< 29 July	31 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 Speedy delete. The article was deleted for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created (via speedy deletion criterion G7).

This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fisrt Çiller government[edit]

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

Accidentally created redirect page. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:23, 30 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) 07:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seaforth Street, Halifax[edit]

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

A three block long residential street with no indication of any notoriety or other importance. Seyasirt (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all. Dough 48 72 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after searches, not finding WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks any reliable sources and, in addition, there appears to be no feature or landmarks in this street that would contribute to building a case for notability. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:47, 31 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) 10:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 EC120 Kola Peninsula crash[edit]

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

Not notable private aviation accident. WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The general WP:CONSENSUS for the standard for an aviation accident to be included, as codified in the essay WP:AIRCRASH, is that an accident needs to be a scheduled service, involve a Wikinotable person, or result in a signficant change in design, operations, or procedures. None of these are met here; this is a light helicopter on a charter service, that involved a few tourists, and is likely to be pilot error (and even if not it's WP:TOOSOON for any changes to be made). There's a quick spurt of news but that's to be expected - WP:PERSISTENCE is unlikely for what is a tragic but ultimately run-of-the-mill light helicopter accident. Wikipedia is not a news service and not a memorial; unless this gets blown into some big deal involving the Russian police, there's nothing here even to be worthy of mention in the type article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...in fact Speedy Delete G12 as WP:COPYVIO - a duplication detector check shows rampant close paraphrasing from all of the article's sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur completely with Bushranger, There is absolutely no basis for notability, let alone meeting the guidelines in WP:AIRCRASH.--Petebutt (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, as bushranger has stated there is a copyvio problem, even to the extent of repeating the errors in the source.--Petebutt (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Demi Lovato#Concert tours. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Demi Lovato concert tours[edit]

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

Now that Demi Lovato: Live in Concert and A Special Night with Demi Lovato have their own articles (they were originally just included in this article), this article is now rendered useless. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demi Lovato#Concert tours, which is pretty much this article in the BLP. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Demi Lovato#Concert tours; there is some information in the article worth preserving. ModelUN (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. When there is information worth preserving, there should be a concerted effort to keep the info, even if the article is not merited. MMetro (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evixion[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE, in my opinion ModelUN (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your opinion of the sources cited in the article? It helps if you refute the claim of notability rather than simply assert an opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the sources support notability, especially the IMDB entry. That being said, I haven't read the second source because it is in French. ModelUN (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find more than enough references to meet WP:GNG, some of which I have now added. I have also corrected the release year to what is noted in the refs, which greatly increased the number of relevant results on Google. There seems to be more mentions of the film in french sources as well, maybe someone who speaks french could use them to add to the article and further support notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as decent enough stub article. Notable to Canada is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. The nom's inability to read French language sources is his personal problem, and not one related to notability. Sarahj2107 is to be applauded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep article includes significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cavarrone 03:48, 31 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 Maqaam#Faqr (Poverty). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAQR[edit]

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

I believe this article violates WP:NOTDICDEF. It's basically about the meaning of a word. Man way 20:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to Maqaam#Faqr (Poverty). Notwithstanding the lead's "the terminology often used by Sufis", the article is actually about a concept in Sufism, not the meaning of a word. We might also want to distinguish it from Fakir, a Sufi ascetic. Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cnilep or keep if enough can be said about the concept for an article greater than a stub. If kept, though, move to Faqr since there's no reason for all caps. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Devin Townsend. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties Of Cool[edit]

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

Another (incorrectly capitalized) version of Casualties of Cool (currently a redirect back to Devin Townsend). This version of the article relies almost entirely on self-published sources, and until something more concrete comes out about the album, the article is still lacking enough reliably sourced information to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. In time, as more news comes out, Casualties of Cool can be reverted back to a full article and added to. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about the capitalization, so I'm sorry that it was incorrect. Having not read WP:NALBUMS or reliably sourced before creating the article, I didn't realize that it was against guidelines to create an article for an album before the release date and track listing have all been released. This article should be deleted.Purkinje90 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devin Townsend as a plausible misspelling. When the time comes, it can be redirected to the album. Ansh6 6 6 22:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:TOOSOON. STATic message me! 11:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Horvath (soccer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non notable soccer player, no notability on this particular article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangenxutang Studio[edit]

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

I found no notability. The two sentence article says that it is "prestigious" and "renowned", but it doesn't explain why. This could be speedy deleted if those two words were not in the article. SL93 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This likely doesn't matter, but the creator was banned as a sockpuppet. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the creater was a sockpuppet, as he wasn't banned when the article was created (WP:G5). That being said, I support delete, because it doesn't appear to be notable (WP:GNG). ModelUN (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:N. Other than the Wikipedia article itself, there's zero Google News Archive hits and zero Google Books hits. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. A standard Google search provides blog and directory sources, but not reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 31 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) 18:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Fuck the Facts[edit]

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

A completely useless list of non-notable songs. Fuck the Facts discography exists already. What's the point? Beerest355 Talk 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fuck the Facts discography. Redundant. — kikichugirl ^inquire 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pointless fancruft, full of unencyclopedic content. If anything, I wanna know the history of Fuck the Facts, not a list with all their songs. This kind of list works better with mainstream artists, whose releases singles and have several charted songs across the world.--Malconfort (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when myself and another user made this list up however many years ago, it was because there were many songs that weren't accounted for with the discography and some with multiple versions that weren't differentiated either. But we and others have since updated the discography, so this page doesn't matter anymore and is redundant. Ibanez Guy (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my rationale at the AfD for songs by Kreator (which has ended in delete), this fails the purposes of a list. There is no category Category:Fuck the Facts songs, so this is a list of no notable items. If they had dozens and dozens of notable songs (IE they had articles for them), then this would pass the notability for having a stand-alone list (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia.). Fancruft at the moment and unlikely to be anything else. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A7/G1 borderline.--Laun chba ller 20:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT & above!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of seeing how many articles you can create with the word "fuck" in them Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for keeping and after cleanup is now a list of notable people. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sicilian mafiosi[edit]

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

This list is a WP:BLP nightmare, and should be deleted unless each and every member of the list self identifies as a member of this organisation. There is huge potential for legal disasters with articles of this nature. Fiddle Faddle 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legal disasters? Have you read the article? Click the links - most people here are solely notable for being criminals that were a part of this group. If there are people who aren't, they can be weeded out and removed. But this is a fine list for now. Beerest355 Talk 19:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article just needs a clean up by removing the names with no WP articles.--Vic49 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up the article.--Vic49 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list should contain only those entries which have proof, be it a reference in the article, or a blue link entry with evidence in its own article. Dream Focus 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Sicilian Mafiosi covers all those with articles and anybody wanting to see them can go there. This is just a list of links which is what a category is already,--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But sometimes we don't. I don't need to look hard and I can find categories with no duplicate lists. I would understand if this list has actual information but as it is it doesn't; it is just links.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether there are other categories that don't have corresponding lists (of course there are) is not relevant to whether this should be deleted, just as the fact that there is a category is not relevant to whether this list should be deleted. Not that this is necessary to keep it, but the list has the potential to be annotated or formatted into a sortable table, either of which would provide added value beyond a category. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve by providing brief info (one phrase) about every person in the list. Such lists have every right to exist per WP:List assuming that individual pages are sufficiently well sourced (yes, they seem to be). My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, I don't actually see any BLP violation in the list, however AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 03:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who is volunteering to clean this up? Are we just voting keep and praying that someone down the line in the future would improve it beyond a list of links? If yes, what if the situation remains unchanged for a year or more?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what you are referring? Vic49 already volunteered and he made a very strong cleanup, I don't see any BLP violation and subsequently no need for additional cleanup. If you have specific concerns about a item you are free to join the talk page discussion and raise your concerns. Cavarrone 07:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Repeat with me: there is no such thing as a BLP nightmare. The point is that either there is a BLP violation (and except for BLP1E or unsourced bios, they're a reason for cleanup but usually not for outright deletion) or there is not. Potential BLP violations are a false argument: every place in Wikipedia can bring a BLP violation. Permanent semiprotection/pending changes would be a nice idea, if the nom is concerned about potential violations. As far as I know nowhere in BLP is required self-identification with a crime organization, while conversely BLP contains WP:WELLKNOWN, which I'd say covers basically all entries: all these people are notable because they have been associated with the Sicilian Mafia, as well documented from trials, police sources and secondary sources. If some entry violates this, they can be removed. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Georgian mafiosi is a similar AFD. Someone there already linked to the discussion here. Same exact issues on both. Dream Focus 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why some people think these kind of articles should be removed. This is encyclopedia and it should involve everything from giraffes to solar system and that's why we are all here to contribute to a better knowledge of things in this world. GeorgianJorjadze 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I philosophically agree with you, but there are other points of view. See Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia and links therein.-- cyclopia^speak! 09:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KISS-FM (brand)[edit]

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

Nothing but a list of stations that call themselves "Kiss". Any sign of notability, such as the lawsuits, is completely unsourced. Article has been tagged for improvement since 2007 and nothing's happened. A search on Google Books found only directory listings and copies of the Wikipedia article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage, not article quality, determines notability. I've added sources for Cleveland "KISS" brand fight in late 90s. Levdr1lp / talk 22:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is only WP:LOCAL, and about those individual stations, not the brand as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not limited to a single radio station, or even a single radio market. And there is nothing local about a media giant like Clear Channel either bringing or threatening legal action against multiple radio companies in multiple media markets over exclusive use of an on-air brand. The subject is clearly national, even international, in scope. I have also addressed, at least partially, one of your original concerns ("any sign of notability... is completely unsourced"). I would assume that with a little digging, one could also easily find reliable sources on the Chicago, DC, and Bakersfield cases. Levdr1lp / talk 15:20, 17 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 · · 08:18, 23 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^{*Let's talk!*} 18:09, 30 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) 17:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Angel (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal Angel (company). That AFD was heavily tainted by sockpuppets (two of the three voters, including the creator of this article), so I am requesting a second review of this article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I closed the previous AfD as keep, as the socking had not yet been detected--or, at least, I did not realize it. This article presents an increasingly common dilemma. It was written by an ed. who is a meat or sockpuppet of [an extremely prolific sockmaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277], who has written stereotyped promotional articles of hundreds of non-notable or barely notable companies, mainly in the field of computer services or financial services. The article was written after the master account was blocked, and is thus subject to speedy deletion as G5. On the other hand, the PC World reference is a substantial review, of the sort that does demonstrate notability. The TeleChrunch article is not just PR: the claims of the company are followed by a NPOV evaluation. The present form of the article is somewhat promotional: ref 4 does not say what it is supposed to--it simply lists all Bay area companies at the show, not claiming any of them to be particularly notable. Ref 3 is just an announcement--it refers to this article which is a substantial interview, though one where the interviewer simply lets the co-founder of the company say whatever he cares to and is thus a form of PR--but perhaps it was not cited because it was followed by some very skeptical blog postings. There's no evidence they have been actually successful.

I don't like to use G5 when the reason for the block is unrelated to the article, and the article is particularly good and someone not blocked is willing to take responsibility for it. None of these seem to be the case. I'm not actually doing the deletion myself just yet, as I want to encourage discussion.

The justification for G5 in cases like this is that If we manage to remove all the sockmaster's articles now present, and continue to remove them as they get submitted, then there will be no incentive for that editor to continue. It's the only defense we have. (I did not previously think this way, but the problems we have now been finding are so severe, that they threaten the objectivity of the encyclopedia, and it's time for emergency measures. I agree there's a problem about removing such a large body of content, and a few of the articles should be rewritten. Perhaps the time to rewrite them will be a little while in the future, once we get this editor to stop--and to rewrite them without any of their work in the edit history. I see only one alternative solution to G5, which is to require identification from editors, and that is such as drastic change in our principles that it is not yet time to propose it. It would be a serious compromise in our mission, but it's a better alternative than permitting promotional editing. We would lose truly open editing, but we'd still have an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, and its parentage may be questionable, but the subject appears notable. In the last AfD I noted one item of significant coverage, in the San Jose Mercury News, a regional reliable source. A new search now turns up a review at CNN/Travel + Leisure. By my scoring that's multiple independent reliable sources. If the article is kept I will add these sources to it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 17 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 · · 08:19, 23 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^{*Let's talk!*} 18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN piece contains a two-sentence paragraph about this company. Major contributors to this article, 54.215.50.142, SFMarkIV (talk · contribs), Samwppn85 (talk · contribs) and Ztwriter (talk · contribs), are all blocked. —rybec 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G5. The current RS coverage doesnt meet the GNG anyway, but even if it did, this article still qualifies for G5. This article was created by a paid editor who is possibly one of the prolific sockmasters in Wikipedia's history - deleting all of the articles that they write will remove their incentive to continue their abominable behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is some material that may be salvaged from the massive sock operation, this is not a good example. The way we 'stop' them is to hit them where it hurts - a large percentage of their customers demanding their money back because we eliminated the article they paid for. In this case, the notability is borderline at best and the coverage routine for this type of company. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about this area to say whether the sources provide enough notability. But I'll point out here that I have just deleted a laudatory sentence that was not supported by either of the sources cited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 and possibly salt per DGG, Kevin, and FreeRangeFrog above. If consensus is that there is enough to pass WP:GNG, then I'd still say WP:IAR delete, and possibly recreate if someone wants. Better to have an article unaffiliated with the paid editors' sockfarm. Ansh6 6 6 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had actually come here intending to G5 the article before I saw the AFD notice. I'm not actually seeing a compelling argument for notability. One good source (the Mercury article). Everything else is cursory. The CNN article that Melanie links devotes two sentences to this subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Branson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. This was a redirect to Richard Branson's article until today when someone decided to expand it into the nothing that it now is. Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sam Branson has attracted 'significant' media coverage and been interviewed by reliable sources, some of the non-tabloid ones include:

Morris, Sophie (1 November 2007). "Sam Branson: Heir to an airline journeys to the Arctic". The Independent.

The Guardian (31 July 2008). "The green room: Sam Branson, model". The Guardian.

Wilkinson, Carl (2 December 2007). "Me and my travels". The Observer.

Moran, Caitlin (16 May 2013). "Sam Branson". The Times. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there's the book he co-authored with his father:

Branson, Sam; Branson, Richard (2007). Arctic Diary: Surviving on Thin Ice. ISBN 9780753513569. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His notability, like that of his sister, is borderline. He does have a very famous father, but does have some of his own notability. Some of his notability is because of his father, e.g. he was in the film Superman Returns because his father was invited to cameo in it, but being in the film gives him some notability in his own right and that notability is not inherited.Martin451 (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see no notability in anything he has done. Alternatively redirect to his father. Notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 21 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 · · 08:21, 23 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^{*Let's talk!*} 18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is craptastic, but the subject is clearly notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The offspring of notable people often attain notability on their own even if it is in large part established on the foundation of their heridity. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. Son of a really rich guy, some tabloid fluff, no significant coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has to something actually done to be notable for. The movie role isn;t, and except for the tabloid-style coverage here, would have been a speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Colt Trooper. Consensus to redirect following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Trooper Automatic[edit]

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

Although this is a real firearm prototype, the only coverage I found about it is on a forum. I don't see why a separate article is needed when this is basically a modification of a mass produced firearm, and the material is unfortunately not really suitable for a merge in the absence of more reliable sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:54, 23 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) 05:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with Redirect to Colt Trooper on this one. While not admittedly a popular search term, WP:CHEAP seems to apply here. Ansh666 06:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that should work. I just occurred to me that we could do that an leave a note on the talk page over there, in case someone comes up with something more than a picture of this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ansh. I can't see it being a likely search term but it gets 450 hits a month so someone is looking for it/at it. But agree with the nom that we shouldn't have an article without reliable sources to back it up. Stalwart111 07:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable firearm. The only reference for this firearm is a discussion web site with a couple of photographs. We cannot use photos as references. We have no idea where the photos came from. We have no idea if the information provided is correct. There is also nothing to suggest that this firearm was made by Colt. For all we know it was made by some gunsmith tinkering in his back-yard workshop with a Colt Trooper.--RAF910 (talk) 13:39, 23 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per sensible suggestions above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:58, 31 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ratbert[edit]

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

News search and book search brought up nothing, so this character is not noteworthy. Beerest355 Talk 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know if there's enough to warrant a separate article, but I can't agree that the searches turn up "nothing". In 1993, per The New York Times, Ratbert was part of an early experiment in making Dilbert an "interactive comic strip": "Ballots were cast via the Internet electronic mail system on this matter of public import: Should Dilbert, a cubicle-dwelling electrical engineer who works for a nameless bureaucracy, strike his pet rodent, Ratbert, with a rolled-up magazine? Or should Ratbert be spared in a blow against gratuitous violence?" [1] Other sources which GNews [2] tells us have at least a little about Ratbert (some of them paywalled, unfortunately): [3][4][5]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those sources discuss Ratbert in a real-world scenario, outside of the Dilbert comic strip. Beerest355 Talk

Keep: I was about to say "Merge and delete," but see Talk page context for article creation by consensus —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the page that talk comes from: the main Dilbert article. That discussion was before List of Dilbert characters existed. Ratbert has himself a nice little paragraph there. It understandably wouldn't belong in the main Dilbert article, but on a list it's fine. Also, I'm not seeing a consensus there. One guy suggested it, some other guy started babbling, and then the suggestor began creating it. Beerest355 Talk 17:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources above demonstrate notability of character. Failing that, there's no reason a merge or redirect to the list of dilbert characters wouldn't be more appropriate than deletion, per WP:ATD, so there is no policy basis for the deletion nomination at all. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... also the nomination is inaccurate on its face, as can be seen by clicking the 'news' link above--there are plenty of presumably RS'ed sources, many paywalled, that a proper Google News search would have turned up. Looks like a WP:BEFORE fail. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to character list. The present article is purely in-universe and hence completely worthless. Nothing in the google hits mentioned above constitutes in-depth treatment of the character as such, so there's no visible potential for useful expansion. Nothing salvagable here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sensible to keep this separate per the existing consensus and WP:SPLIT. Short articles are better suited to mobile devices and now the visual editor, which does not handle sections or large articles well. Our format should follow modern trends per WP:NOTPAPER. Warden (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no existing consensus, and it's not as if this article could be condensed and redirect to the characters list. I don't see how new technology allows a free pass for this non-notable character. Beerest355 Talk 21:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which non-notable character are you referencing? Notability is based on sources, which exist in abundance. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the sources? None of them are in-depth coverage of Ratbert. If you can find one, I's like to see it. Beerest355 Talk 13:43, 27 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A proposal to merge can be discussed elsewhere, but the subject clearly warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How?! I want to know why this fictional character with a lack of in-depth coverage deserves inclusion. He is rightfully included at the Dilbert character list but a stand-alone article has yet to be justified. Beerest355 Talk 02:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have already pointed you to wp:split and wp:notpaper. South Park is a very popular and long running series. Including coverage of the characters that populate its story lines seems reasonable. You might also want to review Wikipedia:Merging. How would deleting this subject improve the encyclopedia? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Park? Huh? Did you read the article? WP:SPLIT applies if a segment is growing out of proportion, which Ratbert's portion at List of Dilbert characters is definitely not. Note that WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion either. Deleting this article wouldn't bother anyone, as we could insert a redirect to Ratbert's segment. Beerest355 Talk 11:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not because...this article exists? Also "it wouldn't bother anyone", if it isn't an argument to avoid, should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying "it wouldn't bother anyone" as a delete argument. I'm responding to the flimsy argument of "deleting it wouldn't improve the encyclopedia" which is basically WP:NOHARM. Beerest355 Talk 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Biographies" of in-universe characters like this are generally merged. Now where??? Carrite (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mad Dog (album). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning (Entwistle Song)[edit]

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

Unremarkable song IMO - suggest merging with Mad Dog (album) Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Mad Dog (album), and put a link in Drowning (disambiguation). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mad Dog (album). Doesn't require a deletion discussion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations school community[edit]

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

School is closed. Was not notable anyway (no independent, reliable sources). GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There actually are some sources about this school [6], mostly about when it almost went out of business in 1999 but was rescued by donations. This confirms that the school existed. However, all the links mention it as an elementary school; I could not find any verification that it ever served secondary students. Thus it was not automatically notable as a high school would be. Normally we would redirect such a school, but for a defunct, short-lived private school I feel that is not appropriate in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 16 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 · · 08:31, 23 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per coverage in reliable sources and high schools being deemed notable. Notability does not expire and it was in existence for long enough and with enough coverage to warrant inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find confirmation that it was a high school? I wasn't. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can find some coverage in GNews searches. However, I can't find anything to indicate that the school serves anything other than K-8. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston machine gun[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article is rife with problems, starting with the usual one that patents are WP:PRIMARY sources for WP:GNG purposes. The patent is mentioned in a long list of machine gun patents in a US gov work (by Chinn), but that does not add much notability. I've not seen any detailed discussion of this design in Chinn. Furthermore there are some misinterpretations in this article, no doubt caused by the lack of careful reading of the primary source. This "mega-gatling" design is unusual because it was intended to fire from two diametrically opposed barrels simultaneously, and even had a built-in cooling fan. However, the wiki article wrongly states that "it had no chambers" contra to the "cartridge receiving chambers" discussed on line 76 and other places in the patent. The chambers themselves were unusual as they were temporarily created on the opposite sides of the centrally rotating drum. The two counter-rotating drums on each side of that were supposed to create the chambers, but these would have been rather leaky because of their design—cylinders touching each other radially do not provide a good seal. I'm not surprised this didn't get any traction. Also, this is a design by the obscure JAMES S. JOHNSTON (no relation to Melvin Johnson), and he is probably not the bishop either so a merge would not be appropriate. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:03, 23 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) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Just another article based on a patent. There is no information anywhere that this gun ever existed. I did find a Johnston Model D1918 which appears to be a Lewis Gun type LMG. However, it does not even come close to matching the description of the gun in the article.--RAF910 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M1941 Johnson machine gun as a plausible misspelling. This one as it stands fails WP:GNG. Ansh666 01:08, 24 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got nothing on this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 31 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) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayedeh Legendary Persian Diva[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:NME. The article is mostly an original research. This documentary has not received enough coverage to establish notability, and didn't win any awards. Screening it in some non-notable festivals doesn't make it notable. Farhikht (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete - what isn't already in the Hayedeh article can easily be folded in. EBY (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* It is maybe irrelevant but the creator of this article has been indefinitely blocked for the promotion of the director of this documentary.Farhikht (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be kept. There are many entries in Wikipedia about the films which have not won any prize. It does not make any sense that because of this issue, you deleted the page. The film has been cited as a 'must see film' in Dutch Weekly Elsevier and 'a great insight to Persian music' in The Holland Time. BBC Persian TV also aired the film few months ago. Leo71538 (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known figure and documentary. Article is well sourced. Kabirat (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note- Please see also the result of investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shayan7 which is related to this discussion.Farhikht (talk) 09:43, 23 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge - it should be a section in Hayedeh article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spada2 (talk • contribs) 06:00, July 25, 2013‎ (UTC)
Comment - It is impossible to delete and merge contents, because the source article's history must be retained to provide attribution for the merged contents. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:46, 29 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and proceed with any merge proposal on the article talk pages. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article looks fine and the sources are reliable. Bburgersjr (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film worths to have a page on Wikipedia. It's listed in WorldCat and according to Persian Heritage Magazine (based in US) the documentary has been screened in Noor Festivals in in Los Angeles as well.--Khafesho (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Game as Old as Empire[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability criteria as well as the specific notability criteria for books. No evidence of substantial, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to have both neutrality and notability problems. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:BK.--JayJasper (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author's article. At more than 600 hits last month, it qualifies for at least a redirect to be established immediately subsequent to deletion. --85.197.3.207 (talk) 02:39, 30 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. No evidence of meeting notability and hit counts less than useless for establishing the notability of a redirect. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "notability of a redirect" supposed to mean? We create redirects wherever they are useful. There is nothing in our notability guidelines on if, when and how a topic would be notable enough for a redirect. --85.197.4.56 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the notable book to which it is a sequel. The content could also be appropriately merged to the author's page. But deletion would be inappropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:55, 31 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) 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Morgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Illustrator, professional photographer. As a photographer, he has his own wedding photography business, but nothing groundbreaking. As an illustrator, he's illustrated Bats in the Air, Bats in My Hair (up for being chopped at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bats in the Air, Bats in My Hair), by Martha Hamlett (was chopped at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Hamlett, up again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Hamlett (2nd nomination)), but apparently little else. Author is apparently the same as the other two. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC). As per the info in file:Radioshow32509.jpg, user:Sycondavey is Davey Morgan, so WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY applies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. Does not yet warrant inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides not having any reliable sources, I don't see what makes this artist notable. Many of the links don't mention him; they appear to be randomly linked. For example, this church magazine doesn't even feature his work. While I'm sure he's a nice guy, and an up-and-coming young man, he's still just a run of the mill artist. What's worse, is that his name is so common, that searching for good sources on Google news is like trying to find a needle in the haystack. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is clearly to keep. I will move it to the proper title--I assume the 85 is a typo. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Deep (1985 film)[edit]

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

I found nothing to show that this film passes WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, Looked on Google & only found this & this (Link doesnt work either!. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a 1983 film, not 1985, and IMDB lists Nicole Kidman as being in it. I found this with a quick Google search. I'm sure there's plenty more out there too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicole Kidman being in it does not make the film pass WP:NF, nor does a short paragraph. You also can't be sure that there are plenty more sources out there, considering you only did a quick search. SL93 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty sure if she was in a film today and not 1983, it would be a sure-fire keep. Harder to find online info for a film from the 1980s. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether or not that is the case, there is no good coverage. Nothing can be truly predicted. The article can always be added to her article with a redirect if that is the consensus. I doubt that it would be a sure-fire keep. 1983 was her first year of acting. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, man. The '80s weren't the Dark Ages (maybe for music). Now I just feel old. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Nicole Kidman was in a film today it would probably be a surefire keep, as it would attract lots of attention. This little film has recieved no substantial coverage, and "oh it's from the 80s sources are harder to find" is not a free pass. Beerest355 Talk 18:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially because any 1980s film with any impact does have coverage that can still be found. There is even a category - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1980s_films. SL93 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proper film year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. It hasn't been noticed and isn't inheriting any notability from Kidman. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliably sourced article about Australian TV movie that is significant for its inclusion of several notable actors and creative artists. Kidman's first film role? How exactly would deleting this improve the encyclopedia? Sources from 1980s Australia are more difficult to obtain than current TV movies of this type, but we shouldn't discriminate based on armchair laziness. Manifestly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually her second role. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't see how following notability guidelines is discrimination. I think that it is discrimination to keep some films that do not meet the notability guideline, while deleting others. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the person who originally wrote the article I am biased but I would argue strongly it be kept. It was an Australian TV movie, which personally I think is grounds enough for inclusion - but also it was from a noted director (Mark Joffre) and featured well known Australian actors including Nicole Kidman. It was also culturally important to Australia because it was a rare Australian attempt to make a Dallas-Dynasty type show. Australian films remain unrepresented on wikipedia, an imbalance I am trying to correct.Dutchy85 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Candleabracadabra. It's pre-internet, so I'm more forgiving regarding the paucity of sources. (And for the record, 1980s music is actually pretty awesome if you're a classical geek. :-))--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, appears to be a victim of WP:BIAS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the topic is not as represented as other topics in sources, notability has not been shown. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judge (band)[edit]

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

According to the article, this band's various records had pressings ranging from the low hundreds to the low thousands. I'm not sure it satisfies WP:MUSIC. No chartbusters are claimed, and I have come to wonder if the articles about the band's members and their labels may be a walled garden. Edison (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band has received sufficient coverage, e.g. Allmusic, Decibel, and there is also quite a bit of coverage of Porcell's other activities, suggesting some of the related AfDs should not result in deletion, e.g. We Owe You Nothing: Punk Planet: The Collected Interview, Rolling Stone's Alt Rock-a-Rama, Blabbermouth.net, Encyclopedia of Punk Music and Culture, Vice. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 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, Wizardman 16:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Michig's sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 30 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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's High School (Renfrew)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Joseph's High School (Renfrew)

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

Delete as Non-notable. I understand there is a presumption of notability on Wikipedia regarding high schools, but this article, I think, proves that there are exceptions to everything. Quis separabit? 15:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - high schools are significant institutions in their community. Experience shows that with enough research high school articles can be brought into compliance with WP:ORG. As with all likely notable subjects the way forward is to tag for improvement not deletion. If kept, the page should be moved to St. Joseph's Catholic High School (Renfrew). The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple GNews search of <"St. Joseph" Renfrew "high school"> shows that sourcing exists for this high school just as one would expect. [7] No reason to vary from our standards on this one. Not sure about the suggested name change; the official school website [8] and official Facebook page [9] use the name "St Joseph's High School". --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the school can be found via Google search (this is what pops up: [10]) — the question is what is remotely notable about the school. Quis separabit? 17:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as long as a school offering secondary or higher education can be proved to exist (as above), it is inherently notable. I'm not aware of any exceptions to this rule. Also, against the move, since the school apparently doesn't use "Catholic" when referring to itself. Ansh6 6 6 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article, as written, contains no citations and fails to give any reason as to why the school is worthy for Wikipedia. The article, in its current form, could have been written by an eighth grader and nobody would have known the difference. The school itself only has one reference within every page that refers to it and that reference is the school website. Due to the lack of independent, reliable sources, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155blue (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, schools offering secondary or higher education have a special exemption to ordinary notability standards. Ansh6 6 6 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ansh666: Any evidence that that is Wikipedia policy? Just curious. Thanks. Quis separabit? 17:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Michael below. What I meant is that it has to be verifiably in existence. IIRC, secondary sources are generally not needed for high schools due to their community importance. Ansh6 6 6 23:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't a policy per se, but it is the common practice backed by longstanding consensus and precedent. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NHS. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), articles about secondary schools are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, as a secondary school, for all the reasons we usually keep articles on secondary schools. I have no idea what the nominator is getting at. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the interested parties — there are exceptions to every rule, which is why WP:IAR exists. I am not invoking IAR but pointing out that allowing a plainly non-notable school, which was for a long period of time a copy and paste stub, to remain is to rely on rote, boilerplate precedents and ignoring the chance to intellectually challenge notability. That being said, I obviously realize that the article is a near unanimous keep, so we may as well close it out accordingly. Quis separabit? 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we have discussed before, there is no such thing as a non-notable high school. Ansh6 6 6 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary there are many, many thousands, if not millions, worldwide, which is why not every high school on the planet has an article on Wikipedia, and most never will. It's just that for some reason Wikipedia holds that any article related to a high school must be kept (see Michaelzeng7's comments). There's a difference. Quis separabit? 20:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but that doesn't mean we should delete this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High schools are almost always notable, no matter where they are in the world. In this case, I see no reason to separate this high school from any other high school article on Wikipedia. The Whispering Wind (talk · contribs) has made many improvements that evidence this. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the only time when high schools are usually deleted is when zero sources can be found to prove they exist. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the community has agreed most high schools should be kept is because they are very important in their respective communities. As stated before, it is postulated that, with enough research, a fairly decent article can most oftentimes be written about any high school. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futher, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. Instead of having a goal of writing an article for every high school out there in the world, we should consider each subject one by one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per long-standing WP:CONSENSUS, being a high school = notability. Argument against it seems to boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, so this can be deleted despite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs) 09:15, 2 August 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you sort of contradicted yourself there. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as nominator has withdrawn + there is no support for a deletion. (non-admin closure) CorporateM (Talk) 01:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmartScore[edit]

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

Article is absent of any proper sources other than the company website. It's possible a properly sourced article could be written, but for now there is nothing in the current article to keep. CorporateM (Talk) 15:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. The article clearly needs a lot of work, and has been tagged as such for a while. But the product is fully notable, and deletion does not seem to be in any way an appropriate response. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article now contains at least some sources and enough material worth keeping to keep the article, rather than scrap it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there is an article on the parent company I can't see how deletion would be preferable to a merge if the subject is not independently notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Coverage in some very reputable publications. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: given that the nominator has voted keep above, should this now be closed as a speedy keep? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dwile flonking[edit]

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

Subject is a hoax. Most external references are broken, the others admit it may be a hoax, and most of the article's content is copied verbatim from the main non-broken reference. Brazzy (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dwile flonking is absolutely not a hoax. See this article in The Telegraph for verification. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possibly an *old* hoax, but all the sources point to it being made made up in 1966 at the earliest and actually performed mostly as a joke. Brazzy (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Probably being a hoax is fine if the article states that people think it's a hoax. That's implied at current, and could be expanded to become explicit (though I won't do it myself). Also looks to me like it barely squeaks past WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether put-on or not in its origins, it's now evidently known and covered in sources from a 1967Hartford Courant [11] to a 2011 Toronto Star [12]. GBooks has numerous results, including a rather sober entry in the Encyclopedia Of Traditional British Rural Sports[13] as well as more jovial ones such as [14][15][16][17] etc., etc., etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes Wikipedia's threshold of notability having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] (shorter article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:12, 31 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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Crowe[edit]

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

Not notable (WP:PROF) Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Although the original nominator's argument must be tossed out due to WP:JNN, he is correct in stating that the article is not notable. The article is written like a list of all books that he has worked on and grossly violates Wikipedia policy.155blue (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article provides little, but Google searches suggest that, as the article states, Crowe is recognized for his work on Oskar Schindler[24] and other Holocaust-related issues. Here he is in The New York Times [25] and The Guardian[26], and here he is quoted in a recent news story [27]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Quite plainly the supporters of deletion have made no significant effort to assess the actual notability of the article subject (see, eg, http://www.elon.edu/e-web/law/faculty/crowe_david.xhtml) but instead are whaling away at a new article nominated here only minutes after its creation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Passes WP:Prof. Irresponsible nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. His book holdings, as quantified by WorldCat, are hefty: 1695, 1009, 744, 535, ..., which far exceeds the WP:PROF c1 guideline. Article may not be very well written at the moment, but notability of subject is conclusive. Please WP:BEFORE. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Strong/Speedy Keep -- Agricola's noting of WorldCat book holdings is important. This is way beyond the norm for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Recognized expert on history of the Roma. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitchy Resting Face[edit]

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

Only references are an online editorial from The Guardian and an article from The Daily Mail (the latter of which being unarguably an unreliable source). ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't KnowYourMeme.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recentism.Deb (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfunny and a BLP violation waiting to happen; sources are junk fluff of the fleeting variety. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. That it is a subject in popular culture is irrelevant. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Echo points as made by Candleabracadabra above. Sources are reputable UK newspapers and appeared in actual print. I suspect there will be many people (such as myself!) who wonder what "BRF" is, and will find it useful to read this article. It's also easy to find many sources of a similar quality. In response to concerns about "recentism", my reading of Wikipedia's guidance is that recentism has problems and benefits, and isn't an automatic reason to delete a page. (Notability can be an issue, but I think that in this case here.) I don't agree with the view that this article violates WP:WWIN. I don't think "unfunny" is a real Wikipedia policy objection, and surely it's better to deal with any BLP violations if and when they appear? Feel free to disagree and discuss. The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Is this a condition known to the medical community and diagnosed by a doctor (at least one that doesn't want to risk being taken to the cleaners in a defamation suit by saying the name of the 'condition')? Not that I know of. And again, I stand by my argument that the sources are fluff; the Daily Mail piece is pretty much the most lazy excuse for a story I've read; all they did was go through their photo wires, find bad pictures, roll out some 'yeah I can see that text' and they have a story. I cannot read the medical journal story so I have no way to know what that said, and I see that some wool-pulling is being pulled by switching the link originally associated with Today to a shared story with CNBC.com; major problems still exist with that source and the writing remains fluff. I stand by my rationale that the sources need major improvement, or we need to connect this with a medical term that is a whole lot more neutral. Nate • (chatter) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment thanks, Nate. The story linked to has always been associated with CNBC: you can check the history if you need to. (i originally included both CNBC and TODAY.com in the reference text, but when I was checking up on references, it became clear that CNBC was the original and only publisher of the press story; TODAY.com is a television show owned by the same news organisation, and the story was written by one of their journalists.) I don't like the Daily Mail article either, and I wouldn't dream of supporting an argument based on editorial opinion, but I do feel that it is a valid source where reporting of objective fact is concerned. I treat the Guardian - which I do like - in exactly the same way. The nursing journal you can't access includes a report on an aesthetics conference, and makes an explicit reference to BRF - almost certainly tongue-in-cheek, but a reference nonetheless. Although it is clear that some plastic surgeons are using the term - and more than one the source shows that - that's hardly the point. BRF is not a medical condition: rather, it's a satirical observation on the way our culture places unreasonable focus on women's appearance. I'm sure your concern is to stop Wikipedia carrying bad medical content: I feel that BRF is important in a cultural content. I'm editing in good faith, and I hope you can see that even if you disagree. The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7: Author requested) by Wizardman (talk · contribs)

Market Vectors Indices[edit]

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

Non-notable market index company. The only information to be found about this company comes from primary sources (the company's own website or press releases). No reliable third-party sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:27, 30 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 deleted by User:Shirt58 per CSD A7, with the summary "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry potter wizard chronicles darkhunter[edit]

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

DouglasCalvert (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment surely this is a candidate for speedy deletion - non notable person or even a hoax? Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 30 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 - G11. Why waste the time on a clear-cut case here? Absolute NN and spam. User spamublocked. Alexf^(talk) 15:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devprocb[edit]

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

DouglasCalvert (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Absolutely no evidence of notability, basically spam. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:51, 30 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 per WP:SNOW (not speedy). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrating science[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTHOWTO, et al Dea db eef 09:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very short article lacking context, sources and general notability. Ochiwar (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can kind of see what the creator was trying to do but such an article would need a lot of material, a proper title and a solid premise and this has nothing much at all, let alone those things. I'd be okay with a WP:TNT deletion if someone thought they could do something of value with the title, but I can't support keeping this. Stalwart111 10:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ochiwar. GregJackP Boomer! 11:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. (It's borderline WP:CSD, but none of them exactly fits.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Speedy delete" and "snow delete" are different. If you can't find a CSD to fit, it's better not to have a bolded "speedy delete" !vote. Ansh6 6 6 17:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the irony is lost on you: complaining that I didn't follow the proper bureaucratic procedure in invoking WP:SNOW. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that "speedy delete" has very precise definitions in this regard. Semantics, I know, but I feel like it's required to point this out whenever it pops up. Ansh6 6 6 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actual speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. I can't really figure out what the article is about - no context. Ansh6 6 6 17:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actual snow delete - as I'm not really sure what it's supposed to be about, but there appears to be some kind of context to it. I think. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:SNOW. I would disagre with WP:A1 because (in part) it was proposed and then removed by User:Ochiwar, and because it has some context. ModelUN (talk) 21:56, 30 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 Grease: You're the One that I Want!. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nolan (American actor and singer)[edit]

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

Very questionably-notable Broadway performer. Half the refs are about his high school/college sports career, the other half are brief mentions in articles about other people. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 16 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 · · 08:17, 23 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, Theopolisme (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grease: You're the One that I Want! (per usual custom for talent show contestants). I'm not seeing evidence of notability. No detailed media coverage. His roles have tended to be supporting roles in revivals or long-running productions; he's not originated any major roles and not taken the lead in much (he has played Danny in a major production of Grease but so have a lot of other people). Therefore he fails WP:NACTOR. Note: he shouldn't be confused with the older screen and voice actor Matt Nolan.[28] --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:12, 30 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) 18:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Zeinali[edit]

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

While he may have been arrested, I'm not really seeing anything in the content that makes him ~~inherently~~ notable. The only major thing that this article is mentioning is his arrest and that he was a "political prisoner" - but I'm not seeing major news coverage. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article topics need to be notable, not "inherently notable", whatever that is supposed to mean. The BBC source cited is certainly major news coverage and goes some way towards demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I typed "inhereitly" but that's been struck. One single BBC news story of an arrest doesn't make a person notable. He was arrested - a lot of people have been arrested. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source is not reporting the news of his arrest, but is an article about Zeinali published fourteen years after his arrest. As I said, it goes some way towards demonstrating notability, but not all the way. Have you looked for sources in Persian or for other possible transcritions of the name into the Roman alphabet, such as combinations including "Said" for the first name and "Zeynali" for the second? I'm sure that there are other possibilities. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - relevant and important Kabirat (talk) 06:39, 26 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, Theopolisme (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources including BBC News. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this case is a little complicated. Zaynali's status as alive or dead can't be confirmed but I think that this is not a BLP. Iranian authorities never commented on this incident and mainstream media outlets can't cover his case due to restrictions for independent journalists in Iran.Farhikht (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think also that the article should be renamed to Disappearance of Saeed Zeinali.Farhikht (talk) 09:41, 31 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 Chicken (game). Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penis game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think these actually prove notability; the game is mentioned in passing in these sources. Against the current (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, some of us don't like it and others like it because some don't like it. Whatever. I find numerous passing mentions that proves this exists. However, even with the "Bogies" version from across the pond, I am unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The last AfD was a "Delete", then it was recreated by a brand new editor who quickly disappeared. It probably should have been speedied based on that a while ago. (In any event this is a pretty strong indication that deletion makes sense here.) Vagina.- SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HOLY CRAP Warden's voted "just not notable" on something before? That should be a CSD on its own! Anyhow, redirect to Chicken (game). Ansh6 6 6 04:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, merge whatever is necessary (to avoid WP:UNDUE) and redirect to Chicken (game), which is prominently mentioned in this article. Ansh6 6 6 19:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as suggested by Ansh666 above. It is just a variant of a dare game in which any embarrassing word or action (in the context) can be chosen by participants. The number of different words or actions, and variations in the rules for deciding a winner, that must have been chosen through history and across the globe must be enormous. Some of those might have been sufficiently common to pass some sort of notability test in that it would have been readily recognised within the sub-culture that participated and referred to elsewhere, but it would make no sense to have an article for each when the one covers it. --AJHingston (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This most certainly does not fall under WP:MADEUP, existing in many different forms worldwide. (Though somehow it manages to still be non-notable...) Ansh6 6 6 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it was made-up. It certainly didn't occur naturally. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, quick, salty delete! This topic is both juvenile and vulgar. Moreover, it's not newsworthy, having existed for longer than Wikipedia. Finally, it doesn't require any equipment, so there's nothing to sell. No reputable scholar, advertiser, or journalist would touch it with a ten-foot pole. Having it here is just an embarrassment. I can't see a suitable place to merge it to: Chicken (game) says that "chicken" has exactly two players, whereas the "penis!" game can be, in my experience, played by a group of friends—immature friends with little sense of decorum. Because it's a friendly competition, it is not exactly like brinksmanship, although there are phallic parallels ("The Cuban Missile Crisis presents an example in which opposing leaders, namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, continually issued warnings, with increasing force, about impending nuclear exchanges [...]").

An unsigned comment in the original vote for deletion sums up the problems with this topic:

Naturally, the playing of the game results in tensions between players and other customers. I think this case is revealing in that it demonstrates that the 'offence word' serves mainly to test whether a player is more loyal to in-group or to out-group norms of behaviour. The winner is the one who is most 'in-group', obeying the rules of the game slavishly, and who is least sensitive to 'out-group' pressures. If played in an environment populated entirely by in-group members, the game is not fun, as it provides no such test.

I found a few disgusting mentions to this, but all were in college or even high school publications. These writers are untrained, unpaid, don't check facts and are simply sophomoric and uncouth:

Please, if we must have articles about popular culture, let's follow all the rules and stick to clean, merchandise-related topics like hacky sack, the hula hoop, and Tamagotchis. —rybec 19:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review WP:NOTCENSORED...and "salty" can be quite a pun in that regard...(and yes, I'm a teenager...) Ansh6 6 6 21:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources (as noted in original AfD back in 2008 and again above). Well established game. Merging to Chicken (game) also reasonable. Deletion would be inappropriate and unconstructive. Not sure why people are so bothered by the subject. Does it have to do with Penis envy? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, there are lots of sources that mention it. If there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, though, I simply don't see it. If you are aware of such coverage, please link to it here. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources are identified in the discussion above, additional sources are cited in the article and in the original AfD when it was kept. Has it become less notable for some reason? It seems that it continues, in fact, to be noted by various sources (those where one would expect a party game to be noted). If you are looking for an extensive coverage in Foreign Affairs I think you will be disappointed. :) Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "slight keep" was 5 years ago. A year after that, it was deleted. Consensus can (and apparently did) change. Note the even earlier VfD was a "keep" based on whether or not anyone had heard of it: our guidelines has also changed.

As for the sources above, the half a sentence in the Washington Post, the same bare bones description is supplemented in the BBC piece only by the fact that Dick and Dom played it as kids, "Temple News" tells us only that @crosswalkkarma and Samantha Krotzer (insert crotch joke here) have played it, Sarah Kwak (insert cock joke here tells us its a juvenile obsession at her school, etc. Basically, for a notable topic it shouldn't be this hard to find something much longer than that. I've shown you mine, show me yours.

As for the quality of sources, I'm not a fan of Foreign Affairs. However, academic sources on circle jerks, tag and the dozens raise the question: Where's the beef? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with merging and redirecting to chicken (game) as suggested above. The coverage, while not extensive, is recurring. So it's game that is noted regularly but perhaps not with the extensive coverage that would warrant a stand-alone article. As long as it's included and noted appropriately within the encyclopedia (with the search term directed to the coverage) I think that's a reasonable outcome. Simply deleting and sweeping it under the rug because we don't like penis games seems peurile. As this is a pageless encyclopedia we are not running out of inches to extend. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To expand on my reasoning above for redirection to chicken (game), that is the name under which the general concept of the dare game has been written about as an aspect of game theory and the individual variants can best be explained. That is not saying that individual examples of such games could not be said to scrape over the notability bar, just that they are not individually distinctive enough for their own articles. Culture and fashion dictate what words a group will choose for this game - my experience is that words for parts of the female anatomy are likely, and it would seem ridiculous to have a redirect from Cunt game (etc) to Penis game even though they would be otherwise identical. And in what essential way is this game different from flashing parts of the anatomy? For boys that might be the buttocks rather than the penis, for girls the penis is one thing that they would not display. Then what about offensive noises, etc? What an encyclopedia can do is draw such behaviours together and analyse them. Dare games have certain things in common, the most important of which is a degree of peril - actual physical danger, punishment, social sanction or embarrassment. Whilst there is an overlap in the case of this variant with a simple desire to annoy adults, using a 'naughty' word to shock and annoy generally begins very young, does not require other children to be present, and can easily be distinguished from the game element described here.

What is true is that the Chicken (game) article does need to be expanded accordingly to refer to dare games in general. At present the article refers only to one version of Chicken made famous by Hollywood, and involving two drivers. Surely much more widely played is the version sometimes called Last Across, which involves running across a road or railway track in front of a moving vehicle, and there is the one in which participants withdraw their head from the open window of a moving train as another approaches in the other direction. These games are essentially opportunistic and the precise terms are set by the group, so the article needs to generalise from the range of typical examples. It would also be improved if it approached such games from the perspective of the social psychologist. When I learnt about the theory of international relations 40 years ago the mutually destructive risks of the two player confrontation were at the uppermost of peoples' minds but the topic is much wider than that. I am not really qualified for this, but I wonder if anyone feels able to shape a paragraph or two into Chicken (game) and to which this would be a satisfactory redirect (this is not a vote for merge because I do not think that the detail in the present article is needed). --AJHingston (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The long and seedy history of this thing has unfortunately been restored by Anthony Appleyard.

version discussed in second AfD [29]
version written by a vandal [30]

The "bogies" nonsense was one of the reasons Dick and Don's television show was (quite rightly) cancelled [31].

—rybec 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with this discussion? Ansh6 6 6 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[32]
[33] (page giving a temporary error right now)

It was "deemed inappropriate" partly over fears it was encouraging children to misbehave by teaching them the "bogies!" game, which is a variation of this article's subject. —rybec 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what this has to do with this discussion. This is about whether or not this article should be deleted, not about whether the "penis game" (or "bogey game") is moral or not. Ansh6 6 6 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more coverage about "bogies!" and the television show (pre-cancellation) but it's not independent:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4320000/newsid_4327600/4327657.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4320000/newsid_4327700/4327717.stm —rybec 21:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be advancing a "keep" position here by providing a ton of wonderful sources... Ansh6 6 6 21:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone requested this undeletion of old edits, in Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen, and I obeyed, so that the non-admin people discussing here can see the full history of this page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sad, isn't it?
http://web.archive.org/web/20120311091020/http://redandblack.com/2007/08/23/superbad-a-dirty-pleasure-for-opening-weekend-audience/ (cited in old article, is just a brief, unsatisfying mention)
http://www.studlife.com/scene/2011/02/11/%E2%80%98the-vagina-monologues%E2%80%99-challenges-social-norms/ (Javascript required, doesn't go to any great depth either)
2008 deletion review —rybec 03:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rybec - just stop. You're providing external links for a delete argument? There's nothing that it's adding to this discussion, so don't clutter it up. That will just waste time for the closer. Ansh6 6 6 06:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Argue that WP is not for things made up in one day or that this game is non-notable under GNG, either way. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did not expect to say keep, but I read all the sources. It seems to so well known as to be able to be used by serious journalists not just reporting on college life but as an analogy with national-level politics (ny mag) and therefore quite reasonably will be something that people look for in an encyclopedia. The stupider aspects of contemporary culture are part of contemporary culture as much as the highest levels--we don't discriminate on any such basis. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure). Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Clebert[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clebert played in the Arena Football League[34][35] (and won two Arena Bowls[36]), thus does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw OMG. I totally missed that. My apologies. Next person to see this page please close it. Thanks Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:50, 30 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 HIM (Finnish band). Deleted and redirected. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Hel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is actually a renomination because for some reason nobody bothered to chip-in last time.

A search on Google for (him "live in hel") returned 156 results, and again (as I recently nominated Uncover… which had the same problems) most were torrent websites, fansites or YouTube videos. Those that were not were PR and did little to justify why the EP is so notable. (Here's an example.) Links used in citations appear to be dead, fansites or both. Again, it is my belief that a release like this belongs on Discogs, not here. Lazy Bastard Guy 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this really more of a merge/ redirect candidate since there is an article on the parent subject (the band)? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I don't understand why insert promo CDs bear any mention if they have had next to no notable impact whatsoever. This was a covermount CD that came with a magazine, and exactly nothing else that I could substantiate. Wikipedia may have discographies that cover some obscure stuff, but not this obscure. Like I said, this would be better on Discogs, where anything and everything is included regardless of its impact or notability. We can't keep track of every release like this, so I don't think we should try. Better to focus on the more major stuff and completely ignore things like these. Lazy Bastard Guy 23:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not familiar with the practices in popular music, but anywhere else we wouldn't even consider keeping an article on a re-publication of a small amount of previously released material even for an exceptionally famous person. (in fact, I cannot remember even the most fervent supporter of an author here ever trying to write one.) This level of depth may conceivably be appropriate for content in the discography of a famous artist, but certainly not for an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Hamlett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found no significant coverage for this author. Her only book is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bats in the Air, Bats in My Hair. Fails WP:AUTHOR. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a previous AfD in 2008 that resulted in deletion. Tagging as G4 just in case. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book is elf-published.Thereis considerable additional content here over the earlier version, but it doesn't show notability. I think it wouldbe better to deete it here than G4. it's more likely to prevent it showing up yet again. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be no verifiable evidence of notability. WP:NRVE Kooky2 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:52, 30 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.