17[edit]

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

I could be convinced this gun might be notable in Turkey, but I don't read Turkish and I'm not familiar with the gun press in that country to know where to look for references on this. English sources to attest its WP:Notability can't be easily found. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...Not notable at this time. This page has had multiple issues since May 2011. The Safir Arms web site [1] refers to this firearm as a prototype. If it ever goes into production, the page can be recreated. --RAF910 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while not being in production does not indicate notability (it's the other way around - being in production/active service indicates notability), there is no indication that this prototype meets WP:GNG. Ansh666 20:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a hoax. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That! (film)[edit]

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

Delete: Page for a film that does not exist. Freshh (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to consist largely of spam. There does not appear to be an actual film with this title. The section devoted to "Plot" is pure gibberish. A comment on the article's Talk page rightly points out that the intro to the article seems to have been copied from the intro to the article for Clifford's Really Big Movie. Sadly, try as I might, I can't "assume good faith" for the creation of this particular article. Ande B. (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tagging this for speedy deletion as a hoax as it was simply created yesterday. Beerest355 Talk 21:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruthal 6[edit]

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

I came across this article while doing some category maintenance. I cleaned up some promotional and POV material, but I couldn't see where its notability is asserted. They've shared the stage with some notable bands and have performed internationally, but their records seem to have been released in minor labels only. There is no information on charts or sales, only hits on YouTube. Not to mention the total lack of sources. It was PRODded by another editor in 2012, but the tag was removed. I'm not sure if I was allowed to PROD it again, so I took it to AfD. None of the five non-English versions of the article in other Wikipedias are sourced, and most of them are very short, so they don't help too much either. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Koala15 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An article can indeed only be PRODed once, and that PROD can be removed for almost any reason. This article appears to be have been very poorly translated from another language into English. I have no opinion about whether or not it should be deleted now. Guy1890 (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nominator and Koala15. There was no significant coverage or independent sources I could find on this band. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. While I don't agree that this is a useful DAB page, it appears it meets guidelines, so whatever. Beerest355 Talk 15:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wolff (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Useless disambiguation page. "Phantom Creeps" article contains nothing about the stuntman, and the Edward Wolfe can simply be listed as a distinguish at Ed Wolff. Beerest355 Talk 18:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Phantom Creeps does meet MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL about the stuntman, and there are 3 valid entries (one just added) plus valid see also. A proposed merge to Edward Wolfe I could have understood (although this (now) clearly meets the guidelines on its own) but deletion wouldn't help user or editor. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated Ed Wolff, the main topic, for deletion, as after a careful review I was unable to find any sources. Beerest355 Talk 21:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to make this slightly more complicated, I've nominated this page to be moved to Edward Wolff (disambiguation). The economist isn't mentioned as 'Ed' in his article, and Edward is thus the more prevalent usage on the dab. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, entries are as per MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dust if you must[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this poem. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. We have two issues here: one is that there is nothing reliable out there that confirms that Rose Mulligan is the author. Of the sites and places this poem is listed, many list the poem as being written by an anonymous author. Of the ones that do list Mulligan, quite a few attribute the factoid to Wikipedia. If by some chance this is kept, the poem should be listed as being an anonymous one rather than by Mulligan, as we have zero proof as to her authorship. Now that aside, there is also the issue with reliable sources. The article and the argument on the talk page tries to argue that this poem has been listed on several pages, but the issue is that being put on various pages doesn't always guarantee notability as far as Wikipedia is considered. A good many of these sites are your run of the mill blogs that wouldn't count towards notability and the rest aren't really the sort that we'd consider to be a RS. If anything, they'd be considered to be a primary source more than anything else. Now part of the issue I've come across with sources is that I can see where this has been printed, but being reprinted isn't always a guarantee of notability. I could find where it was posted in a few papers such as the Victorian Advocate and in a few books, but I can't find any actual analysis of this poem in reliable sources. I'm going to say that this should be deleted because there aren't that many reprintings of this or in any way that would really show that the poem is anything than a cute thing someone found online. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established, and Wikipedia is not just a scrapbook of links to cute poems someone found somewhere. Edison (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Porter[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion under WP:GNG. Individual is not a significant or important figure in any of the fields cited. Article lacks reliable, independent sources. The bulk of the cited references are from the individual's own website or from press releases issued by the individual's company. Throwie1999 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 28 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work. But the Macleans source, the Citybeat article, and other sources show that has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources for various aspects of her career. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Emrich[edit]

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

I cannot verify the appearances that would give notability in the WSJ, NPR or other sources DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:04, 27 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. I couldn't find any significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. --Edcolins (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I likewise couldn't find any significant evidence of this persons notability. What I did find are an unusual edit history for the page creator Ucla1979 (talk · contribs), and Google searches for both Emrich and his company that look like someone's been doing some search engine optimization. My apologies to Ucla1979 if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be for all intents and purposes a WP:Vanity page which someone was paid to create. -Wine Guy~Talk 22:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo (band). Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Placebo album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

article doesn't establish a reason for the article to exist; not covered by several notable publications nor is its importance established. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No 3rd party sources (no sources at all) that establish notability. Delete as failing WP:NALBUM. Tassedethe (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See here for Mark Deming's review at Allmusic. More on the related concert and other attendees here. Enough to keep the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The second link doesn't mention this album so provides no evidence of notability. To regard the first link as a "review" stretches the definition of the word. It provides no commentary on the album, no opinion or rating. It is merely a statement quoted here in full: "Glam-influenced alt-rock/Brit-pop sensations Placebo made a special appearance at the 2009 iTunes Festival, where they performed a riotously received set for 2,000 fans at the legendary London venue The Roundhouse. iTunes Festival: Live in London '09 presents 19 songs from the band's performance, including many of their best-known songs as well as several selections from their 2009 album Battle for the Sun". At best that is a one sentence statement that this album exists. Tassedethe (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Placebo (band). No notability. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Placebo (band). Article makes no claim to notability per WP:NALBUM, probably because no such claim could be supported from what little I can find about this album. -Wine Guy~Talk 22:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lai Yiu-fai[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, lacks and lacks a sourced assertion of notability Werieth (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: article now has multiple reliable sources. Notability clearly established. -Zanhe (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanhe. --Cold Season (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Nichol[edit]

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

No evidence of out-of-universe notability. Beerest355 Talk 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 22:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 22:53, 26 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:43, 3 July 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, L Faraone 02:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for second week (appears to have had double relist last time)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. There is no consensus to delete. If a merge or redirect may be in order, discuss it on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Michael[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:BLP1E. Domino Go! doesn't seem to have put out anything, and Karl Michael seems to have done nothing else not tied to The Voice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually Domino Go! (duo of Karl Michael and Timz) did record a full album with Atlantic Records and only later were told by Atlantic that the contract had been terminated. The status of the materials already recorded is unclear as Atlantic did not want to release or promote it. But they were clearly active all this while. Michael also worked for years in the band The Wayne Foundation that was signed to Sony BMG. Clearly this candidate goes far beyond The Voice with his contract with Sony BMG 2005 to 2007, and Atlantic Records from 2009 to 2012, all these long before The Voice. werldwayd (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice UK (series 2). AS far as I can tell, he has had a music career that showed enough promise to get picked up by record labels but hasn't actually managed to do enough to attract notice beyond the appearance on season 2 of The Voice. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 2 July 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, L Faraone 02:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it will be possible to add more to it, and if we don't, we can either merge it with the 'The Voice' article or delete it. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base on "I think". We base on what is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice UK (series 2). His notability (what there is of it) is through his The Voice appearances. All the information about his solo performances are at that article. As far as I can see he wasn't independently notable and I'm not sure any of his groups/dous were either. Sionk (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 page is not redundant to List of minor planets: 78001–79000 because it is a part of that page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets/78501–78600[edit]

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

Redundant to List of minor planets: 78001–79000. There are a lot of similar lists and it's hard to nominate all of them for deletion... Professorjohnas (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not redundant. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets/78401–78500 to understand why. Urhixidur (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Needed for transclusion, as noted, therefore not redundant. -- 202.124.73.10 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 page is not redundant to List of minor planets: 78001–79000 because it is a part of that page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets/78401–78500[edit]

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

Redundant to List of minor planets: 78001–79000 Professorjohnas (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not redundant. If you look at the contents of List of minor planets: 78001–79000, you'll see it transcludes List of minor planets/78401–78500:

((:List of asteroids/78401–78500))

In fact it transcludes a sub-page for each block of 100 minor planets. This scheme was put in place years ago so that simple edits of a minor planet or two would not force the archiving of a set of a thousand minor planets. Urhixidur (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Needed for transclusion, as noted, therefore not redundant. -- 202.124.73.10 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Thorne[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. Little known actress and lesser known consultant and writer. No signs of any significant independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spammily written, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Lots of references but none that meets WP:RS. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage to demonstrate the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Gong show 04:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Lollius (father of Marcus Lollius consul 21 BC)[edit]

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

This individual is not notable; the only certain information known about him is that he was the father of a minor figure in Roman history. The only source for his existence is an inscription giving his son's name as "Marcus Lollius M. f.", i.e. "son of Marcus." The article doesn't suggest any other reason for notability; the only other information offered is speculation that his wife might have been named "Paulina", but this doesn't even reach the level of "probable." It's based entirely on the fact that his son's surname was probably "Paulinus," although in fact no known source calls him that; the surname itself is merely inferred from the fact that there was a grandson with the surname "Paulinus" who had a daughter named "Paulina." In other words, it's a long chain of inferences to the possibility that the subject's son was named "Paulinus," and there's no evidence that he was so named because his mother was "Paulina." There's also no basis for claiming that Lollius was a "nobleman."

I add that the author has incorrectly cited to "Ancient Library" as his source, when in fact the source is the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, of which a copy is hosted at said website; that source contains no information about the subject of this article, being concerned entirely with his son; and it states that the son's surname is uncertain and unattested in any source. The only other citation in this article is a book on Roman inscriptions that can be seen on a walking tour; presumably the bridge with "Marcus Lollius M. f." on it can be seen on a walking tour. P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons so meticulously presented above. Wisps and phantoms sometimes merit articles, if sources and notability justify it. Not so with this one (whoever he might have been, or not). Haploidavey (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After unsuccessfully removing the AfD notice from the article (despite the warning, "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed"), Anriz posted this on my talk page. It seemed more appropriate here, since it's the author's response to the nomination:

Hello P Aculeius again,

Could you please explain why would you want to nominate this article to be deleted?

Instead of you being negative towards this article being put on Wikipedia, you should be happy I am writing an article about ancient Roman History. I can't see why you would want to nominate this article from being deleted. For me to put this article together, I had just had enough reliable information to put together to do this article. Everything in this article is cited from reliable sources. I had even provided in the article Latin inscriptional evidence about him from Rome. I have not broken any Wikipedia policies and procedures on this article.

There is no article available on the internet nor on Wikipedia, about Marcus Lollius the father Marcus Lollius, the consul in 21 BC. Although this man was a minor nobleman in the Roman Republic, he was the father of a prominent politician and general during the late Republic into the reign of Augustus, the paternal grandfather of a Roman solder, a Roman consul during the reign of Augustus, the paternal great-grand father of the Roman Empress Lollia Paulina and her sister Lollia Saturnina, and was an ancestor of the powerful politician Marcus Lollius Paulinus Decimus Valerius Asiaticus Saturninus of the Flavian dynasty and the early Nerva-Antoninian era and Saturninus' son.

Please at least consider in changing your mind about deleting this article.

Thanking you,

Anriz.

The reason for the nomination is stated above, but simply put: the only known reference to to this man is the initial "M" following his son's name in a single inscription. In effect, the inscription says something along the lines of, "Marcus Lollius, the son of Marcus... built this bridge." Now, the son was clearly notable, in that he held the consulship and had some connections with and responsibilities in the highest echelons of Roman society of Augustan Rome. There were one or two notable grandsons and a notable great-granddaughter. But the fact remains that all that can be said about the subject of this article is, "his name was Marcus."

It's true that having notable descendants gives the man a sort of factual importance on the unwritten pages of history. But it's no greater than that of his father or his mother; why not have an article entitled, "Unknown grandfather of Marcus Lollius (consul of 21 BC)"? It would contain just as much information as this one, with the exception of his praenomen. We can infer that he was a member of the gens Lollia and that he was a noble Roman (if we accept the logic that anyone whose grandson obtained the consulship must have been noble); that he might have been descended from earlier Lollii mentioned on the article about that family; that all of the later Lollii mentioned here are his descendants; that because "Marcus" was the most frequent praenomen (and the only one known in the first two generations), his praenomen was probably Marcus too; that he might have been surnamed "Paulinus" because some of his descendants were... and it goes on and on.

All six of the citations in the article point to the same source for the subject: an inscription that mentions the subject only as the initial "M." Everything else in the article is borrowed or inferred from his descendants; the source materials don't say he was a nobleman, and they don't speculate as to his wife's name; that's entirely your speculation. Being related to notable people does not confer notability; that's explained in Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. This subject has no other reason for being an article, since nothing else is known about him. Since our entire body of knowledge about this man is that "his name was Marcus," he doesn't need to be the subject of a separate article on Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, with apologies to Anriz. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the information available, this guy is really no more than a patronymic. Not notable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actaeon mauled by his hounds[edit]

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

It was first noticed at the Village pump on the French-language Wikipedia that Nyflod (talk · contribs) creates images and articles about curiously unknown works by well-known painters: on the English Wikipedia so far

Actaeon mauled by his hounds,
Saint Barbara Tondo (Parmigianino),
Head of a Woman with Turban (Guido Reni),
Saint Sebastian (Lorenzo Lippi).

Then the Village pump found that Actaeon mauled by his hounds (File:ATTEONE SBRANATO DAI CANI 001.jpg) is the same scene as The Death of Actaeon (File:Actaeon.jpg) and, according to many details, can be identified as the painting auctioned in Budapest in 2009 for a starting price of 196€ ($261) with the title "Diana, hunting" (in Hungarian: Diana a vadászaton) and attributed to "unknown author, 19th century" (Ismeretlen XIX. századi).

WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not seem to be satisfied, since the sources given are general sources about the painter, some of them very ancient, and it remains to be shown that any of them mentions "Diana, hunting" aka "Actaeon mauled by his hounds" and not only "The Death of Actaeon". A possible indication of the wrong use of sources is the fact that, according to the article The Death of Actaeon, the letter sent by Titian to Philip II of Spain in June 1559 says that one of the two paintings he had started deals with this theme, but then the article Actaeon mauled by his hounds also mentions this letter as if he had started two pictures with the same theme (or as if "The Death of Actaeon" in the National Gallery was not one of them and maybe not even by Titian?), apparently in order to support the attribution to Titian. The article in fact looks like a synthesis WP:SYN to prove "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", that is, the attribution to Titian.

The corresponding deletion procedure has also been started on Commons and on the Italian-language Wikipedia. Oliv0 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Death of Actaeon. While I think that WP:BKCRIT#5 can also be applied here (= any work of Titian is notable because it's Titian), I don't see a reason not to put all the information together for what seems to be two copies of the same painting. (Someone more knowledgeable than I am can correct me if I'm wrongly assessing the situation vis-à-vis the relationship of the two paintings.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The auction house says "Actaeon mauled by his hounds" is not a work of Titian, the article says it is but does not link this assertion to any exact reference that could be checked. Oliv0 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However it does seem like the information in the article (when Titian decided to paint the subject, etc.) is about the actual Titian painting - am I reading it right? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and the actual Titian painting is "The Death of Actaeon" if the Hungarian auction house is right. This would not leave much text about "Actaeon mauled by his hounds" in the article, though the part still to be translated from Italian compares both paintings and tries to suggest that they are both by Titian (maybe even that the National Gallery one is not by Titian? difficilmente credibile come l'ultimo lavoro "hardly believable as the last work"). Oliv0 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about the sketchiness of the auction house as a source. However, what I am arguing is that, as far as I can tell, most or all of the other sources in the article are about the actual Titian painting, and that's the sort of information that should be in the right article, rather than being deleted. Am I being more clear now? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving information to The Death of Actaeon and correcting Actaeon mauled by his hounds to say it is a copy would make this discussion more clear, but it is not an easy task:
some information (theme, series, still in his studio (unfinished?) at painter's death) seems to come from the first external link in The Death of Actaeon, the National Gallery catalogue (including the video and the link "Titian’s ‘poesie’ paintings"), but this is just expanding The Death of Actaeon using a source it already gives, and directly using the source would make the information better,
Done in The Death of Actaeon, please improve my writing style if necessary. Oliv0 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the description as "raw" and "first draft" is not to be moved,

the rest is only the history (places, purchases) after the painter's death and is not linked to a source, so this would be unverified information in The Death of Actaeon, and moving all references there would result in most if not all of them being irrelevant,

in a controversial context, it is not recommended to use indeed "sketchy" information in order to say Actaeon mauled by his hounds is a 19th century copy (the auction house looks rather big and serious among those in Budapest but it is not one of the biggest in the world with the best experts), though leaving the attribution to Titian through WP:SYN from unspecified sources is not better. Oliv0 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete We are clearly looking at two different paintings here, and I don't see good sourcing for the provenance of the second or even an indication in any of the supposed sources that there are two paintings (no page numbers, sources universally in Italian— a Titian work would be catalogued in English as well if it existed). A Hungarian auction house is not a good enough source for the existence of two versions of the same work, and given the level of fraud in the art world, we must under the circumstances presume this to be a fraud. Mangoe (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the Hungarian auction house too says this "Actaeon mauled by his hounds" is not another version by Titian and says its attribution to Titian is false, since it says it is from the 19th century. Oliv0 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to delete it as non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: the Italian procedure resulted today in the deletion of the Italian article Actaeon mauled by his hounds has been translated from. Oliv0 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest military decorations[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced and an orphan. At the moment it is little more than a list of pictures. Instead of a list, why not use the template - Highest Awards for gallantry IMO this list serves no purpose and has little value at the moment Gbawden (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been offered. This could easily be expanded, e.g. number of recipients, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. Problems that can be solved by editing are not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Nice article, needs expanding etc. Just because it is an orphan is not reason to delete. Martin451 (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded it into a table, and added a few entries and some data.Martin451 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Everything listed is a blue link, people able to find out more information about each entry by clicking that. Dream Focus 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article describes a topic that clearly meets notability requirements and contains no inherently unfixable violations. Honestly, this will make a fine list once its been expanded.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowdog Updater, Modified[edit]

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

Unsourced for 2.5 years. Existence is not notability. MSJapan (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC) MSJapan (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a reference to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux documentation, which should be third-party since Red Hat did not itself invent Yum. Instead of deletion, I think this article can be compressed to a section in the article RPM Package Manager, since it is a front-end to that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We have an entire template of package managers. My real key question here is, what makes this one worthy of inclusion? We already know that existence is not notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the fact that it's used by RHEL is the main argument pro inclusion, that being one of the major enterprise distros. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this one is probably more notable than most others? W Nowicki (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "what makes this one worthy of inclusion?" Yum is is one of the oldest package managers (updater and server repository), it solves the problems of the old APT-RPM, and replaces Up2date. Currently is popular in RPM based distributions (Fedora, RedHat Enterprise Linux, RedHat Linux (Discontinued), Centos, SuSe, OpenSuse...). It is as apt-get in deb's distros. Was historically covered by specialized sites like Linux Foundation and IBM.--GM83 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aren't the existence of Wikipedia is to transfer information itself? How can we say that it is not notable if it is the longest "community supported" software that is inside almost all Red Hat, CentOS, Fedora or it's derivatives? I'm suggesting that the article is kept but will be *rewritten* or *combined* with RPM Package Manager -- Farizluqman (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although of course the true measure of notability is having reliable independent sources. The fact that is out-lived Yellow Dog itself and documentation is so often replicated by so many other distributions should be enough. Although the article clearly does need help, sigh.

I had some time so tried to work on this. Just do a google book search and there are hundreds of hits. I added a few. The article oddly has a complain tag saying someone should add material from the German article, but that article has even fewer sources! It does have some screen shots, so added one from Commons (others are on the German Wikipedia, sigh). Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Vidal a person who might have notability, or might be limited since he was mostly known as a key developer of yum. Perhaps if we merged the two, it would be even more solidly notable. Or merge Yellowdog Updater into this one, since that one is a permastub (the original never really caught on apparently). W Nowicki (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:HEY. Cavarrone 07:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Dog Linux[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distro, tagged for sources since 2008. Of the twelve references in the article, one is the O/S homepage itself, and ten are about a PlayStation3 computing cluster made with said O/S. Why the OS itself is notable is not cited, and I have been unable to locate anything that says its Mac support is unique, eve on distro sites. MSJapan (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article, because historical reasons WP:NTEMP. Yellow Dog are one of the oldest distros (1999), is a survivor of extinct distros in the late 90's (Corel Linux, RedHat Linux, SCO Linux, etc). References can be improved. According to WP:NNC, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article". You can not justify that is notable (or not) only for its twenty references. WP:NRVE also says: "an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Regards --GM83 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: Obviously the references will point to issues such as PS3, because this distribution is built to PowerPC and PS3 architectures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GM83 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for historical reasons and its unique stature in the market. YDL is one of the few (the only?) Linux dists that's targeted solely on PowerPC hardware, and was/is the only one that supports several PowerPC/Power Architecture devices like the PS3. -- Henriok (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical notability - Wikipedia has too much recentism as it is. W Nowicki (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneSSL[edit]

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

CSD contested. Software fails WP:NSOFT. Dewritech (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no third party sources, does not meet the general notability guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant RS coverage to establish notability found in a search or included in article; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph T. Troy[edit]

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

I see no third party sources, except a non-selective local history found in a total of 4 US libraries, and I do not think a mayor of a town of 48,000 population is intrinsically notable. I'm not sure where we should make the cutoff for mayors , but it would above here. (I have similar comments about most of the other mayors of this town, but this will do as a test case. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe the standard for keeping a mayor is to govern over a City of regional prominence, rather than any fixed numerical population. As I wrote in WP:Articles for deletion/Gerald Schweighart there are multiple questions that should be answered in evaluating whether a city's mayor should be presumed notable including the city's population size (or regional prominence) and how the mayor is elected. Is the mayor elected city-wide or city wide or in a Council–manager government, by their colleagues on the City Council (and otherwise be another member of the council, and perhaps elected by a specific district or segment of the city)? My other comment is about population size generally. When discussing Champaign, Illinois, I noted that at a population of 81,000, it was the 380th largest city in the United States. Worldwide, there are at least 363 cities with a population of over a million and at least 842 cities with a population of over 500,000 World Gazetter. Even in the United States, there are over 289 cities with a population of over 100,000 List of United States cities by population. My other thought is that because of media consolidation, major newspapers barely cover the affairs of any particular city except for the one or two major cities in their delivery area. Finding reliable sources for smaller cities, I presume, is getting more difficult, unless the mayor does something that would otherwise meet WP:N. Finally, I have suggested that instead of complete biographies of mayors, it would be better to create a list of mayors from a particular town. That preserves the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia and ensures that each subject is sourced by multiple reliable sources. Enos733 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MONROE IS a REGIONAL CITY; it is the hub of some twelve parishes in northeastern Louisiana and two or three southeast Arkansas counties. At one time it was the fifth largest city in the state but has lost population in recent decades to outlying Lincoln and Ouachita parishes. It is the birthplace of Delta Air Lines and the location of the first bottler of Coca-Cola. There is not much available at this time on Mayor Troy's mayoral service, as he is a pre-Internet mayor. The fact that he left Monroe and moved to North Carolina would be of interest to Monroe readers of this genre. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds, was the mayor of one of Louisiana's largest cities. There are additional sources ([2], [3], [4], etc.) covering a sustained period that can be used to expand or improve this article. - Dravecky (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur with Dravecky as a mayor of one of Louisiana's biggest cities, he is notable and there are numerous reliable sources.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out to Lunch (radio show)[edit]

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

This local radio show has been since since 2005. I can't think why it wasn't spotted earlier that there is zero evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:RPRGM. Gong show 05:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Levdr1lp / talk 18:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Hammar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER, Conf league is not listed as fully professional on WikiProject's list. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:58, 10 July 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 July 11. Snotbot t • c » 04:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Since Stockport County is a professional club, wouldn't this make Hammar notable? --Reckless182 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The club could be professional, but they're not playing in a fully professional league. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant, third-party coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not played in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and arguments outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northsky Air[edit]

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

Charter airline operating in the Philippines that exists, but does not appear to meet WP:ORG nor WP:GNG. Article creator claims that verification is all that is needed for an article on an airline, no matter how little coverage. I disagree. I was able to dig up some mentions of the airline like this and ~~this~~, but nothing insofar as significant coverage of this charter airline. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, fellow Wikipedians please be careful with the second link posted by User:I Jethrobot. On my computer, the webpage was blocked by BitDefender because some sort of malware was detected. What is more, the website cab.gov.ph, which is linked from the Wikipedia article, is considered to be a "malicious site" according to Web of Trust and malwarepatrol.net. Now, concerning Northsky Air, I also think this article should be deleted, because WP:CORP is not met. Being included in the List of air carriers banned in the European Union does not mean anything beyond the mere existence of the company (because any airline from the Philippines is on this list).--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez, my apologies everyone, and thanks for the catch Foxy. I haven't noticed anything unusual on my comptuer since accessing that link, ~~but I'll put into a note to WP:BLACKLIST about this~~ (actually, I can't do that because it's evidently only for spammy links). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:54, 4 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merely being blacklisted by the EU is nothing significant, nothing on G-news that would prove significant coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 09:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough reliable coverage, no scheduled services (it's only a charter airline, and a small one at that). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and HMSSolent; being an airline does not automatically confer notability, and it isn't an airline anyway, but an air charter company. CSD Category A7 is tailor-made for this IMO, as the article itself doesn't make a credible claim of notability. YSSYguy (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Soft delete as an uncontested PROD. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refusion[edit]

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

An unreleased video game that does not pass WP:GNG - no multiple, in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources, like WP:VG/RS. I can only find a few directory entries, and a few developer posts/articles. There is no real world (WP:WAF) content in the article, only gamecruft, so this can be easily recreated if it becomes notable at some point. The article has existed for quite some time without any sources, and since then it has become more known, but hasn't passed the GNG. Disclaimer: My attention to this was brought by this game being listed with developer at List of indie game developers. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the new sources added, but unfortunatelly they are all primary sources or directory entries and thus unsuitable. [5] is a gameplay video, [6] is primary/directory listing, [7] is directory listing, [8] is an ad. The one I hadn't seen was [9], but it lists its source as press release. It could serve as a supporting reference, but none of these are WP:GNG sources, at least in my opinion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:57, 4 July 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) 17:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applejuice[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this software as notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 - Blatant advertising. Completely promotional piece that describes the innards of the software from a promotional perspective with no indication of importance to the wider world. No suitable web hits for this, no relevant news or book hits either. A few hits for the donkey (which I guess it's named after), and lots for the juice, but nothing for the software. I would hazard a guess most people typing this will actually want Apple juice and suggest that if this article gets deleted, a redirect to that article gets created in its place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG at this time, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this, but it's only a mention. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 14:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ras Kass. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Spit[edit]

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

Non notable mixtape fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 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 July 3. Snotbot t • c » 00:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Ras Kass. I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS as a not notable mixtape. STATic message me! 02:20, 5 July 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, postdlf (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Framingham, Massachusetts. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Framingham, Massachusetts[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (all of the article's references are government websites). Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information and there is no reason why Framingham's government should have its own page. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Framingham, Massachusetts is the largest town in the united states that uses the New England town meeting form of government and as such this article is describes its operation. Based on that simple fact, and it is a fact, makes the town and its government notable. Regarding the sources: while most sources are primary, they are used with the standards of WP:PSTS. I must pose the question, since when are government websites not allowable as sources? There are some secondary sources in there as well, Framingham.Com is not owned by the town but the local merchants association. This is not a guide or a random collection of facts as the nominator claims, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete: No one claims that Framingham itself isn't notable: that's why it has its own article. No one has stated that the fact that it is the most populous "town" in the United States is untrue; it's cited in the main article. Beyond that, though, what is unique or unusual about Framingham's town government over and above that of the other thousand-someodd New England towns, and in detail essential enough to warrant a content fork? Nothing. Most of this article is either trivia -- do we really need to know the official mottos of the Public Works or police departments? -- properly included in related articles (the school system info) or completely irrelevant to Framingham town goverment (the extensive sections on the state and federal agencies located in the town). Strip out the chaff, and the rest would fit very well into the Government section of the main article. Ravenswing 07:45, 3 July 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, postdlf (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ravenswing, though please note this shouldn't entail deletion at all, both due to attribution requirements and the title being a logical search term. The current title should redirect to Framingham, Massachusetts, tagged with ((R from merge)) and ((R to section)). --BDD (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I lived in the town, when I interned for a law firm, and I noticed the townspeople's pride in their community. It is quite an interesting town, but I'm not sure that's enough for a content fork about its town government, which is not unique, but merely the largest town in Massachusetts. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'll also take care of the rename as proposed below. postdlf (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Framingham, Massachusetts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Education in Framingham, Massachusetts

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability, NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject outside of what any other normal school district would receive. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: to Framingham Public School District or somesuch; that's in conformity with other such articles. Ravenswing 18:39, 3 July 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, postdlf (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Framingham Public School District - School districts, by consensus, have near-inherent notability as they are considered "Populated, legally-recognized places". See WP:OUTCOMES#School districts. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Empoli[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Google turns up mostly social media sites and blogs, and even the sources in the article as it stands now are pretty junky. TKK ^{bark !} 18:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article should be kept. It's multinational organization having operational presence in Europe, China and Sub-Continent. Fairly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.170.42 (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to sources to establish this? Wikipedia needs reliable sources to establish notability. --TKK ^{bark !} 01:09, 2 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article should be kept. There are few sources that verifies its notability. "With an array of high-class shops already crowding Xinhua Mall in Lahore, the addition of a classy Italian shoe brand seemed justified.

Studio Empoli has been launched in Pakistan bent upon making a mark on the Pakistani fashion market". This news report appeared in one of the most credible newspapers of Pakistan, Dawn <http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/images/archive/070701/images11.htm>. But I believe this article needs some improvement.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't seems to find anything that makes the company notable, on the converse really. I think from research that it's a fairly small, fairly new Italian shoe company. Fails WP:ORG scope_creep (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotion, no third party commentary, fails the higher bar for trading companies, WP:CORP. The reference supposedly attesting to notability is itself promotion and very unlikely to be independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable company, promotional references. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The BLP1E arguments are convincing, the "keep" opinions less so in the light of our inclusion policies and guidelines. Sandstein 06:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ireland (Columbine)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E, and most of this is already covered at Columbine High School massacre. There's nothing to merge as most of the information is already there in the massacre article, and the other stuff doesn't belong there. Beerest355 Talk 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 20:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I lean towards keep because it doesn't cost anybody anything to just leave the separate article in existence. It may not be the most notable article ever, but it's clearly not a self-promotion or any such thing. In an "ultimate encyclopedia of everything," this should exist. Maybe somebody wants to look up this guy, and they'll be happy to find that a page indeed exists. It's true that his info is also in the columbine page, but don't you always find it a small letdown if you look for something, or click a blue link, and then you're dumped in a big and encompassing "here, go look for it yourself" article? This article is not poorly written, so in my opinion it can stay. It's not cruft and not fan-serving. Stijndon (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM and WP:ITLOOKSGOOD seem to be what you're saying. Everything that people would want to know about him (outside of being shot and surviving, he's not notable) is in the Columbine High School massacre article. It could redirect to that, if wanted. Beerest355 Talk 16:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently ignoring the "In an "ultimate encyclopedia of everything," this should exist. Maybe somebody wants to look up this guy, and they'll be happy to find that a page indeed exists." and most importantly, the "don't you always find it a small letdown if you look for something, or click a blue link, and then you're dumped in a big and encompassing "here, go look for it yourself" article?" - Also, to counter the WP:SLAPYOUWITHGUIDELINES bit: WP:NOHARM appears to mostly deal with stuff that's untrue or unverifiable. This is sourced etc., so NOHARM doesn't apply. I agree that I suffer from WP:ITLOOKSGOOD but that was only my final point, after several others. But whatever, I won't lose sleep if this gets merged into columbine. It's just that my opinion is keep, and that's it. Stijndon (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this guy has no notability. WP:NOHARM appears to mostly deal with stuff that's untrue or unverifiable. Note the "For example" part before that section of the guideline. This is the part of the guideline I'm talking about: "As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable." Beerest355 Talk 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Being pulled out of a window following the massacre in front of national TV cameras certainly does not merit notability and he did not do anything notable or heroic during the shooting nor received any recognitions afterward. He has also not done anything Columbine-related since the shooting other than a few interviews (which the other survivors have too) and his sister being crowned Miss Colorado in 2007 certainly has nothing to do with him. If he is notable just for surviving an infamous massacre, then we should have articles on every survivor of every major mass shooting in the world. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created it because in my opinion he is notable enough. He wrote a book on his experience. Also, shielding your friend isn't heroic? Jonno - (Wanna talk?)

WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 July 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, postdlf (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covers GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it. There are a lack of independent third-party sources that directly cover the source. Beerest355 Talk 23:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all see what we want to see I guess. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above. WP:BLP1E trumps WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? you? --BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every convicted murderer or murder victim gets loads of coverage, as per WP:BLP1E we don't create articles even though coverage exists. You should know this after participating in 100s of crime related AfDs. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what a surprise.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a WP:ONEEVENT person and the supposed "book" he wrote doesn't seem notable either since there is no coverage of it other than this ESPN post. In fact, he seems that he never published this "book" and only wrote it for ESPN to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the shooting, which does not indicate notability at all. 74.88.115.8 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He gets ample coverage in the Columbine High School massacre for what happened to him there. But for that tragedy, he would have remained an anonymous character, getting on with his present day job, going by what he has done to date. Hence, the information about him in the Columbine High School massacre article seems to be sufficient. More about what happened to him at the school can be added there, if necessary.The book is incidental. The bits in this article about who visited him in hospital, his marriage, his sister etc. are irrelevant really: tabloid gossip stuff about someone who was temprarily in the news, though, not for being notable. The nom makes a valid point about there being nothing here to merge with the Columbine article.--Zananiri (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columbine High School massacre per WP:BLP1E and Zananiri. There's no need to delete outright, though. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a likely redirect. Most Columbine people that were shot and lived don't have redirects, and the disambiguation in the title makes this unlikely to be typed. Beerest355 Talk 14:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, redirects are cheap, and if Ireland is ever found to meet notability standards, we have a decent article with some history to build from. WP:NOHARM isn't a very good argument for keeping an article outright, but with information at the main shooting page about Ireland, a redirect really hits the right middle ground. From a glance at page view statistics for the article, there seems to be some interest in it. Again, that's no reason to keep, but it does mean it's a plausible search term. --BDD (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. If a merge may be in order, bring it up on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Dudes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable secondary sources on them. Doesn't look like they satisfy WP:BAND, either, although it's a long list. That said, I'm not knowledgeable about bands, so I may be looking in the wrong places. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect into Limbeck, where the band is already mentioned. I'm not finding sufficient coverage to warrant an independent article; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 02:27, 8 July 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, L Faraone 02:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Gentry[edit]

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

No google news hits, minimal coverage from any media outlets. Also never played in an NFL game and probably won't due to a failed physical. Fails WP:NSPORTS and most likely WP:GNG Luchuslu (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to locate any news about his college career or any other activities. Would reconsider if it turns up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 5 July 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, L Faraone 02:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG at this time. Gong show 05:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains[edit]

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

This doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia. It's great stuff for a website devoted to bicycling, but it's pretty crufty for our purposes. There's little encyclopedic import to an exhaustive accounting of the placings on each hill climb. We do have a place for the description of the race as a whole while ongoing, which is where efforts such as these should be expended. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I believe this page is not completely redundant. The mountains classification for each tour is unique and thus deserves a page devoted to it. The placings on each hill climb offer the chance to chart a rider's progress through the competition and analyse how the classification was won or lost. Due to the nature of the lists of placings on climbs being long and many, I don't think they would fit well on the 2013 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11 page, and as previously stated, deserve their own page. I created the page because I was searching for this information displayed on one page, clearly and concisely, and I believe there are others like me.

Some reasons why this page warrants a place on Wikipedia:

On Wikipedia:Five pillars it states that Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia's page on almanacs says Modern almanacs include a comprehensive presentation of statistical and descriptive data covering the entire world.
I see no reason on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page to suggest it should not be on Wikipedia.
This is the kind of page I (as a Wikipedia reader) expect to find on Wikipedia. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that the page was redundant to anything, merely that it is well outside the scope of a general encyclopedia. This is the kind of page I would expect to find on Cycling News or CQ Ranking or some other website devoted to bicycling. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 11:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Green-eyed girl, I had not heard the word crufty before. Upon looking up the word I noted it can be jargon for anything redundant. Anyway, I understand your meaning now. But I want to state again that Wikipedia is not just a "general encyclopedia" but can be a specialised encyclopedia too. I do understand that this particular topic is perhaps a little too specialised. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas a a reference to Wikipedia:Fancruft, which is really the worst scenario on AFD because it involves well-meaning editors who are obviously passionate about a topic or topics. Thank you for handling this process gracefully, by the way. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of Tour de France Kings of the Mountains and get them all, only with a lot less detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Mountains classification in the Tour de France? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list already exists at King of the Mountains. And I'm not sure I understand the recommendation to rename the page and rewrite it as something else, for which the history of the present page is irrelevant – that seems to be a deletion and a creation. Dricherby (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I also don't understand. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHESPORTSSECTIONOFTHENEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Weak delete~~ Keep The mountains classification for each tour is indeed unique, but that does not mean that it deserves a page... There are many unique things in the world that don't deserve a page. Taking your points one by one:

Even specialized Tour books do not give this information. I have been looking for the complete mountain classification rankings for the years 1933 to 1949 for some years now, and no book provides them, and I am doing a difficult process of recalculating them from descriptions in newspapers. This a counter-argument for your first reason.
Your second reason: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", the "Excessive listings of statistics" section. For me, the article in this discussion is a clear example of that section.
And thirdly: my expectation is different from yours (I am not saying it is better): I would not expect this kind of page on Wikipedia, but I would hope for an external link to this information. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like to second this last point in particular. No one is saying this is bad information or a bad article (well, at least I'm not). It just doesn't fit with Wikipedia. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 12:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To EdgeNavidad, fair point that not everything unique deserves its own page.

I get the point it is perhaps overly specialised information, but your interest in it suggests there are people who want easy access to this information.
We might have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't think it falls under the category "Excessive listings of statistics" because that section states: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" - I don't think these lists reduce the readability of the article because these list ARE the article. In addition, the article "contains sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader".
I accept that what I expect to find on Wikipedia is different from what others expect to find. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this page is not deleted, its title should be changed to something like Mountains classification in the 2013 Tour de France. "King of the Mountains" is not the name of the classification, but of the winner. And I don't understand why the winner of the combativity award is mentioned after every stage, I don't think it belongs here. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To EdgeNavidad, I agree if it is not deleted then the title should be changed; either to Mountains classification in the 2013 Tour de France as you suggested, 2013 Tour de France Mountains classification, or even something along the lines of 2013 Tour de France Best climber because on letour.com[10] the mountains classification is referred to as best climber classification. My reason for mentioning the combativity award was because I thought it was of some interest to see whether or not that person obtained any points for climbing that day. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The only way this list can be sourced is through coverage of the results in newspapers etc. and this kind of routine coverage does not establish notability. There's no precedent for giving this level of detail in previous Tours and similar coverage is not being given to the other sub-classifications in this year's Tour. We do not, in general, give this level of detail for other sports on Wikipedia. Dricherby (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC) !vote struck; see replacement below. Dricherby (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Dricherby, just because it has never been done before is no reason not to start. However I take your point that it is perhaps routine coverage, nonetheless I believe it notable. I had also started preparing a page for the points classification for this tour too. I guess that will receive a similar reaction will it not? Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend creating that page before this AfD finishes. Dricherby (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And when might that be? I don't particularly want to give this up, and now I have one person who agrees with me in Nickst. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs last a week, but can be extended by a week at a time until consensus is reached, if necessary. Note also that AfDs are not votes and "keeps" accompanied by reasoning that doesn't address the issues carry little weight. Please see WP:AFDEQ and the subsequent sections of that page for more information on the process. Dricherby (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Unless more people are happy to keep the page I am happy to put the lists onto a page somewhere on Wikidata[11] and put a link to it on the 2013 Tour de France page. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that suggestion. I agree that never having one of these lists before isn't a concrete reason but it does give guidance, which is why I mentioned it. I'm not sure which of my comments you don't quite understand. These discussions are much easier to follow if you make several replies within the thread, rather than trying to collect everything together at the bottom. Dricherby (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that I am not sure Wikidata is what I thought it was and I don't know how this would fit there. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request. Having given this some more thought I would like to request the page to be kept and not deleted. Let me collect the reasons that have been cited for deletion and offer my thoughts:

Green-eyed girl: "This doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia" - as I stated before Wikipedia:Five pillars states Wikipedia has features of a specialised almanac of which I think this information is worthy of.
Clarityfiend: "WP:NOTTHESPORTSSECTIONOFTHENEWSPAPER" - I don't think this is merely news reporting. This article is about 2013 Tour de France Mountains classifcation which is something people in the future may want to look back on and easily see how the event unfolded—it just happens it is being created while the event is ongoing. The article also contains details of the workings of the classifiction and states how this year deffers from other years. I believe it is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as stated in WP:EVENT.
- Isn't "it is being created while the event is ongoing" pretty much one definition of news? And just how does it differ from other years? It looks the same as in prior years to me. Different climbs, but no shark tanks to jump over. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the fact that it is currently news is all you are worried about I will happily wait until the event has finished and then add all the information. I get the feeling that EdgeNavidad agrees this is not just a timely news story, but that this article has enduring notability because the user stated "I wish that this kind of information would be in all relevant books". This is something tour enthusiasts may want to refer back to in many years to come. With regards to differing from other years, I just mean EVERY year is different - different cyclists, different routes, different results etc. Just because previous years have not been covered in this much detail does not mean this year and future years should not be covered. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EdgeNavidad: "Excessive listings of statistics" - as stated before, "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" - I don't think these lists reduce the readability of the article because these list ARE the article. In addition, the article "contains sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"
Dercherby: "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" - This article could not be described as an indiscriminate collection of information, rather it is discriminant due to the fact it has been assembled with thought. According to WP:DISCRIMINATE, a discriminate collection of information would not violate the policy as stated in WP:IINFO
Dercherby: "similar coverage is not being given to the other sub-classifications in this year's Tour" - I would like to make a page for the 2013 Tour de France Points classification

I think if the article is kept then it should be given the name 2013 Tour de France Mountains classification. Even though I think 2013 Tour de France Climber classifictions would be more in following with notation on letour.com[[12]] the use of the first name is more in keeping with notation used on Wikipedia, e.g. Mountains classification in the Tour de France. Alternative. If I haven't managed to convince you then what about a List of climbs in the 2013 Tour de France article containing just the results of each climb? The details from the article will then be moved to a section in the 2013 Tour de France page. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event in the notable cycling race. Many reliable sources. Easy passes WP:GNG. NickSt (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:GNG requires substantial coverage, whereas WP:ROUTINE says that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Nobody is disputing that the 2013 Tour de France and the climbing classification in general are notable. The question that must be addressed is whether the results of every climb in the 2013 Tour de France have sufficient independent notability to warrant an article on that specific subject. Dricherby (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same as 2012–13 Biathlon World Cup and 2012–13 Biathlon World Cup – Pursuit Men, also 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup and 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. NickSt (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Hey, you know WP:IDON'TLIKEIT isn't a reason for delete, and this is someone's hard work, so if you don't like it just move along and go and do something else. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:MERCY isn't a reason to keep. Dricherby (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but the alternative is that those voting for deletion haven't got a clue about bike racing and ought to really, in the nicest possible way, just go away. Not every cyclist or team in the tour is out to win the yellow jersey. Some are going for green (with a sprint finisher), some are going for the polka dots. Some just hope for a few stage wins. This is pretty important, and as long as it is completed, I can see no reason why it would be deleted excepting profound inanity that is regularly displayed by groups of Wikipedia users. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that this kind of response helps your credibility. Nobody in favor of deletion has given any reason to think that they don't understand bike racing. Nobody wants this article deleted because they don't like it. If you want to help this article, stop attacking strawmen, read the discussion, and read why some people think this article should be deleted. Don't guess for their reasons.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does help YOUR credibility if your nomination makes reference to a valid deletion argument, and you don't pathetically try to respond to every point made by everyone who sensibly speaks against you. Please try to provide a valid reason for deletion, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT doesn't count. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read more carefully. It is not my nomination, I didn't respond to every point made by everyone, and I provided several reasons for deletion. I have never said "I don't like it, so delete it". I even explicitly said that "I like this", see below. If you want to know the reasons for deletion, don't guess. Read. The outcome of this discussion is not fixed yet, if you give convincing reasons that the article should be kept, it will be kept. But sofar, all you did was saying that the article should be kept, because everybody who says "I don't like it" is wrong, even though nobody said "I don't like it". That does not help the discussion. Why do you think the article belongs on Wikipedia? Why do you think the previously given reasons for deletion are wrong? --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I like this, but I still support deletion. I wish that this kind of information would be in all relevant books, but it is not; the most you'll find is a list of climbs, the first to that top and the final classification. Not all information that is given in this article. And I don't see anybody in this conversation saying "I don't like it"...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mentioning the fact that this info is not found in relevant books on the subject. But to me that is more of a reason to include it here! Wikipedia has the privilege of not being limited in space the way a physical book is; this should allow it to be more specialized and contain information that is not included in books. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, people use an encyclopaedia for general reference and specialist publications for detailed coverage. It would be unusual for an encyclopaedia to carry more detailed coverage than the specialist publications. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't happen but it does suggest (to me, at least) that this is beyond the encyclopaedia's remit. Dricherby (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I once again remind you Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that contains features of a specialized almanac. It would not be unusual for one specialized almanac to carry more detailed information than another specialist publication. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hang on, a second. Smitchlovesfunk is suggesting that the article should be kept because this information is not available anywhere else; others have also commented on the general unavailability of this kind of data. But, if that's true, then the article is unverifiable (I note that it currently does not cite any sources for the actual results) and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. Alternatively, if there are sources available for this material, then the rationale for keeping it disappears. For the time being, the information is presumably on the Tour website but they seem only to have last year's race archived and not previous years'. Maybe they're on the Wayback Machine but, again, if they are, then this page is unnecessary. Dricherby (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is most certainly verifiable; you are right, the information is on the Tour website. However, there is no single page on the Tour website that contains all the information that this article does. Therefore this article provides a useful service of collecting all the information and presenting it on one easy to read page. You can not use that as a reason to say that this page is unnecessary because that would make an awful lot of Wikipedia unnecessary. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it won't be on the Tour website after 2014, since they only have a one-year archive. Where is verifiability then? Dricherby (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just cross that bridge when we come to it? It is still very much 2013! Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that verifiability is no issue here; there is no RS that puts all this information together in one book/website. But for each stage separately, the information is presented in multiple sources (not only the official tour-website, but also secondary sources). It could all be sourced with about 20 different links. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references (from sources normally considered RS) for the first stage. On those websites, all articles since 1995 (when they started online) are still found, so verifiability is fine.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion the notability of (and the honor to win) the 2013 mountains classification within the Tour de France, is much larger than many other races that have a wikipedia page, for instance 2013 Jelajah Malaysia. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the results can be found in (former) newspapers, it seems to me that it is notable. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that, per WP:ROUTINE. What would make it notable is for example an article at the end of the Tour that lists all the climbs and the points awarded, as a discussion on how the mountains classification winner won their points. (More in the Alps? More in the Pyrenées? More in high-category climbs or in low-category climbs?) Or an article before the Tour starts, that lists the planned climbs, perhaps criticizes some of the organisers' choices, and gives favourites for the mountains classification. That kind of coverage would make it 100% notable for me. At the moment I am not convinced that it is notable (but also not convinced that it is not notable). --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:58, 7 July 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, L Faraone 02:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Tour de France is acknowledged to be the premier cycle road race. It has characteristics that differ from other major sporting events (but that is true of them all). Its complexity means that there are discrete competitions within it in which different participants have a chance of chance of success. Aside from the General Classification (Yellow Jersey) competition, the King of the Mountains is one of the most important. The scoring system means that how it was won, as well as who they were competing against, matters.

As for the question of whether Wikipedia is the right place for this, the reality is that WP does sport more thoroughly than other topics. I am not comfortable with that. I do not agree with a policy that accords automatic notability to professional sportspeople and denies it to the chief executive of major corporations, or the skimpy coverage (if you will excuse the pun) of women's clothing, not a topic I understand. But the answer is usually to improve WP in those areas. The 2013 Wimbledon Championships Mixed Doubles competition has an article of its own because that is the best way of covering the topic rather than mixing it up in another article or just recording the winners. Those not interested will not read it, but that is not a ground for deletion. The same applies here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accord automatic notability to professional sportspeople or, in fact, to anyone. Professional sportspeople have a presumption of notability, meaning that it is assumed that sufficient sources will exist; the actual notability still depends on there being sources. Since the media writes a huge amount about professional sport, those sources usually do, in fact, exist. In contrast, there's not much coverage of corporate executives except for the very largest companies and much of the coverage that does exist is heavily promotional in tone so not a useful source. So, yes, Wikipedia is biased towards sport rather than business but this is a reflection of the world at large. Dricherby (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The principles under which Wikipedia operates were not handed down on tablets of stone (any more than the constitutions of states or the rules under which sport is played), they have evolved to shape Wikipedia into what the community chooses it to be. Notability is measured in ways that tends to bias it toward certain media coverage, but these are only ways of comparing like with like (eg whether television newsreaders fall above or below the bar), and they are agreed not to be relevant to much of WP, for example scientific topics. Remember, WP is not a directory of things found on the internet or the popular press. Where existing notability criteria are applied, they do not always work well for 'the world at large' and it can certainly be argued that commercial organisations and women's fashions are examples of that. Because sports pages are accepted for notability purposes, in practice professional sportspeople automatically get in if they meet sports appropriate criteria. Coverage of clothes in the media does not count in the same way, any more than the number of employees or the turnover of a commercial organisation both of which can be said to be relevant to the real world. Of course, the Tour de France King of the Mountains competition (however described) gets enormous media coverage, so by that measure notability cannot be challenged. --AJHingston (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just realised, while I have made many arguments to keep the page, I have not actually said keep in bold yet. Anyway, I have been doing a LOT of reading on Wikipedia and I have learnt an awful lot about it and its policies. And to some extent I have had to change my views on Wikipedia a little bit (but that is perhaps another story). From all the reading I have done I now see why some users are behind deletion. My initial thoughts (before I had found the page WP:ATA) led me to want to post a lot of arguments along the lines of those found on that page, but for some reason I didn't (I would love to use such arguments as: WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, WP:NOHARM and WP:WAX - but I can't/won't). From reading this discussion over and over it is obvious to me the one key point is WP:NOTABILITY. So, while these articles don't cover the actual results (yet), I have nevertheless found articles that make 2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains notable: Tour de France 2013: King of the Mountains contenders, Tour de France: Who will win the Mountains Jersey?, The Tour de France 2013 – The Polka Dot, Green and White Jerseys and Team, Tour de France 2013: France looks to new generation to end years of hurt and TALKING TACTICS: HOW TO WIN THE POLKA DOT JERSEY AT THE TOUR. So, how'd I do? Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you've done well. Two of those links (inrng and velovoices) provide the kind of coverage that I think makes the article notable. I did not expect that such articles would exist, but you've proven me wrong, and I changed my !vote to keep. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article on roadcyclinguk.com is a preview of this year's KotM competition, ~~focusing on riders the site thinks are likely to win; it says nothing about the individual climbs and I don't see how it establishes notability of the lists of results presented in the article~~. inrng.com is not a reliable source so does not establish notability: it's the blog that's unconnected with the author's day job [13] (also, he says he crashes pieces out in a few minutes, which "probably explains the typos, links that don’t work or factual bungles"). sbbcolumns.co.uk is a blog aggregator so doesn't establish notability (and, again, only discusses riders felt likely to become KotM, and then only briefly). The Guardian article is irrelevant because it says nothing at all about this year's KotM. Finally, velovoices.com describes itself as a fan blog so is not a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC) See my !vote below for comment on struck text. Dricherby (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement at all that sources, including those used for notability, should be in English. Those following the TV coverage in the UK will be of no doubt as to the notability of this competition, but most of the coverage will be in other languages, including French. --AJHingston (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (replacing my earlier !vote, which I have struck). I now realise that my objections are to the current version of the page, not to its existence. Despite disputing the sources provided by Smitchlovesfunk, I have no issue with the notability of the climbing classification of the 2013 TdF. Further, once a subject is established as notable, notability guidelines do not limit article content so my arguments above about sources "not establishing notability of the lists of results presented in the article" is meaningless. I still think the current article is overly detailed but, if consensus agrees with me on that, it can be solved through ordinary editing issue and therefore not a reason to delete. Dricherby (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to mention notability guidelines do not limit article content but you beat me to it. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was looking for just the information contained in this article (only for the 2012 Tour) and bemoaning its lack of existence. I would support both the existence of this article, going back through previous Tours to create simialr articles and adding this to the navbox for each year. This is a good and useful article containing data that isn't easily accessible elsewhere (it is on the ASO site for some previous years but takes a lot of time to look up each stage). Tour is obviously notable and KoM is one of its 3 main jerseys (generally ranked behind the green jersey but still notable). Data is not contained in the stage by stage articles and would not be easy to add there.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also add that the Points Jersey as discussed before deserves an article along these lines and would also be a useful addition. I recently wrote an article previewing this year's Points competition and had to laboriously source the intermediate sprint data from last year's Tour and having it all on one wiki page would be very useful. As I stated the Points is considered the 2nd most important jersey ahead of KoM. The regulations on jersey wearing state:

The leaders of the general time ranking, the general points ranking, the best climber ranking and the general young riders ranking must wear:

• in the first case, the Yellow jersey;

• in the second case, the green jersey;

• In the third case, the white and red polka dot jersey;

• in the fourth case, the white jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdpcotton (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Finally on the name issue I agree it should not be current name as KoM refers specifically to the winner and not the overall competition. I would however support "2013 Tour de France - Mountains Classification" or similar. It is true the official name is the "Best Climber" classification, however the official name for the yellow jersey competition is the "Individual Time Classification" and we don't use that, we instead use the General Classification as that is the common name for it. Whatever name is chosen it should match Mountains classification in the Tour de France so that article would need to be renamed Best climber classification in the Tour de France if the official nomenclature were to be preferred.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now rather stale and ought to e closed. 2.96.226.24 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 additionally recommend to continue discussing the possibility for a merge in the ongoing discussion. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NESticle[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet general notability criteria. Short article with very little in the way of sources. Has been tagged for citations since 2007. Recommended for merge with List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 3 July 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) 16:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without some reliable sources, there really is nothing to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would have closed this per nom's request as speedy keep #1 since nom proposes a non-deletion action (merge), but it's no longer eligible due to the current case for deletion. (Also see related merge discussion.) czar · · 20:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Wikipedia article's lack of sources doesn't mean that sources don't exist. NESticle was a pioneering emulator and one of the biggest of the 90s. Ars Technica describes it as "easily the NES emulator of choice [in the 1990s]", and 1UP.com credits it for introducing "'NES movie' support -- its term for demo recording and playback". Even the relatively mainstream/populist Wired discusses it. I think there's actually fairly good evidence that the topic meets the GNG. Outright deletion seems like much more harm than good in this case. -Thibbs (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A few more RSes:
  - 1UP.com discusses its importance to the homebrew scene for graphical hacks
  - Chris Kohler's 2011 Retro Gaming Hacks: Tips & Tools for Playing the Classics (ISBN 1449303900) makes the case for NESticle as the best emulator for use with older computers (486 and earlier)
  - Listed in a September 2004 SPIN feature as a milestone in the history of the rise to popularity of video game music as a genre.
  - Retro Gamer Issue #1 credits it as the first NES emulator in its "Emulation Nation" article.
  - More minor RS coverage can be found in (1) Jaime E. Muscar's law review article "A Winner is Who? Fair Use and the Online Distribution of Manga and Video Game Fan Translations" (printed in 9 Vand J. Ent. & Tech. L. 223. Fall 2006.) notes NESticle's role as one of the most popular of the early emulators; (2) Academically there are several theses and such that cover the software including Lori Wu's 2002 Stanford University prospectus "Game and Game Console Emulation: The Preservation of Video Game History" and Matthew Visyak's 2005 Allegheny College thesis "Terrorism/Capitalism"; and (3) Eric Vanderburg's 2003 research paper, "Copyright Protection and Infringement Technologies" mentions it among a handful of popular emulators. A similar source listing it among other popular emulators is Radford Castro's 2004 "Let Me Play: Stories Of Gaming And Emulation" (ISBN 1587363496). Another is in the New Straits Times article "Emulators to revive classic arcade games" (24 October 2002).
- There also seems to be a decent bit of coverage among the situational sources as well, though I haven't gone through them in any depth. And of course in a case like this, where technical details are unlikely to be covered in the RSes, official readmes and other Bloodlust Software releases could be used as SPSes. Anyway my conclusion is that although perhaps less than overwhelmingly notable, there are enough RSes for stand-alone purposes and since the topic is of historical significance it should neither be deleted nor merged. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I'm still of the opinion that the article should be kept rather than deleted or merged, my conversation with Hellknowz below makes me think it might be a good idea to make the case for "merge in the alternative" as a much better choice than "delete". So if the RSes are to be believed, NESticle was easily the most popular emulator of the 90s. This means that a large number of people used it and thus a large number of people know its name. I think that under WP:BEFORE (point C4) this should qualify it for a redirect as "a likely search term" at the very least. If we merge rather than deleting then we will also be able to preserve the article's history which might be important to someone who wished to re-create the article if further sources were uncovered in the future. Again, if the RSes are to be believed and this was indeed such a pioneering and influential emulator then this isn't perhaps too much of a flight of fancy. After all, it's not as if the RSes are just mentioning the emulator in passing. They are mentioning it together with superlatives like "best-known" and "most popular" and "pioneering" and "emulator of choice". To label this through AfD as a topic unworthy of inclusion on Wikipedia makes no sense to me given the RS coverage. I am also opposed to the idea of a "merge and delete" for the reasons outlined here. "Merge" is a distinctly inferior outcome in my view to "keep", but it's much better than "delete". I hope that the closing admin considers all arguments presented instead of just tallying votes. -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. (revised below) I looked through the above sources and they seem to provide enough material to write a few decent sentences on the subject in a broader list or NES emulation history article. However, they are very brief, not in-depth, and descriptive rather than critical. [14] talks about emulation problems and mention NESticle in passing. [15] is again a brief mention in a speedrun history feature. [16] is a briefly mentioned as used to play a game. [17] briefly lists NESticle as the tool used to make a certain game. The Retro Gaming Hacks, SPIN, A Winner is Who? and the several thesis entries appear to be similar passing mentions in milestone/list, enough to quote the subject as important to the history, but none feature the subject as the their topic or are in-depth enough to make it notable for WP. I doubt the situational sources will provide any more coverage. I'm sure some magazines of the time would feature similar passing mentions and excerpts. From the above, I was actually expecting to say "keep" on this, but I don't think I'm convinced this passes WP:GNG. As for historical significance, I agree, but this ( the content from sources) should be a part of a larger article on NES or emulators. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that the number of RSes (and the terminology they use: "pioneering", "widely popular", etc.) demonstrate notability. The "significant coverage" aspect of the GNG is more of a practical concern as far as I understand it. Without significant coverage there simply isn't enough to write about. But in this case I think reliable WP:SPS-compliant material like this could easily fill in the gaps (development history/technical details/etc.) leaving the third-party RSes for reception/reputation/historical significance/etc. That would seem to be enough material to support a fairly complete stand alone article. Anyway I'm confused by the conclusion this "this should be a part of a larger article" if the above vote is "weak delete". Wouldn't "merge" be a better !vote in that case? -Thibbs (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge would imply the content is in the article, it isn't -- its in the sources you have provided, none of them are actually referenced yet. I try not to say "merge" unless I can point exactly to what needs merging and to where, and this is usually sourced content. This was more of a general conclusion. As for "significant coverage", I understand what you are saying (hence "weak" delete), but I interpret it slightly differently, so I'm afraid we will just disagree on that. Hopefully, more people will chime in, I've given my arguments as I see it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respect your view, but I think WP:BEFORE makes the case that a "delete" !vote is a !vote on the topic (as it exists in the world at large) rather than on the Wikipedia article's content (as currently presented). A "delete" result would be evidence that there exists no material (anywhere) to merge and thus that the topic should not appear within Wikipedia period. That would seem to be different from the general conclusion you came to. Obviously if "merge" was the result of the AfD then only RS-backed information would be migrated so if there was none currently in the article then none would be migrated to the parent article. The "merge" vote, however, would mean that the topic or concept is of sufficient notability to appear within Wikipedia although not as a stand-alone topic. I'm not trying to change your !vote if "delete" is really what you intended, but I feel like some of the other things you've said belie that conclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I recognize the difference between topic's notability and the article's quality, otherwise I would be fallaciously arguing about the content (which I haven't even mentioned) instead of referring to multiple in-depth source coverage (as I do). Also, I don't believe I actually said "merge" myself anywhere, what I meant is some of the content about NESticle from sources you listed could be included in other articles. This isn't an argument for or against deletion, this is a suggestion for adding usable content since we are on the topic. I will amend this to make my statement clearer. This does not mean I think sources are GNG-worthy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        OK I don't mean to be dense, but I'm still confused about your stance on this topic. In your 18:05 post, you said "Merge would imply the content is in the article, it isn't -- its in the sources you have provided, none of them are actually referenced yet." As far as I understand this, you seem to have chosen to vote "delete" instead of "merge" for precisely article-content reasons. Specifically it looks like you think that you are casting a !vote on the current content of the article and that if RS-based content exists outside of the article then it is extraneous to the vote. What I'm saying here is that it's not. The in-depthness of the sources usually goes to the question of whether to vote "keep" and we're clearly in disagreement about that point which is fine, but in-depthness isn't really an issue in determining between "delete" and "merge". "Merge" is specifically for "topic[s] not important enough to merit an article on [their] own." In other words, it's for topics with some notability but without sufficient notability to pass GNG. "Delete", on the other hand is for topics that are unfit for inclusion on Wikipedia, period. Please look at the article again. I've just made a few edits to add the content from the RSes above. Are you saying that the topic should be deleted instead of being merged? Or has the change in the article's appearance/condition changed your opinion? I'm sorry to belabor this, but I think I've now explained my perspective as clearly as possible and I'll accept your response at face value either way. -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you are reading too much into my comments and taking the terms too literally. Whether that content is included or not would be inconsequential to my underlying !vote, it's still "delete". As I said, I'm well aware that article's content is irrelevant to subject's notability. The difference here is whether it is "delete" or "merge then delete", but it's still "delete". Merge is just something we can do in addition, like redirect, split, trim, salt, etc. To answer your question -- my basic delete/keep stance can't change without new sources, because I never based my stance on the content. In other words, you can replace my "delete" with "non-notable" for the same general meaning. This is what I mean - not notable as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent in-depth reliable sources. In this case, I argue that none of the proposed sources are in-depth. I hope you see what I mean. ("Merge" or "don't merge" comes after. It was "don't merge" before, now it's "merge", because you added "mergable" content.)
        
        Now, all that said, a separate alternative, and this will be confusing as hell -- I might argue this article can be a valid WP:SPLIT from List of video game emulators as having too much content to fit nicely in the main article. This is by no means a "keep" !vote or saying that the topic is "notable". In this case, this reasoning does deal with the content and doesn't deal with notability. To paraphrase, I'm saying there is enough well-sourced content to warrant a separate page to keep the main list clean (so we don't have to start splitting it up by systems). Basically, I didn't expect this much content to be squeezed from those sources. Now, this train of thought is a bit WP:IAR and certainly an editorial decision, rather than having anything to do with notability. (I'll review my arguments tomorrow, after all it was "weak" delete and my interpreted threshold for "in-depth" is pretty strict.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, it makes sense to me now. Sorry about the confusion. I'll sit back and let others weigh in. -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will revise my stance to Neutral. Firstly, the emulator is in my opinion not notable as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent in-depth reliable sources. In this case, I argue that none of the proposed sources are in-depth. However, the emulator is described in many superlatives as very significant during its time, making a strong case of its importance. And while importance != notability, there are a whole bunch of these sources with such claims. Ultimately, my stance would be to preserve content either by consensus to keep or merge. This does not mean I believe the topic to be notable by strictly following GNG, but I do believe a strong case can be made (and has been made) for content's inclusion whether as a separate article or as a section/part of a larger article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:07, 5 July 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, L Faraone 02:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clear encyclopedic knowledge. Well written article, well referenced, referencing the first free NES emulator (that fact alone makes it notable). Large number of Google Books entries, and a huge number of web pages talk about the product. The Wayback Machine probably 10's of thousands of pages on it, since it was the first free NES emulator. Why was it Afd'd? scope_creep (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franki Love[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from the article's talk page
Citation Questions[edit] I believe the following website to be a valid citation. It was removed from the article in the last revision. Any thoughts? http://soldiersangels.org - This is the organization's official website. Jheditorials (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I am not seeing a citation to that website anywhere in my revert.? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] It was in the previous update that I did: "In her spare time she also donates her efforts to Soldiers' Angels,^[1] a non-profit organization providing aid and comfort to the family members of US soldiers." Also, you deleted: "On June 1, 2012, Franki Love performed at The Castle of Chambord in Chambord France for a PBS show called DIVINAS.^[2]" but the citation is a legit online magazine. Could you explain why it was deleted? Jheditorials (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Deletion Discussion[edit] Franki Love is cited in the Wild_Arms_4 entry as an artist involved with the project. As such, would that be enough of an additional citation to reinsert that section back into the article? What else should be added to remove the deletion tag? Thank you. Jheditorials (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] The deletion discussion is here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from the article's talk page

Citation Questions[edit]

I believe the following website to be a valid citation. It was removed from the article in the last revision. Any thoughts?

http://soldiersangels.org - This is the organization's official website. Jheditorials (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing a citation to that website anywhere in my revert.? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the previous update that I did:

"In her spare time she also donates her efforts to Soldiers' Angels,^[1] a non-profit organization providing aid and comfort to the family members of US soldiers."

Also, you deleted:

"On June 1, 2012, Franki Love performed at The Castle of Chambord in Chambord France for a PBS show called DIVINAS.^[2]"

but the citation is a legit online magazine. Could you explain why it was deleted? Jheditorials (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Discussion[edit]

Franki Love is cited in the Wild_Arms_4 entry as an artist involved with the project. As such, would that be enough of an additional citation to reinsert that section back into the article?

What else should be added to remove the deletion tag? Thank you. Jheditorials (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion is here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to the deletion discussion page. What else should be added to remove the deletion tag? Jheditorials (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What else should be added so that the deletion tag can be removed? Jheditorials (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Update July 5, 2013[edit]

I have updated the page with new information and non-self-published citations. What else should be added in order to remove the deletion tag? Thank you. Jheditorials (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no signficant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are met in general, or specifically for a musician. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 8 July 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, L Faraone 02:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article needs more substantial coverage. Just being nominated for one award and winning another, not very well-known award isn't sufficient. It needs links to reviews, profiles, or other articles from well-known magazines, websites or newspapers (see WP:RS for the sort of sources that are needed). I can't find any reviews from reliable sources: even AllMusic which is very comprehensive doesn't have a review. At the moment she's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVE Deletion tag & save page You are stating that her being nominated for one award and winning another is not sufficient yet - The Hollywood Music Awards is a substantial award!! enough so, that I believe this page should remain and the Deletion Tag should be removed. The Hollywood Music Awards is almost equivalent to being nominated for a Sundance award or Oscar Award which is extremely legitimate. Past Hollywood Award Nominees and Honorees have included people such as: Dustin Hoffman, Hillary Swank, Robert Dinero, Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie. She is sourced for this and here's more info on this big award organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Film_Festival

I believe this page should be saved because it is an KNOWN AWARD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyzilo (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - The Hollywood Music Video Awards for which she got a nomination seems to have attracted no critical attention. I looked and didn't find any coverage in reliable sources; that's not even remotely close to being "equivalent to being nominated for a Sundance award or Oscar Award". The other "award" she won is a Songriter's Universe monthly song contest. It is a promotional tool. The winner will get "interviewed for a very positive, feature article in our popular SongwriterUniverse online magazine" [emphasis added]. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq's comment above. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. 122.17.210.179 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There does, however, appear to be some dispute on where the bar lies on historic buildings (apart from GNG). Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hardwick Arms Hotel[edit]

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

No notability at all. There must be many hundreds of pubs in Britain equally as notable (or rather lacking notability). Meets no criteria for notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article. WP:MILL bar. Old, but not old enough to be interesting or notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grade II listing is not insignificant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the present evidence. A Grade II listing certainly contributes to notability, but is not sufficient in itself. There is little in the listing description to lift it above the routine. My house is also Grade II; I would not think it merited an article, though my street does and mine is probably the most significant of the listed buildings in it. Obviously, transplant this building elsewhere in the world and it might be of outstanding interest and have great notability in consequence, but as Andrew Lenahan points out this is Britain and it is one of many. --AJHingston (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above editors that grade II listing and dating from the early nineteenth century are nothing to write home about. Grade II* would be needed for significance based on listing, and, for a British pub, 200 years is nothing more than early middle age - I would say that for a pub to be notably old it would have to be at least twice that age. Some coverage can be found by using slightly more focused searches: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Such seaching confirms the hunting connection, that, like most pubs, this is occasionally used as a meeting place and that the pub sponsors a couple of horse races at the nearby racecourse. More interesting bits of information that I can see are that two very notable people have been barred from the pub and this amusing anecdote about a guest, the landlady, a cat and a broom. I'm not sure that I can see anything amounting to notability here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is likely to be notable enough. It is only grade II not grade II*, and there are tens of thousands of grade II buildings. How about merge to Sedgefield, which has a rather dull article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 7 July 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, L Faraone 02:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grade II isn't enough, there is nothing particularly notable about this building or it history beyond what makes a good half million buildings (about 2% of the building stock) listed. Wiki has list of Grade II buildings (such as Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: A–B and those lists are far from complete. A place on a list should be sufficient. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only source is the listed buildings entry, which contains significant coverage of the type needed to meet notability guidelines, but is not enough alone - an article needs more than one source. A search via Google only finds a small number of trivial mentions. Peter James (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure how many other establishments there are that can say they barred a serving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and a serving president of the United States. I also feel that in general a grade II listed public house has more notability than a grade II private home barring exceptions such as castles etc. Thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that any prime minister or president even considered visiting this this establishment. The "bar" was obviously a publicity stunt on the occasion of Bush's visit to Blair in his Sedgefield constituency and only got a passing mention from an author. By selecting "monument type", "commercial" and "inn" from this English Heritage search page I find 14,675 pubs listed at grade II and above in England, which hardly makes it a selective enough honour for us to assume notability on its basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A public house is likely to be more notable than a private home, but only because it's more likely to have been written about - that's what is required for WP:GNG- and in this case there's no evidence of that coverage. Peter James (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also a reminder that AfD is for deletion only, and noms that propose non-deletion actions (e.g., redirect) are eligible for speedy keep #1. Redirects can be suggested from the article talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Chase[edit]

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

Non-notable pseudonym. Update at 22:38 Not much has been written or documented about it, and it was only used for two novels. Should redirect to List of pen names. Beerest355 Talk 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a pseudonym used collectively by two notable authors who have separate articles, it's a valid search term but there is no one single redirect target. So simply calling the pseudonym itself "non-notable" is not a very useful or complete way to decide what to do here. postdlf (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I've added some more info that I neglected to write before. Beerest355 Talk 22:38, 26 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there was a way to make it redirect to both authors ... but there's not; this is the way we can do that. htom (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been thinking a lot about this one, because it is such an unusual case. I considered a dab to both authors, or deletion, but it seems that the way it is is by far the least confusing and most helpful for the user. Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 5 July 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, L Faraone 02:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (to make it clear) per my comments and per other keeps above. postdlf (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is quite an unusual case. I think it is the best solution to keep the page. Any other solution would either duplicate information, or be unnecessarily unhelpful to the reader. scope_creep (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Pretty Little Liars characters. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Vanderwaal[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character who doesn't warrant an article. Everything here that isn't plot summaries is/should already found at List of Pretty Little Liars characters. The following characters also should be deleted, for the same reason:

Beerest355 Talk 18:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Pretty Little Liars characters. If there are sources that discuss the characters, those sources should be carried over to the list article. I don't think it necessary to merge the entire detailed plot summaries, but there may be some prose worth carrying over as well. The names of the characters are well-known, and should redirect to the list article in the absence of some other viable subject of the same name. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:20, 27 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:43, 3 July 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, L Faraone 02:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per UltraExactZZ. As nom states, these characters do not appear to warrant standalone articles. Gong show 05:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - per UltraExactZZ. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Douillard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Five year-old article cites no references to establish notability. Ten pages of Google search results return no obvious, reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:37, 26 June 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) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources about her. Even as the voice behind the Amy Rose video game character, I can find no information. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 2 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 3 July 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, L Faraone 01:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Morgan Perry[edit]

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

I saw this article while looking at Reddit. The way it is written, it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Also, the article claims that Perry is a former US Embassy Official, but reading the linked article from the Mail, it only says he claimed to be one during what appears to be a mental breakdown of such magnitude that the passengers on the airplane had to restrain him. Furthermore the bit about "The story briefly became a worldwide sensation, but has subsequently gone unreported" and "his current whereabouts are unknown" sound like a cheap novel. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:39, 11 July 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 July 11. Snotbot t • c » 01:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Ultimately once you strip all of the sensationalism from the article what you ultimately have is "Daniel Perry is a man who had a mental breakdown on a plane and claimed he knew where Snowden was. Because the media likes to point and laugh at a nutter when it's related to something that's actually newsworthy, here are a handful of news articles." This is pretty much the epitome of WP:BLP1E when you get down to it. This might just barely qualify for A7, as there's no credible claim to notability here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that- the Leagle source does list him as a FSO. This would put him just barely out of the reach of A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the worst of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had listed this for speedy deletion but was surprised to see it denied. This is just a case of someone having a mental breakdown, something that is not uncommon. If it happened at your local shops it wouldn't rate a mention anywhere. The fact that it happened on a plane, and he mentioned Snowden does not increase his notability. That's just the media looking for something to talk about. --Dmol (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. I beg to differ. This is not just someone having a mental breakdown on a plane. You say that it is "just the media looking for something to talk about", but this was a trailed massively in the international media, on major news outlets such as Sky TV and The Daily Mail. Even the International Herald Tribune, that last resort of conspiracy theorists, devoted an article to it in their print edition. I agree that if it happened at your local shop it would not rate a mention. The fact that it dovetails intensely with the Snowden story, one of the absolute touchstone news stories of 2013, increases its notability massively. Notability according to Wikipedia is something "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It might be more appropriate to move the article to a Steve_Bartman_incident-esque page. Google "His current whereabouts are unknown" and you will find a string of links to the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center. I take your point 'Two kinds of pork' and will endeavour to rework it a little. Orthorhombic, 14:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair notice, I'm reverting back to my version. Your version is way, way non-neutral and dramatically oversensationalizes everything. I have no political stance on the article. I also feel that your version is full of original research, as there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than a man with a history of mental illness having a mental breakdown on a plane and the media using it as something to poke at. Also, the Daily Mail is far from being a reliable source. It's pretty much the British equivalent of the National Enquirer and they're known for oversensationalizing things and sometimes even outright distorting the truth to the point where it's almost a lie. There aren't enough reliable sources to show that this is anything more than one sad event in this guy's life. The coverage isn't enough to show that this is more than WP:BLP1E. IF and I repeat IF this does pan out into anything more, then it can be re-created, but I doubt it will. I must state again that this is just one event in the life of a man with a history of severe mental illness. There is no reason to keep this article. I don't see where keeping this benefits Wikipedia in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean come on... saying "he's been missing since the airport" brings in all sorts of connotations. You're pretty much implying that the government swept in and took him off somewhere. You see, it might not be that. It could just be that he's tucked away in a mental institution somewhere. Or it could be that he was put on a medication that allowed him to see how crazy he was acting and is staying out of the media spotlight because he's pretty much embarrassed. There are a lot of reasons he's not in the public spotlight and writing things of that nature pretty much put in so many connotations that we try so hard to avoid here. I think my version should stay as it is or at least it shouldn't have all fo the previous stuff added back in. I really, really don't think that we could or should add any of the previous version's material back in. And I have to repeat- this is not political. This is about neutrality and looking at this beyond one event in a person's life that isn't of any true notability. This is Wikipedia, not a political conspiracy site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED automatically just because Snowden was mentioned. You have to prove that the two events are actually related, rather than what this seems like: a man with a mental illness that caused a disturbance on a plane. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. A nonnotable person or incident does not become encyclopedic because someone raved about someone else who is in the news spotlight. Absent conspiracy theories, there is nothing here that might belong in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a person claiming to be Daniel Morgan Perry without signifiant coverage in the media. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire - per WP:BLP1E and WP:V. There's nothing encyclopedic about this person at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple news story only. Plus the title implies it's a biography article, which it's not. --Light show (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear-cut case of BLP1E. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven deletes to one keep- I think we can snow close this at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Nicholson (coach)[edit]

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

I don't see thats what here amounts to notability, despite minor references. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played or managed in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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