< 11 March	13 March >

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisin' USA Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cruisin' USA Tour

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

Non-notable tour. Lack of coverage in any reliable sources. Only facebook posting for concert dates as references. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability per WP:EVENT DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Secret ^account 05:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GetElementById[edit]

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

An article for a specific javascript function is totally outside the scope of Wikipedia Jimduchek (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: not encyclopedic topics. Mundane, directory-style listing/WP:NOTHOWTO. There's nothing interesting here from a historical or computer science point of view. If Wikipedia defined every API for every programming language, where would it end? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to.... honestly, I'm not sure. Do we have an appropriate list of Javascript functions? Seems like they'd be search terms. But unless they've been discussed and noted on their own merits, I don't know that we can justify articles. Happy to be proved wrong, if someone has a good argument. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:15, 5 March 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, TB randley ^(review) 23:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMANUAL DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that the topic meets or passes Wikipedia's threshold for notability. Additionally, several sources have been added to the article after it was nominated for deletion (it was unsourced at the time of the AfD nomination, see [1]). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JaCoCo[edit]

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

Unsourced, couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NSOFT. Taken to AfD after it was deprodded without addressing the reasons for the nomination. Jarkeld (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of sources. One is a book published in UK, and another is an independent review. Also consider these reliable sources: "Code Coverage for Maven Integrated in NetBeans IDE 7.2" published by Oracle Corporation, and "IntelliJ IDEA 12.0 Web Help", as part of IntelliJ IDEA manual. All of them are in references. Let me know if it doesn't count or not enough sources. Though it is a bit hard to find something reliable, as the library is on the cutting edge of Java code coverage tools, I'm sure it's possible. --Sfoid (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 01:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. On the surface, it seems like an article is premature here - as noted, above, this is a bit cutting edge. But there are sources, and the ones I've checked seem to be ok. There isn't a lot here, and notability is paper thin - but it's just barely sufficient, I think. Obviously, more sources would be best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:57, 11 March 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, TB randley ^(review) 23:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it manages to pass the notability threshold. Someone knowledgeable in the subject ought to put some editing into it, though. Ducknish (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes notability currently DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Sells Stay Tooned[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 12 March 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, TB randley ^(review) 23:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of downloads ≠ notability. - Mr X 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MrX is right--should be deleted due to lack of coverage. Ducknish (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After weighing all contributions and rationales carefully, it is my estimation that there are good editors citing relevant wikipedia policy on both sides of the debate. However, I believe that those making an argument for deleting (which include those wishing to merge or redirect, which are both, in that sense, not wanting this separate list) the article outweigh those wishing to keep. Therefore, delete is the outcome. In my cursory review of other articles here, including Papal conclave, 2013 and a random selection of the articles of the persons/cardinals listed here, it seems there isn't anything that needs to be merged, per se, but someone with interest in this topic (I have Zero) could update those articles to include significantly referenced material about the speculation each was involved in, if appropriate. Keeper | 76 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave[edit]

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

I think there is little justification for a separate list of papabili. The usefullness of such a list is extremely limited. Actually, media may discuss about the chances or merits of virtually all cardinal-electors and possibly even some non-electors or even non-cardinals. When we look in the past, we'll quickly recognize that almost in every conclave in the last 500 years over a half of the electors were considered papabili by external observers and the elect was always among them (see Ludwig von Pastor, History of the Popes, vol. 1-40, passim). But this not make sense for creation a separate article, esp. in the form of the table, with little comments. I think that this topic should be included in the article papal conclave, 2013, but without giving it too much weight. It should focus only on those who are reported as supported by some groups of electors or as having particlarly strong position among electors, not all those merely discussed by media. This may refer to Turkson and Scola, who actually are widely discussed in media and there are rumors that Scola is a favourite of Benedict XVI. Currently, this is simply a list of media-speculations, often based on wishful thinking, not on the information about real views of the cardinal-electors. CarlosPn (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very speculative, unhelpful. half the freaking conclave is on the list. Delete this please. -- Y not? 19:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination does not even bother explaining which guidelines support deletion. It is alleged that "media may discuss about the chances of virtually all cardinal electors..." So what? What does that even have to do with the article? There are 115 men who will vote for pope, and 26 are listed at the article. That hardly fits with the nominator's overly dramatic attempt to make a point and User:Y's unsupported contribution. The fact is that there is no frontrunner, according to cardinals who have talked to reporters. So it shouldn't be a surprise that 20-some names have been bandied about. Even if there are more names than there should be (for instance because each name should have two independent sources), that is a discussion to be had at the article's talk page, not a reason to delete. The word "papabile" refers to cardinals whom Vatican watchers believe are candidates for pope. This is either because cardinal-electors have mentioned them or, more likely, because they fit the criteria that cardinal-electors have said they are looking for in a pope. It is therefore inescapable that the source for this will be the media. But when it comes down to it, Wikipedia often has lists of "potential candidates" at election articles based on nothing more than exactly this sort of reporting, so this is hardly the oddity that nominator tries to make it out to be. American election articles and articles for party leadership elections, particularly in the UK and Canada, are frequent examples of this. There is ultimately no reason to restrict the information to Papal conclave, 2013. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't no what articles about other elections you are talking about but I think that this article has no encyclopedic value. We should remember that in the conclaves there are no public candidatures and the electors are obliged to keep secrecy. Most of the references are nothing more than a short characteristics of some cardinal-electors with comment whether they might be elected, and neither of them pretends to be exhaustive list of those who may be elected. There is actually no clear criterion of "who is papabile". The article Papabile gves the following defintion: a Catholic man, most often a cardinal, who is thought a likely or possible candidate to be elected pope. And, in the very same article, one can read that Pius X, Pius XI or John Paul II were not papabili, which is completly erroneous when we use this definition. They were not main favourites, but certainly they were papabili. So who actually is Papabile? I do not oppose to providing any press-information concerning possible successors of Benedict XVI, but I think that there is no sense in creating separate article, with no clear criteria of adding the names. This should be a part of the main article about papal conclave, 2013, where we should mention which cardinals are most frequently mentioned and who are reported as having a chance to get votes. BTW, most recent reports from the Cardinalitial congregations in La Reppubblica and La Stampa (cited by Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita[2]) indicate that Italian and curial cardinals have little chance to get any significant support from the electors. This is an important information for the readers, not the media-speculations that often have nothing to do with the real pre-conclave proceedings among the electors. The topis itself should be incorporated, but in the limited form, in the main article about conclave. This is my view CarlosPn (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, it says "reasonably" likely. Second, it is clearly implied there (and it is a fact) that the term applies to those thought by Vatican watchers (journalists and academics who make their living following Vatican politics) to fit the definition. The criterion for inclusion is clear: if Vatican watchers have suggested a person is a candidate for this conclave, the person should be included. If that criterion is seen as lacking, the answer is to tighten it up, not to delete the article. The fact that two newspapers have said something and that thing is not included in the article is a reason for adding that thing to the article, not for deleting the article. The fact of people being noted by experts on the topic as potential candidates is clearly noteworthy, so the argument for deleting the article just isn't very strong. -Rrius (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This will lead us to create a list with several dozen names. I'm sure that within the next days press will report several additional figures as papabili. But what is a sense, what is a usefulness of such a list, of creation a separate article? This list says us nothing about real estimation of the chances o the respective cardinals. I propose to include a topic in the article papal conclave, 2013. CarlosPn (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if your first sentence were true, so what? If the actual situation on the ground is that several dozen people are noted as papabili, what possible difference would that make? And where in the world do you get the idea that there several dozen more names will be added? Second, who the papabili are for a given conclave are is a notable topic. This is something that has been a part of the process for hundreds of years, not a few days. As for the "real estimation of the chances", why should that matter at all? That is not the point of the list. If people want to research that, they can read the sources we provide. If this nomination is successful, readers won't be able to do that. Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting a section about papabili at Papal conclave, 2013 if there isn't one already, so that is completely irrelevant to whether this article should exist. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Where in the world I get the idea that several dozen more names will be added? Look at this, section "Papabile" CarlosPn (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I agree trimming is a good idea. Early reports of papabili are likely to include anyone technically papabile. It's likely we'll see the list naturally winnowed as time progresses, but it makes sense to apply stricter scrutiny to existing reporting. The topic easily passes WP:GNG, however. Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted before BDD's 20:00, 13 March 2013[3] position change. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)) I generally agree with this. As I noted on the article's talk page, one candidate is listed solely because one reporter wrote, "our thinking is that any Italian between 65-75 in the curia or a major diocese has a fair shot." Frankly, I suspect that if any meaningful standard is applied the list will be pared down so much that the only practical choice will be to merge the information into the longer article.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted before BDD's 20:00, 13 March 2013 position change. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)) But this is what I really propose - to delete the list, but incorporate the useful information to the main article. I do not propose the censorship on that topic. Basing on the press reports from Italy, actually only Scola, Sandri, Scherer and perhaps Turkson were reported as those who can count on support of certain groups of electors. All the other are media-speculations, not even about the real chances (I mean, what support could he received, how many votes, who could vote for him etc.), but simply about whether this or another cardinal has a qualities or what arguments may be put forward in his favor CarlosPn (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm thinking the opposite. Given that eight years have passed since the 2005 papal conclave, Wikipedia could have a great List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave since the scholars will have had a chance to analyze and summarize all those newspaper reports about the 2005 papal conclave and have the benefit of cardinal's post-pope-voting writing on the 2005 topic. The lack of a Wikipedia article on List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave shows a lack of interest in the topic, meaning that the interest in "List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave might be short lived like that of the 2005 list so that the present 2013 papal conclave papabili views may be more along the lines of WP:NOT#NEWS. Of course, this AfD has a much wider attendance than the AfD for List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave, so "outcome" might not a viable view. So far, a viable delete position is Wikipedia:Too soon: While the 2013 papabili list topic might arguably merit an article, it is simply too close in time to the 2013 papal conclave to determine who was papabili since the secondary scholarly sources have not yet had a chance to evaluate the writings about the 2013 papal conclave and, without the secondary scholarly sources, it is too speculative for Wikipedia editors to determine who should added to the Wikipedia list. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While we do have a lot of people on the list, all of them (according to various bookmakers) have a fair chance of being elected ([4]). Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oddsmakers are fun, but I think they're not a very good tool to measure probabilities. If you add up all the probabilities implied in the Business Insider article alone, you'd have to expect 1.5 Popes to be elected. Oddsmakers clean up by putting odds of 15:1 on outcomes that they really think have negligible chances of occurring.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmakers are no real sources that enable us to appreciate real chances of the candidates. The using of this kind of "sources" makes this article useless - it's nothing more than trivia CarlosPn (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "using this kind of 'sources'" in the article, so please let's not be intellectually dishonest. The editor was making the point that the betting markets provide some evidence that these candidates are seen as viable. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is effective in identifying prospective Cardinals from various countries. It's certainly an improvement from the previous article on this topic (List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave). FitzColinGerald (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, the existence of this article is rather an argument for deletion it too. It does not cite any references. It is completly unknown what were its criteria. Simply another non-encycopedic article that does not prove encyclopedity of this list CarlosPn (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the flipside, nothing you have said sets out any explanation as to how this article fails to be encyclopedic (to have "encyclopedity", as you put it). Instead, you make unfounded assertions such as "half of the electors are candidates" or that we'll have "several dozen" names on the list. Worse than being baseless, they don't actually provide any justification for deleting the article. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just look at this, section "Papabile" CarlosPn (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Read the list. Quite interesting in a certain way. Quite long for a Wikinews piece. Not really a encyclopedic thing for Wikipedia Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is encyclopedic. It is an article about a topic that is notable and that is relevant just as papabili are relevant any time there is conclave. Such a list is not only of significance in the run-up to the conclave, but also from a historical perspective, giving insights into the Church as it existed at the time of a given moment in time. The fact that so many non-Europeans (forget non-Italians) is significant. The fact that multiple South American cardinals under consideration are Italian immigrants is significant. People can gather these insights, among many others, by perusing the list. Deleting it eliminates that ability entirely and to no purpose. -Rrius (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your answer did not convince me entirely. You said many thing but did not touch on my main line of reasoning. Yes it is an interesting subject as you said, but the sources are poor and as CarlosPn already pointed out it is media-speculation. This Vatican Watchers you have earlier written about are mostly nonexistent in the sources used to create this article. Secondly this Vatican Watcher label is illusive in it's nature and can easily be applied with out any restrictions or control. Even if one or two of the sources in this highly debatable subject could provide some redeeming features to it, it still would not change the main character of the subject and the torrent of suggestive and weak speculation that directs it. Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 8:14 , 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete, along with List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave. The reason: It's pure WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Look, one just can't tell which of the following is a valid statement:

The list is correct. (That means, all cardinals listed are indeed "papabile").
The list is still missing someone.
The list includes a cardinal which is not pababile.

The problem is that obviously, there is no definition for someone being papabile, and thus there are no general inclusion or exclusion criteria for this list. Therefore, it is just an subjective, arbitrary listing without any objective guidelines,. As such, it is inherently unmaintainable and violates WP:V as an article that is no verifiable. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- That makes no sense. Any article can contain information that is inaccurate, be missing information, or be correct without it being manifest by reading it. So if we follow that, we should just shut the whole site down. There is also nothing at about the list that falls under WP:Crystal. The article does not assert that any one of these people will so much as receive a vote in conclave. That is just an unwarranted assumption you made. It is also not WP:OR Each name listed is verified by at least one reliable source. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation on why I think the article should be deleted does make sense; here comes the crucial part in WP:V: All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. It may be correct or incorrect, but there must be the possibility to check. To my knowledge, there is no way (in the sense of a procedure widely considered to be correct) to say whether a cardinal should be included in this list or not. Also, in my opinion it indeed fails WP:CRYSTAL (purely speculative, as the term papabile is missing a definition) and WP:OR (as the list has been collected by Wikipedia editors from a vast number of different sources, none of which displays a similar selection). --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now up to 28, and with additions from the Allen series I mentioned on the talk page the list will reach the mid-thirties. I think that one problem we have here is that we're trying to apply an Italian slang term. If the article is not deleted, I think "Papabili" should just be a redirect, and the title of the article should be something like "2013 Candidates for the Papacy," and the article should make it clear that the sources state each person named has support within the Conclave.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially WP:CRYSTAL Ball and speculative aspect of a future event. Jpacobb (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No shortlist will be announced so this is effectively an article about speculation even if it contains reliable sources. Should be summerised which it all ready appears to have done in the 2013 Papal conclave. GAtechnical (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The overall quality is bad and the journalism used is mainly commentary.I've said my piece. Post Scriptum. For further elaborations I ask you to turn your attention to the book Media, Culture and Catholicism (Communication, Culture & Theology) by Paul A. Soukup, SJ associate professor of Communication Santa Clara University. Here’s his wider take on the subject:(My numbering)1.If denominational adherents receive their information via secular media, it is important for denominations to know whether the discussion evoked is legitimate according to its own determinants 2.It is not difficult to understand why religion and religious belief are so little understood by the secular public when we realize that the larger portion of individuals receive personal religious information from the secular media. So in general such coverage ¨by outsiders for outsiders. 3.The coverage of ¨mainline¨ denominations, however, is increasingly similarly misinformed and hostile.(My comment).Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The crucial problem is that Newspapers write information that is often subjective in nature (often WP:NOTSCANDAL - in the manner of how the candidate evaluations are presented in the newspapers). The problem is made even more complicated as we are dealing with a highly speculative and vague topic which is potentially flammable and used for promoting opinion building or/and political objectives WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTOPINION. Wikipedia articles on religion draw from the religions in question and their own relevant texts/documents and historical and scientific sources WP:RNPOV. If all of the mentioned requirements are not met we cannot honestly say that this article is WP:COMPREHENSIVE. The same applies to the List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave.Pgarret (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I realized that I had not supplied the most relevant part for the deletion review. I had my nose stuck in the book and read some previous contributions in the grand discussion. Here goes. Summary judgment: This articles covers a controversial, disputed idea and has not been documented in detail with reliable sources i.e WP:IRS violation. The relevant academic communities input has not been visible in any of the sources. So if proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's/claim's standing, it should be assumed that the idea or claim has not received consideration or acceptance WP:FRINGE. In the end we have an amorphous collection of speculation WP:CRYSTAL. Furthermore we don't have statements by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in this particular field so the only thing we have in our hand is gossip and rumors WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NEWSORG that generates to often a specific point-of-view and thus createsWP:UNDUE. Neutrality has definitely not been achieved in this article by carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and by attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately. Hence we have WP:YESPOV violation. It has to be strictly imparted that one should avoid using in a particularly disputed and vague topic (i.e. Papabile) sources that are stating opinions as facts. Because then we are back to WP:YESPOV and WP:IRS violations.Pgarret (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013. I think it is useful to see who's being talked about as plausible, but the article on its own is clearly speculative. So I'd suggest a compromise: Every cardinal elector is a plausible candidate, so why not just add a column to that table with links to media reports talking about potential papability? Mgruhn (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Papal conclave, 2013 (and also merge List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave with Papal conclave, 2005). Wikipedia carries articles of lists of candidates for offices of national leadership (examples here and here); the lists of papabili, although unofficial (and thus WP:CRYSTAL I'll admit, albeit a squishy form of it IMHO), are roughly analogous to them, so I think that their content is warranted. However, I think that their unofficiality should disqualify them from existing as articles in their own right. Merging the lists of papabili with the corresponding lists of cardinal electors is improper because although papabili have traditionally been cardinals, it isn't required that they be such. The only option (that I see) that satisfies what I've laid out here is to merge them into the "top-level" articles on this subject, which are the articles about the elections themselves. Having said that, those who are passionate about keeping the lists on Wikipedia should try their best to keep them from violating WP:IRS. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Fully agree with previous comment. Could not say it better. --95.176.175.205 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Papal conclave, 2013. I agree with the previous comments presented. Mediran (t • c) 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Question is not if these article should be deleted but if all the articles of papabili for all the conclaves should be deleted. Since this is not the first article of the subject but a established tradition in the articles that talks about a certained conclave I dont see any reason for deleting historical date and going against a set policy on how conclave articles are made. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With the exception of the conclave of 2005, information about papabili are the part of the main articl about conclave. There is no "tradition" of creating a separate articles only about papabili in one or another conclave. CarlosPn (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's actually a reflection of the age of Wikipedia compare to the previous conclaves before 2005 than tradition either way. KTC (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the last conclave before that was well before Wikipedia was so much as an idea. It's conceivable that someone could trawl sources from then, however, and create a List of papabili in the 1978 papal conclave. It does seem such a primary element of a papal conclave would meet WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We aren't predicting who will be pope, we're listing those who have been described in reliable sources as "papabili". This is a matter that is often mentioned in later years (e.g. "X was considered papabile in 2005") and will remain relevant to these people's biography; it is also notable now, as shown by the number of reliable sources already cited. It would be confusing to merge with the list of voting cardinals because, although there's probably always a big overlap, these are not necessarily a subset of those. Andrew Dalby 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ongoing subject warrants a specific article. -- Evans1982 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be impermissible crystal ball-gazing if we were just coming up with the names ourselves, based on our own assessment, but that's not what we're doing - we're listing those reported as papabile in sources which meet our reliability requirements. Neljack (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is certain interest in the page for the next few days so I see absolutely no harm in keeping the page AT LEAST for a while. Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Three opinions Keep, Merge, Delete 2. Merge, Delete opinions dominate 3. Merge, Delete converge on the issue of deposing of separate papabili 2013 article.4. To keep some of the material seems to be in majority. It is impossible to keep all or to move the whole column. Keeping the columns would not just work.5. What to keep? What gets prioritized? What is the qualitative standard? The obvious answer is that the material should be based on a reliable expert. Who is reliable expert? I would say a scholar in the field in question or a knownvaticanologist from previous years. The sources which don't fit the description must be scraped! A clear line must be drawn or else verything is lost. The best example of a agreeable source is the "Buzz Grows in Rome for Boston's O'Malley" article by John L. Allen, Jr. the famous vaticanologist. I still want to add my suspicion that most will not agree on cuting away 95% of the useless sources in the new merged version. So I vote for Delete and hope that something, about 5%, can be used after the merger. Citing WP:V,WP:CRYSTAL,WP:NEWSORG as my general arguments. I just hope we leave the papal suspicions to the experts. Forngrav (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Theoretically it should be possible to create such a list, if many reliable sources had made such lists. Then Wikipedia editors could take the consensus of the lists (by including only those who appear on nearly all lists). This has not been done here, so the page should be eliminated as failing WP:V, a policy. Abductive (reasoning) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems people have confused two separate things, namely popularity and verifiable facts. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The debated and voiced opinions do not constitute a vote. Majority voting is not the determining factor. When making your case state the argument and kindly refer to Wikipedia core policies. It is utterly pointless to try to turn this in to a shouting competition. The only questions we need to ask are: Does the article pass Wikipedia core content policies i.e. verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. I don't think so! The weakest point is definitely verifiability and the aura of the article is genuine bona fide WP:CRYSTAL. PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU ARE VOICING YOUR OPINION OR VOTING Pgarret (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well what utter crap! I'm a reader of Wikipedia and I found myself at this article because I wanted to know about the likely candidates, and a useful article I found it. And then I noticed the box at the top of the article about how some people want it deleted. Well I don't care whether it meets whatever "core policies" you're talking about, but I do care whether it provides me with information I need. And it does, so cut the crap about deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.21 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although merge could work as well. The nomination in fact suggests a merge, whic would preclude deletion. But since the information is reliably sourced and verifiable, and certainly not original research (the statements that these men a papabile are coming from the reliable sources listed), and the topic is notable (as various publications have lists of the cardinals they consider papabile, even if the lists do not completely overlap) I see no justification for deletion. That said, some editing may be needed. For example, I didn't think Francis Arinze was eligile, despite being listed by the New York Times and others. If those listings are in error, they should not be included. Rlendog (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepInteresting, contemporary news. Maybe consider deleting after a pope is selected. Of course there is a lot of speculation; that is inherent to the subject. But many of us know next to nothing about front-runners and this provides neutral information about those who have been discussed in the cited references as possible successors. No harm to the article and lots of good. Aar095 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 12 March 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, TB randley ^(review) 23:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is nothing to Merge to Papal conclave, 2013 - I don't think it's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to point out that we don't have such lists for almost all other conclaves, though for some (like those in the 16th and 17th centuries) there would be plenty of source material with which to start them. In almost every case, such speculation is included (post election) in the article for the relevant conclave. I see no reason why it shouldn't be so in this case. Stalwart111 00:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Updated note per sensible comments from Robofish) Stalwart111 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took a little time to think about this one, as we do have other articles on Wikipedia listing speculative candidates for positions, such as Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates and Republican Party vice presidential candidate, 2008. But there's something unique about Papal conclaves, I think (or at least this one in particular), which makes it a bad idea. Due to various factors - the facts that the election is conducted secretly among a very small number of people, who are the only ones that really know what's going on, while being of interest to the whole world - the media's speculation has ranged very widely over a large number of alleged candidates, while being based on very little. Currently the list contains 30 names, and I wouldn't be surprised if reliable sources can be found for others; even if not, that's almost a third of the total available cardinals. Simply put, such a broad list is of questionable use; it mainly just makes Wikipedia look a bit silly, and would make us look even sillier in the (quite possible) event that a Pope is chosen who wasn't on our list. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 'merge' suggestions, I note that Papal conclave, 2013 already contains a handful of names who have been especially widely mentioned, which seems much more appropriate than this list. There's no need to merge anything. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But include a list of all candidates. This is of some value.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would include all 115 cardinals eligible to vote plus the two who have abstained (one sick, one withdrawal - very unlikely, but still theoretically possible) and a large number of senior clerics who are not cardinals but who could (theoretically) be elected - archbishops and the like (some reportedly received votes at various 20th century conclaves, just not enough to be elected). And that's just the people you would have to put on such a list. I'm pretty sure, technically, any ordained Catholic (someone feel free to refresh my memory of the various rules from the relevant council) would be eligible. Whether or not someone is papabile is entirely subjective. This is not a list of some or all candidates, this is a list of people that some people think might have a better chance than others of being elected. Stalwart111 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, any male baptised Catholic can be elected, which would be a fairly long list! Neljack (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might have been the case but couldn't recall. But it has to be a bloke, right? So with about a billion Catholics, half of them male (give or take), this list is about 499,999,972 people short? Stalwart111 06:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tend to agree that the designation "papabili" is inherently speculative. But, the list does it the right way by attributing the designation to reliable media sources, not just in the footnotes but in the table itself. More could be done to explain the inclusion criteria (i.e., making clear the fact that a single newspaper is sufficient for inclusion), but not a ground for deletion. The argument that there are no official candidates seem to miss the point; for example, a perennial candidate is not necessarily notable just because he has registered, while an un-announced candidacy may be very notable. Savidan 05:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query - by the way, just as there are sources that suggest particular cardinals are papabile, there are others that (with equal weight and reliability) suggest particular cardinals are not. Like this source which suggests no North American cardinal should be on our list. So can I now cite WP:WEIGHT, give such a source and remove all North American cardinals from the list? Stalwart111 08:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Stalwart111, you brought forth a valid argument. When Benedict XVI resigned, a huge media buzz ensued over who might be the next pope. Essentially, this is why there is this long list of 30+ names of cardinals considered "papabile". But from today's point of view, most of them were only mentioned in passing, without any in-depth analysis or continued coverage. When the start of the conclave drew nearer, the general media consensus seemed to have narrowed down so that now it would be called a huge surprise if the next pope would be neither Italian nor Latin American. For example, Der Spiegel from my native Germany only identifies Scherrer and Scola as serious contenders. The Associated Press quotes French cardinal Vingt-Trois that there were only "half a dozen possible candidates". Therefore, it comes to mind that because of the fuzzy definition of the term papabile, an edit war (or at least a heated discussion) might be ahead about whether the person eventually elected pope had been papabile in the first place at all. Having this long list won't help there, either, as such a question must be elaborated in prose. And we already have a place for this. --FoxyOrange (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ongoing subject that should have a separate article. --Fernandosmission (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:List. It's only a limited number of names, each of which are sourced to a reliable source and provides a valuable information source grouped by theme into a structured list. Users will have some general idea of what they are looking for and then can used this list to navigate to those Wikipedia articles that provide more details on the person listed. I revised the lead to make it more reader friendly.[5] As for the concerns about WP:V, there is agreement above that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information in the List comes from a reliable source. Regarding "sepeculation", it is not Wikipedia generating the speculation. This is a world-wide interest event and the reliable sources are going to write such articles that are of world-wide interest. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia providing a list summary of those reliable sources. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Savidan, Fernandosmission, Jreferee, et al. The nom gives no policies or guidelines to support its deletion, while the proponents of keeping the article cite policy and guidelines, with examples and explanations. What is a reliable source, and who should be on the list, can be verified, and who and what can be sorted out through the normal editing policy. It lists an ongoing historic event. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources prove that the subject is notable. FWIW, I am a former Roman Catholic. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a very worthwhile summary of articles that have been in most every newspaper and magazine and presents valuable information in the Wikipedia format we like. Since it will be moot once the conclave is over; it should have its own page, which will be far less relevant to those reading the main Conclave page in the future. Though in the interest of making the page more informative and providing a good comparison of the papabili, it may be helpful to only use articles that talk about more than one candidate. The CNN, Business Insider, and Catholic Reporter articles are good examples, since their writers made a choice to include some Cardinals but not others. Editors must be mindful of including articles such as the ones citing Cardinal Maradiagaand Cardinal Wuerl, which do not evaluate all the papabili but just those from a particular region. (And I say this quasi-seriously, would it be helpful to put in the bookmakers' odds (e.g Paddy Power) to show what the general public think about each Cardinal's chances?) Petropetro (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although one has to keep in mind WP:NPOV when editing such a page, as long as we can figure out what a reliable source is, then it is fairly straightforward: each entry is the name of the papabile, who mentions them, and other factual information. Given the worldwide attention on this topic, WP:N seems to be easily satisfied. Kingdon (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list of likely candidates in a particular conclave has historical value both in its own right and as a comparison tool for future conclaves. For example the comments on the new Pope mentioning that he was one of the leading papabili in the 2005 conclave. Cynical (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is very important, and there is no reason to delete it. --Daniel the duck (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is useful, very well stocked with reliable sources, and refers to a historic international event. It is not really in the same context as, say, a list of potential U.S. presidents or of people to fill other political posts (if such a thing existed). It is on such a massive scale in terms of interest and coverage that there is little with which to compare it. Also, some of these names were mentioned in 2005 so it would be fair to say that this list contains many future cardinal electors, maybe even the the next pope or two or three - it would certainly be useful for readers to have when that time comes, giving it further historic significance. I don't think it should be merged either - the cardinal electors list contains 100+ entries, while this is a much more concise and better developed list (with images included alongside entries as well) for some of the foremost individuals in the RC church. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another query - now that the election has finished, there's a new Pope, List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave has been deleted and this list of unduely weighted speculation is of no real value, are the keepers still keen to keep? Stalwart111 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Bearian (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Well, it was worth asking. Stalwart111 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ~~Merge~~ Delete.- I HAVE A SOLUTION...I think. Maybe we can all have our way? The deleters want this separate page gone - fine! The keepers want primarily to preserve the best papabili reports from the 2013 papal conclave -fine! Let's merge it and so are the mergers contended!

METHOD: Two categories of papabili in the merged version. THE EXPERTS, known as Vaticanists or other suitable experts. THE MEDIA, the three main news media outlets measured by biggest market share or readership!

I) EXPERTS that should be for example John L. Allen, Jr., maybe two of the most respected Italian vaticanisti Sandro Magister, also here and Andrea Tornielli

II) THE MEDIA that would be a combination of all the papabili names from the three main/ biggest media outlets. There has to be some limit restrictions.

If this does not work, nothing will and I'll go change to delete!

Observe that List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave does not exist anymore and therefore conclusions should be drawn --JamboQueen (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't really see a problem with having content of this sort. I would suggest that editors work out a standard for which sources are adequate to include someone in the list. Everyking (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the list may not be official, I think an article for the people who has the 'high chances' of becoming pope should be for keeps. You can never delete a special part of the historical event like this. I think the article is of important part of the 2013 conclave. Also, for keeping this, the 2005 list of papabili should also be restored for of the same reason.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete*. I was generally in favor of keeping to see if we could get our act together, but even with partial protection the edit wars continue. The column indicating which news organization noted which Cardinal as a candidate. which was added after due discussion on the talk page, has been taken off again. Besides just being a [edit descriptive term] solo move, removing the column removes the basis that raises the article above crystal balling -- the idea that this is about the coverage of the conclave, and not the conclave itself. The small amount of information that will eventually survive the last cuts will surely find a place on the main 2013 Conclave articleArnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been added back while I was typing.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I corrected it and I'm now so fed up with this magic box, so I go for delete.--JamboQueen (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but rumors about who might have been elected pope. In reality, no one other than the cardinals themselves know who was actually a legitimate candidate, making this problematic for WP:V. Had some of this been referenced, I would say that some material could be merged into Papal conclave, 2013 as "people rumored in the media to have been papabili" but there's nothing worth keeping.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (I also iVoted above). I'm thinking that, unless we can figure out a reasonable list criteria, it will be difficult for editors to know who should be added to the Wikipedia list. I looked more into the List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave to get a better idea about this topic. John L. Allen Jr. is considered an expert in this area. In 2005, he noted in the National Catholic Reporter:
"Prognostication is a notoriously hazardous business, and the trash heaps of church history are littered with the carcasses of journalists who have tried to predict the next pope. Almost no one, for example, correctly anticipated that the archbishop of Kraków, Karol Wojtyla, would emerge from the second conclave of 1978 as Pope John Paul II. In that spirit, the intent here is not to "predict" who will become the next pope, which is a futile exercise. Instead, the aim is to identify cardinals whose backgrounds, accomplishments, and personalities guarantee they will at least get a serious look as possible papal material.[6]"
Interestingly, Allen identified Bergoglio as a 2005 pope candidate (Bergoglio won the 2013 pope election) and mentioned Ratzinger several times in Allens' 2005 article,[7] but did not identify Ratzinger as a 2005 pope candidate, even though Ratzinger won the 2005 pope election. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead, the aim is to identify cardinals whose backgrounds, accomplishments, and personalities guarantee they will at least get a serious look as possible papal material". Well said!. This line of thought could be integrated in the merged version where we melt together the brainwork and cardinals named by Vaticanists and with the quite uniform lists of names provided by Mass media. Combine the names mentioned by people like this with a mention of the total average of papal candidates presented in the media. In the end we can see that in this instance both EXPERT and MEDIA opinions correlated or where interdependent. Everyone walked on the ice of speculation. I just think the Vaticanists took the more serious look! --JamboQueen (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've both basically hit the nail on the head (in a round-about kind of way) - this is really just a POV-fork with some synthed-together sources that happen to suit that particular point of view - that in the opinion of one or two people, x person is papabile. In some cases, the sources aren't even that specific, they just say, person x might have some support or person y fits the criteria. Papabili were traditionally those seen by Vatican-watchers as having strong social/political/factional support among fellow cardinals prior to conclave, not just the random speculation of news outlets (in whatever historical form). The problem with this list remains that there are an equal number of sources that dispute the claims in the sources we do cite - that's the nature of unverified, personal and non-expert opinion. If we added people to the list on the basis of the sources we have and then removed them from the list on the basis of equally-speculative counter-conjecture from equally-reliable sources, then we'd have a list of only half-a-dozen people - which is exactly what we already have at Papal conclave, 2013#Papabili. Stalwart111 22:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources external to Wikipedia having POV does not make the Wikipedia list itself POV. Regarding the above quote, John L. Allen Jr.'s expert opinion shows what sources Wikipedia should use for the lists. The first limit on Wikipedia's list criterial sould be to limit the reliable sources used in the article to reliable sources that look at cardinals backgrounds, accomplishments, and personalities relative to their possible papal material rather than reliable sources that merely "predict" who will become the next pope. The second Wikipedia's list criteria should be to require multiple sources for a given entry, not just one, and there should be some sort of geographic element (e.g. sources in a few of Italy, France, United States, South America, etc. in general agreement). The point of this list is to capture a general sense of who people around the world thought had a reasonable chance of being elected pope in 2013. That is a reasonable purpose and it can be done. Maybe it cannot be done now so soon after the election, but with the passage of time scholars will evaluate the election to increase the amount and reliability of the views on the topic and Wikipedians can use that in the list article. On the other hand, we have prose at Papal_conclave,_2013#Papabili so maybe it can be done now with existing reliable sources. Since the list can go into details that a string of names at Papal_conclave,_2013#Papabili does not provide, it makes sense to have a list to present information that supplements the article's prose content. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding POV - my point was more that there are two distinct views on each papabili, broadly; electable/not electable. My concern is that we're using only those sources that make any suggestion that a person was electable and not any of the sources (many from commentators more "expert" than the ones we cite) that suggest otherwise. So in each case, we're only reporting on one side of each argument. There might be one or two sources suggesting a candidate is electable but nine or ten suggesting otherwise. Yet that person would appear in our list because the one or two sources are given undue weight against the nine or ten (in fact the latter are ignored all together). As for the substantive part of your comment - very sensible, I think. I still think such a criteria would leave us with a list of half-a-dozen or so, but if this is going to be kept we need a far better list inclusion criteria. Stalwart111 21:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, why keep it if the conclave is already finished. There are no really official papabili that's being released by the Vatican. The information given by this list-article is only the speculations or the opinions of many media and reports. It just contain their bets, this list is unofficial. This makes the article false, even Wikipedia. For an example, Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines was the most bet of many media commentators to be next in line after Benedict XVI but then again, it turned out that Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina was elected as our new pope. See, it's just their opinions and mostly their bets but then again, there's no official info that's included in this list. However, if we're going to relate this in accordance of WP policies and guidelines, it doesn't violate any of it because first, it's well sourced. Changing !vote from Merge to Delete. Mediran (t • c) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This amounts to "list of people who someone who was paid to report news thought maybe could be made Pope, without really any other inclusion criteria". It is not based on any verifiable trait, but is just turning baseless media speculation into presumed fact. It is not worth much, on does not cover a viable trait. We might as well just have a list of all the existing cardinals at the time of the conclave. Since there are some Cardinals who were not even electors included in the list, it really is not clear that there is even a strong connection between likelihood and inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave and more generally per the principal that Wikipedia is not a source for News. Papabile articles are interesting maybe during the conclave, but they are not of permanent historic value. This is especially shown by the sneaking in of more pro-Bergoglio sources after the fact, but failure to put in more-pro-other candidates sources after the fact, creating confirmation bias in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding (extra) sources for information that were already there, and for that matter referenced is not confirmation bias. It'd only be confirmation bias if he wasn't mentioned before and we suddenly try and fit him in somehow now that he's won. KTC (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revise the article first by adding sufficient references. If it doesn't work, there's no other option than to delete the article completely. Kiddie Techie (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Solution for the merged version

(Everything would not be deleted- the core would be kept)

-THIS IS HOW WE CAN DO IT.

>The Vaticanists

Card. Timothy M. Dolan - Sandro Magister here, here

Card. Angelo Scola mentioned first by Sandro Magister here and also by Andrea Tornielli here. Another contributer has been Vatican affairs analyst Gerard O'Connell. The following are references for O'Connell as a well respected Vatican analyst, here, here and here

Card. Odilo Pedro Scherer mentioned here. Andrea Tornielli says some real curial heavyweights are pushing Brazil’s Cardinal Scherer. This is actually a papal candidacy that has been brewing for a long time — I never hear Scherer’s name being mentioned by the general Catholic public, but I have heard it mentioned by Vaticanisti for years. Took it from here

>Mentioned by most big Media (In order of appearance)

Peter Turkson

Marc Ouellet

Christoph Schönborn

Angelo Scola

Gianfranco Ravasi

Luis Antonio Tagle

All of whom the media listed as "papabili" where extensively written and analyzed by John L. Allen, Jr. in his own probable candidates list here. Some papal candidates where obvious (position in church and notability) put some where first point out and examined more closely by Vaticanists. Maybe Cardinal Scherer was a case in point who then subsequently was launched also in the mass media as Papabile--JamboQueen (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SYN per precedent (2005). Any really important information can be mentioned at the appropiate articles. Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media speculation?

-The next Pope will almost certainly be someone you have never heard of. That is the only prediction one can make with any confidence.Daily Mail

-Obviously, the journalistic ideal is to back up every assertion by citing named sources. The laugh was because we know conclave coverage always falls well short of that ideal.National Catholic Reporter

-Pgarret (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments like I "feel" so and so is a notoriously difficult assessment tool and is not always agreeable with encyclopedic sentiments. What we need is a well reasoned assessment with reference to Wikipedia policies & guidelines.

So far these points have been cited as relevant :

FOR-KEEP

WP:GNG -meets criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

FOR-DELETE

WP:CRYSTAL -Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.

WP:OR -The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist

WP:V - means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

WP:COMPREHENSIVE -Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work;

WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article

WP:NOTGOSSIP -Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping.

WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".

WP:NEWSORG -The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate.

WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts

WP:RNPOV -Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

--Pgarret (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just some nitty-gritty amendments to this list?:

KEEPERS

WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content..

WP:RS: Can be established in this article and is verifiable WP:V

DELETERS

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE : The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance

WP:DIVERSE: Sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

WP:SYNTHESIS: If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted.

WP:LC: The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia, Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

Good luck! --JamboQueen (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inclusion criteria are too arbitrary. See WP:LC items 9 and 10. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. IronKnuckle (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: per what happened in 2005, per the fact that this can never be a discriminate list, since we'll never know who actually received votes, and per that long list of WP:NOT violations above p b p 05:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Vatican will never release the actual names, we know this and hedged the page by including folks that some media outlet predicted, this would be like making a list of baseball teams that are being predicted by media outlets to win the 2013 World Series. Does not belong here. J04n(talk page) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! After 70,000+ bytes of discussion and debate, I reckon that's the best analogy yet. Bravo! Stalwart111 10:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When all is said and done, please censure User:JamboQueen for violating WP:CAN and canvassing people like me who have zero connection to any of this. If you check this user's contributions and read the talk page history you'll see there were others not too happy about this. --Bobak (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Secret ^account 04:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jetix (US)[edit]

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

forking,notability Spshu (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because basically they are all content forks of Jetix and are not notable on their own and can easily have been covered in the Jetix article:[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 22:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Jetix. Needless forking. None are differentiated enough to support a dedicated article. RadioFan (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete all How many times can you repeat "it was Fox Kids until the rebranding to Jetix"? Besides the few pity local shows thrown on the schedule and the American and Canadian splits, none of the national networks needs a split-off, and the American and Canadian networks are easily mentioned in the Toon Disney and Disney XD articles. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA Whpq and Carrite make good points. RD would be a good result in 2008, but five years in the rearview after the launch of XD, nobody except the crufters are actually typing these links out. Rationale changed to delete all. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been post to talk:WikiProject Anime and manga and talk:WikiProject Disney. Spshu (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Although redirects are cheap, I don't see these disambiguated pages as needed for any ease of navigation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I believe Whpq makes a valid point, that none of these would be reasonably expected to be search terms. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all references in the articles to Jetix. Bad series of WP:FORK's that are not going to be looked up, however the article Jetix is lacking sources which these articles seem to have, no sense wasting good references when that is an issue at the Jetix article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have to disagree; looking at the majority of the refs in each article, most of them are just rehashing the Toon Disney/Jetix--->Disney XD rebrand over and over again, or are just taken straight from network PR (the big ugly orange box in the UK/I article featuring promospeak from a Jetix executive is something which is frowned on both on common sense and basic article design concerns). Better to selectively merge neutral stories rather than everything and drag the Jetix article into yet more promo junk. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete all - As the references are useless. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jetix (Arab world) weas previously nominiate for deletion on 08 February 2013 with merge as a result. How should this redirect be handled? Spshu (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There is nothing to handle. Looking at the history, there is a notice at Talk:Jetix that a merge happened, but if you review the actual article history, no content merge was performed and all that happened was a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - My intent was to nominate all Jetix national versions for deletion. Can I add Jetix (Arab world) for deletion, or has the discussion gone on too long? Spshu (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Given that it did undergo its own AFD previously, I do not think it would be a good idea to add it here, especially as many editors have already commented. AS well, somebody would have to verify my assessment that no material was merged before the article could be deleted. Best to nominate after this separately. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I see no reason to add the Jetix (Arab World) since it this article is deleted the redirect can be tagged for speedy deletion as a G8.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Jetix (Hungary) is also a redirect to Disney Channel (Central and Eastern Europe) so that would need to be nominated separately at WP:RFD since AFD is not for deleting Redirects. Everythibg else is still an article though--64.229.164.74 (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Scratch my first statement, since the Jetix page itself is not under deletion then Jetix (Arab World) will need to be taken to RFD as well.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and in some cases merge. They should definitely not be deleted, as they contain perfectly valid information. These were all different channels, launched at different times, with different schedules. Many had good viewing figures, meaning they were a notable part of the national television landscape at the time. That alone establishes notability. I don't care too much about the long lists of shows, but these articles have plenty of information about former names, launch dates, rebrand dates, time-sharing agreements, viewing figures, broadcast hours, broadcast licenses etcetera. As many of them were effectively rebranded as Disney XD around 2009, most would probably be better off merged with their respective version of that channel. Väsk (talk) 04:14, 12 March 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, TB randley ^(review) 23:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No need to redirect, as we should not be in the business of providing exhaustive program directories for each channel in each country. Any relevant information from each sub article could be summarized in a table in the main article. - Mr X 23:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None are notable enough in themselves. If an article on the top-level is notable an editor is welcome to create one DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per all the above. Cavarrone (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No individual notability for any of these local Jetix channels. A table at the main Jetix article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redirects aren't even useful as search terms. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been post (or reposted) at the talk pages of the following Animation, Disney and talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Spshu (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - unneeded forking and notability issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Rojas[edit]

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

is first person from country X to summit Mount Everest WP:Notable? I don't think it does, so bringing to AfD for other opinions. unless he does something else, this will forever remain a sub-stub Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a climber and would consider it very notable in my own life if I had reached the summit of Everest. However, several thousand people have done so, most quite routinely, and there is very little of substance available in reliable sources about this person, except the fact that he is an adventure guide in Costa Rica, and summitted Everest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject has been reported in more than 30 newspaper articles (mostly in Costa Rica) as well as being mentioned in a couple of books. The subject may meets the BLP notability criteria, especially WP:ANYBIO which states "People are likely to be notable if they... [have] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." One could argue that climbing Mt. Everest meets this criteria, notwithstanding the fact that more than 3000 other people have done the same. However, the article probably falls under ONEEVENT, and since it is unlikely to ever expand beyond a stub, I'm leaning toward deletion. - Mr X 00:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summitting Mt Everest is not notable in its own right per WP:BIO DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly WP:BLP1E, a low profile individual who did one thing that 3000 folks also did making not particularly significant. J04n(talk page) 10:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 04:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Index of sexology topics[edit]

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

Large set of broadly illegible links with some sort of broad concept that once may have had a purpose back in the murky days when Wikimedia software was even less capable than it is today, this list of links is unmaintainable despite several people's best efforts, and I question whether it is even useful. This page adds no value to Wikipedia, nor to any poor reader who stumbles across it Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is why we have categories. - Mr X 23:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, this is a candidate for category at best DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases of North Korean Rhetoric[edit]

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

This is a collection of quotes from North Korean propaganda, presented in a non-neutral manner. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this belongs anywhere it is on WikiQuote, and I don't think it even meets their inclusion criteria, so I'd recommend outright deletion. W. D. Graham 21:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOT It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic, soapboxing (aren't those North Koreans wacky?) and at least some of it is referenced to unreliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May as well kill it. It's nothing but a collection of quotes and it has no place here. Ducknish (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like somebody's research notes rather than an encyclopedic article. As the essay Wikipedia:Quotations says list of quotes are not appropriate content. It might even be argued that this is a breach of copyright, since it simply reproduces other people's words without enough comment to establish fair use. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom it isn't WP:NPOV and is a collection of quotes. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. keepers provide no policy based reasoning here. Secret ^account 03:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at the University of Missouri[edit]

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

This article is a random collection of unencyclopedic hyper-local club activity regarding 22% of the population at one mid-west American university. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:32, 12 March 201 (UTC)
Keep unless articles of a similar nature are also being removed, such as East Carolina University Greek life, Clemson University Greek life, or Greek life at the University of Georgia

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You understand WP:OSE says your argument means Delete, right? Toddst1 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You attempt to minimize the importance of the subject, but the fact remains that this is one that is quite significant to MU. There are a plethora of sources evidencing the impact this sector has on the University. It belongs entirely, it just may need some trimming. Ducknish (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Hyperlocal importance. See WP:NOT. Toddst1 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Hyperlocal/guidebook. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, may need more organization (the list of GLOs map belong on top).Naraht (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could be better organized, but has encyclopedic value. Uberaccount (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; yeah...it may be "well referenced" - that doesn't inherently lead to notability. "Encyclopedic value"? How so? WP:NOT says...not. As per nom: "a random collection of unencyclopedic hyper-local club activity regarding 22% of the population at one mid-west American university." —Theopolisme (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luao Luka[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced BLP article about a minor athlete. I am unable to find any sources with which to establish notability. The subject plays for an amateur team. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. - Mr X 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. A quick Bing Search and you get nothing to establish a Wikipedia article. In fact, not counting the Wikipedia article, you have to go down to the bottom of the first page to even establish his existence. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG and NFOOTY failure. No international appearances, played entirely in a fully amateur league, no significant awards presented. Fenix down (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - In fact, I would go so far as to call hoax on this, the link on the bottom of the first page of the google search I think it being referred to above looks very much like a wiki-mirror to me. There doesn't actually seem to be anything on this player online. Granted, he is playing in the Tuvalu league, but there were a large number of non-international Tuvaluan players deleted some months ago and there were at least the odd reference to them online. Fenix down (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore none of the refs on the page actually refer to this guy and some are deliberately misleading, referring to other players. Article creator has only made edits to this article and other pages trying to insert this player into the national squad and club squad, all unreffed. Fenix down (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Not sourced. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, seems like a hoax. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sources provided looks like routine game mentions that doesn't indicate the subject meets policy. Secret ^account 03:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rufo Sánchez[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - yeah, the article says he is professional but he plays in a semi-professional league. Given his apparent ability and international move-on-loan, that's probably accurate but I certainly couldn't find an WP:RS to verify it. Strictly speaking, he fails WP:NFOOTY. There's a stack of passing-mention coverage of him and his involvement in various matches but it's mostly, "Rufo Sánchez also scored" and "x scored, as did Rufo Sánchez". However, "headline" photos like the one attached to this story, suggestions he "leads" the team's attack and multiple mentions in stories like this make me wonder whether he could meet WP:GNG with some work. And then there's this article that describes him as "the Spanish striking sensation" and this one that attributes the team's status as the "dark horses of the competition", in part, to his signing. All things considered, I find myself weakly in favour of keeping this - more to see if it could be improved, rather than with an assumption that can... if that makes sense. Stalwart111 01:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
another story about him: [8] —rybec 03:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None the of this even comes close to being significant coverage. All of these sources are routine sports journalism. All of them are match reports (the photo is incidental), except the second one, which is a routine match preview, making them insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and not enough to satisfy WP:GNG from what I can see. Giant Snowman 19:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

another article: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.58.81 (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider another story: [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Flux (talk • contribs) 01:11, 8 March 2013‎

Once again, these articles are match reports which are routine sports journalism, meaning that even in quantity they do not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:31, 8 March 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nature of the sources fail to justify inclusion. WP:NFOOTBALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducknish (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 March 2013‎

Sir Sputnik purports good arguments. A bit apprehensive though as he seems to be big in the Philippines football context [11] [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Flux (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 March 2013‎
- Comment - you pretty much agree with Sir Sputnik but still a bit apprehensive?? If you really think that Sir Sputnik has good arguments, then you'd know that those two links you provided are also routine sports journalism and doesn't satisfy GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. The coverage presented in this AfD and in the article is not enough to pass WP:GNG for me, as it significant in-depth coverage. I've also searched for sources, but did not find any significant coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability per WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 From the Vault (Magic: The Gathering). Articles were merged during AfD, now they just need to be redirected. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the Vault: Dragons[edit]

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

Per rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duel Decks: Jace vs. Chandra. The Magic: The Gathering from-the-vault decks are simply reprints of printed cards. The articles are stubs, and have been since their release, with the only "references" being postings on MTG-related sites. This topic belongs more on the MTG Wikia rather than here. These should either be merged into one article or deleted outright. The premium-deck reprints are worse, often consisting of just a few sentences of text, most of which is trivia. As such, I am nominating the following from-the-vault or premium decks for deletion as well:

p b p 19:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article, or Delete. As mere re-arrangements of old material, these aren't notable enough for standalone articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list article per Starblind and Yonskii. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a projet M:tG member and contributed to those articles, but I think you got it right. These articles should be merged into From the Vault and Premium Deck Series with redirects from the actual pages. OdinFK (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new From the Vault (Magic: The Gathering) and Premium Deck Series articles. yonnie (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Starblind. Crazynas^t 21:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment: I've created a userspace draft for FtV, which can be found at User:Purplebackpack89/FromtheVault. p b p 23:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move User:Purplebackpack89/FromtheVault to main space and redirect all of these pages to it (without deleting their histories). J04n(talk page) 10:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My FtV article and my PDS article have been mainspaced, and there's a clear consensus in here...can we get a close now, plz? p b p 19:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reality television#Reality competition/game shows. Sources to establish the notability of this concept don't seem to be strong enough to warrant a separate article. Therefore, the relevant content within this article should be merged, with a redirect left behind so as to not break the numerous incoming links. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity (reality television)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Facet of many reality programs, and while the specifics of this rule are important in varying ways for each individual program, the concept of immunity in a reality television environment is not independently notable.

Any details not already included in the individual reality television shows should be migrated to those articles. AldezD (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's only relevant in the context of a few shows, and belongs on the show's pages, not its own page. Ducknish (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page was created because the disambiguation page immunity was repeatedly receiving incoming links intended for the concept of reality television immunity. If this article does not exist, those links will continue to be made, but will have no target to point to, leading to the unacceptable situation of a large number of permanent disambiguation links. However, I would be fine with merging this content into Reality television, or another article covering common narrative devices like this which are used in reality television competitions. If there is a consensus against keeping this individual article, I therefore intend to merge and redirect accordingly, to prevent the accumulation of broken links and disambiguation links. bd2412 T 01:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content from the Immunity_(reality_television) page be merged into the Reality television page. Guy1890 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine to put it in Reality television, if that article had a logical place for it, or if the article had other sections about the general rules and strategies of the genre. However as I read the article, it does not. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article on those general rules and strategies is what is called for. There are other features common to many reality shows, such as one-on-one contests where the two worst performers in a group task must compete, with the loser of that contest to be eliminated. bd2412 T 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general rules are not notable outside of the concept of reality television. Strategies would fall mostly under WP:OR. AldezD (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you care for them or not, the fact is that the use of reality show rules and strategies are frequently reported in reliable sources - [13], [14], [15], [16] - and therefore no OR is needed. bd2412 T 02:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion without a solution to the inbound link problems. There are over 250 inbound links for the article. To simply delete the article without consideration of the effects is inappropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the large number of incoming links, many from articles on shows not mentioned in the current article, suggests room for substantial expansion in terms of where and how immunity is used as a reality television device. Whether this is best accomplished in this article or in another, there is no lack of material to be added. bd2412 T 03:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This topic should at best be included in the parent article of Reality television, with links to this article redirected there. Immunity as a gameplay element is not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article. AldezD (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing the ultimate issue. That is what this discussion will decide. bd2412 T 03:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reality television is a huge cultural issue worldwide. List of reality television programs goes on further than I care to count. It makes sense to me that various aspects of reality TV should receive encyclopedic attention. SchreiberBike (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SMerge into Reality television#Reality competition/game shows. I cannot imagine this article going beyond being a laundry list for how Immunity works in different reality TV shows. However, the concept of Immunity is not simply a dict-def better left to wiktionary, and instead is better explained on WP. The reality TV article is the best place to achieve both goals. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reality television#Reality competition/game shows leaving a redirect behind. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The four sources cited by BD2412 above are only two, neither of which meets WP:RS: one is from a Mormon newspaper, and the other three are from a TV-gossip site. Miniapolis 13:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Frei[edit]

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

links are dead. Unable at the moment to find RS for any of the statements on the page. nominating for deletion with no bias against re-creation, unless someone can put together some less controversial biographical statements. If statements on page are true, probably notable. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not sourced well and has a hostile seeming tone. Ducknish (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ducknish It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is (or was) a prominent cancer researcher, who seems to be retired, or close to it. He became a physician in 1948, so is probably in his late 80s or 90s. Here's a brief profile. He was Physician-in-Chief of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor at the Harvard Medical School. I am not in a position to judge his notability, but he was frequently quoted in the press regarding cancer research and government cancer policy 30 to 40 years ago. ~~The current article is so bad that it ought to go unless someone is willing to do a complete rewrite.~~ Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep I just did a complete rewrite, deleted the unverified allegations and added citations. He totally passes WP:ACADEMIC. He held a named professorship at Harvard Medical School, and he received the Lasker Award for heavens sake! --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was hoping for. Rescinded by nominator -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "probably notable" hunch was right. I enjoy rescuing articles (when they deserve it), but this one was particularly satisfying. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the excellent work by MelanieN. Thanks! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)][reply]
Keep Process has worked and we have a valid article now! DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep after editing. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep PianoDan (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Quezon_City#The_Project_Areas. Secret ^account 03:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Abada Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

High Schools and Colleges are exempt from CSD-A7, but an elementary school is not. Written like an advertisement and it is not in a neutral point of view, and this school is not notable. Apple46 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 12. Snotbot t • c » 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm inclined to give a school article like this the benefit of the doubt, and while it may benefit from some rewriting, I think it's notable enough that it should be preserved. Ducknish (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Certainly could benefit from editing, but yes, still notable -- enough It's a Fox! (What did I break) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Schools are inherently notable, and since there really isn't a school district article we can merge this to, then keeping it would be a reasonable compromise. However, article needs serious rewriting. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on you. Not all schools are considered notable. Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools states:

In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes. Articles on elementary/primary schools or middle schools are merged into the locality article (such as a village or town) unless they can clearly demonstrate that they can meet the notability guideline. Articles on elementary/primary and middle schools should normally be merged into the school district article or the appropriate locality article if this is not available.

This paragraph shows that a)Only High Schools and colleges are exempt from the notability guideline, and b)Elementary Schools are not, and are merged to the locality, Project 7 in this case, unless it is proven notable.

This school is not even notable, even for me, who live in Metro Manila. Can anyone here give me evidence that this school is notable? Delete or Merge to Project 7.203.215.122.1 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Project 7. Else, Delete. Not notable. 121.97.142.104 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Project 7 or appropriate school district article. Subject has received multiple mentions in multiple non-primary reliable sources; that being said if added up the sum does not equal significant coverage. Therefore, the subject of this AfD is not notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ORG. That being said the common practice is to redirect elementary school articles to the school district which governs them, or if such an article does not exist, to the community where they are located.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. An optimist on the run! 20:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Las tres viudas de papá[edit]

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

Falls far short of meeting Notability. Only reference is IMDB, which is not a Reliable source (contested PROD). An optimist on the run! 17:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you look for sources yourself to prove it was non notable? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'm not an expert on foreign films. Did you consider adding sources when you created it? Or when you removed the PROD? I see you're finally doing something now - it's a shame it takes an AFD to get some action. I'll happily withdraw the nomination when I see evidence of notability. An optimist on the run! 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do prods. Either kindly ask or AFD it, you took the latter option. You don't need to be an expert on foreign films, but it is common sense that a 1940 Mexican film most of the content would be in newspapers offline. The coverage in multiple sources is enough to pass notability requirements for films, and it is directed by a very notable director. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - article now meets criteria. An optimist on the run! 20:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GrandPrix+[edit]

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

The article does not pass the notability criteria for an online magazine and is written purely as an advert. It also appears to be self-published by one of it's authors, failing WP:COI. QueenCake (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's only an e-magazine with no real notability. WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB as I can find no coverage in reliable sources. Gong show 08:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WP:ADVERT at best DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry[edit]

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

Non-notable rivalry, no WP:RS to show notability. Consensus is that these sorts of rivalries are not notable unless they can be shown to pass WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too soon to delete this article. --Arjanizary (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? It's been up for two days so far, which is enough time to find the very basics of an article that passes WP:GNG. That's blatantly not the case here; it's also a sports rivalry article, which doesn't carry any inherent notability. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there is no indication this is more than statistics compiled for the purpose of creating an article, which also falls under WP:OR. C 679 21:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "rivalry" itself does not seem to be covered to any extent. Ducknish (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not evidenced. delete now, edit later per WP:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries need to pass the general notability guideline, which this rivalry doesn't. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mijo Trupkovic[edit]

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

No evidence that footballer has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Fails WP:NSPORTS as the National Soccer League was not a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the footballer has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guyanese Brazilian[edit]

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

Restatement of the title/dicdef. Disputed prod. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Not a dictionary DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify, incubate or delete per above and WP:STUB ("if a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability..."). Claims in infobox are not supported by reference. Usefulness of definition in doubt because term "Guyanese Brazilian" may be made up: referenced story instead uses "Guyanese in Brazil" and "Guyanese living in Brazil". Web search for "Guyanese Brazilian" does not indicate currency for the term (I did see "Guyanese/Brazilian"). Brazil and Guyana share a border, but you wouldn't know it from this article. Probably could be developed, but not useful in its current state. —rybec 21:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana–Jamaica relations[edit]

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

Dicdef. Disputed prod. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently indeed a pointless definition of a stub, but a non-notable contrived topic based on combinatorial logic and nothing else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*delete no significant coverage of topic. LibStar (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep enough sources found below. LibStar (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant cultural and governmental contacts. For example, [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] to list a few.--TM 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

most of these are good sources but globalfusion seems a blog and not so reliable. However, there's enough to change my vote. LibStar (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added refs on history to article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stub satisfies GNG now. --99of9 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough refs to be notable. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite our recent differences, In ictu oculi has done some great work on it. Although a stub, it's clear there is a noteworthy international relationship there that meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Mkdw ^talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin R. Shores[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E known really only for his Gulf War syndrome activity, and even then, he has not received significant enough coverage to merit an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps the organizations he started might be notable, but I don't believe that the article's subject is notable on his own. Ducknish (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough yet. Organizations are but Wikipedia:NOT INHERITED DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a question for the two editors who !voted to delete (not the nom), what organizations are you referring to? There is no mention of him starting an organization, he rode his wheelchair across Minnesota and was a member of NORML when in college. The meat of this discussion should be if his political activism (we should probably discount the NORML part) and minor runs at political office raise his status to our levels of notability. Unfortunately, I agree with the nominator that his activism is really only covered by the one event, his ride, and his runs for mayor aren't significant enough IMO for inclusion. J04n(talk page) 10:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was referring to White Earth Band of Ojibwe and National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws both of which have notability established articles. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author request. James086 ^Talk 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rishon LeZion car bombing[edit]

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

Article is not notable, fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Randor1980 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 14:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable car bomb: only two people were killed, no widespread coverage, nor long-lasting coverage. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until it gets books or academic journals, or until it appears in newspapers years from now. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPMC[edit]

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

Article about a seemingly random collection of companies that happen to fit the acronym that is the subject of the article. It doesn't work as a disambiguation page since none of these companies have articles. - Mr X 13:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to be a valid disambiguation page. If you wanted to keep it, you would have to split it into one article per company. But the text is very promotional, so you wouldn't actually want to use any of it in an article. I'm not sure that any of the companies are notable: I found a few mentions of Tabuk Pharmaceuticals online but nothing very substantial. Hence, because the text isn't worth saving and the present article fails policies, delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This does not mean that the merge discussion can not continue on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 11:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Register Information System[edit]

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

After the original nomination was closed, the nominator and creator were interaction-banned, so I closed the original discussion. It's not fair to the participants to force them to start all over again, so I'm renominating it procedurally and have copied in the comments from the first discussion by everyone who isn't interaction-banned. I am neutral. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my gut feeling. I might bring up some more arguments later. Ryan Vesey 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National Register of Historic Places. Some of the material in this article verges on WP:NOTHOWTO; the rest should be in the NRHP article. Unless there's some kind of controversy involving the NRIS specifically, it seems unlikely that there'd be enough material on it to sustain an independent article. A merger would allow material on NRIS to be accumulated and, if enough builds up to justify it, spun off later as its own article. Ammodramus (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like there are 9 refs there now. I think a small article on a big (but pretty non-controversial) database makes sense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have been provided to indicate the database's notability. Databases can be notable independently of the organization that runs them (the Geographic Names Information System comes to mind), and most of the refs appear NRIS-specific. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can understand the desire to merge it into the organizations article, and I can see how this article needs a good strong edit, I think the references and extent of the database's use supports a separate (better) article. dm (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (sk is no longer timely) (edit conflict) ~~Speedy keep~~ WP:SK#1 The nomination is missing a rationale for deletion, as notability is not defined by articles on Wikipedia, and articles with reliable primary sources with notability arguments need both evidence of an attempt to find secondary sources and analysis as per WP:ATD to explain why the reliable material cannot be merged and the topic redirected. In this case the nominator is an administrator, and IMO administrators should show leadership in following the WP:BEFORE guideline. In addition, less than nine hours elapsed between the creation of the article and the filing of the AfD, so the nomination appears to be premature. Further, this is not a "high priority" topic where the AfD should continue even without community preparation in the nomination. This nomination needs to be closed today, March 11. Such a closure should be with no prejudice to a speedy renomination in three to seven days by any editor. It also seems likely that a speedy closure would tend to protect the SOV/Doncram parties from criticism by ArbCom. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Register of Historic Places. Many of the references appear to be published by the NPS itself, and I question whether they properly establish notability. The existence of the NRIS is bound up in that of the National Register, and treating this as a section of that article seems like the best way to describe it for the time being. For a similar case, consider Chemical Abstracts Service; we don't try to maintain separate articles on that organization and its two databases. Choess (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quantify things: the article as of this writing has 9 footnotes (presumably, the "9 refs" to which Smallbones refers above). One of these (note 6) is an explanatory note with no source given. Four of them (notes 1, 2, 3, and 7) come from the National Park Service. Two of them (notes 4 and 5) describe searches that were conducted in the database, but don't discuss the database itself in any detail. Note 8 is general material about the NRHP, with brief instructions for the use of NRIS to search for properties, but not going into any detail about NRIS. Note 9 is a library-catalogue entry for NRIS. None of these meets the WP:GNG standard of significant coverage in independent sources: the significant coverage is in the NPS sources, which aren't independent; the independent sources don't provide significant coverage, either individually or in aggregate. Ammodramus (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to National Register of Historic Places which hardly mentions it. This is really an administrative aspect of the NRHP and I don't think we can say much about it beyond what we should be saying in the main article anyway. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no difference between this and the National Bridge Inventory, which is the comparable list of bridge for the Federal Highway Administration. 25or6to4 (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These cases are not entirely parallel. NRIS doesn't entirely embody the register, but it is very much an implementation of it. The there's no "registry of bridges" that the NBI implements; it is the listing and its implementation in one. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Register of Historic Places. There doesn't appear to be any significant notability apart from the NRHP. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRIS is a critically important federal database used for historical research, as established by the references. It's notable as a stand-alone article. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GrapedApe. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 21:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Register of Historic Places. - I concur with GrapedApe that the NRIS is an important US federal database. But it really is just the database implementation for managing the listings of the NHRP. The justification for a separate article needs to shopw the coverage in reliable sources that make this database distinctively notable from the NHRP. I don't see that in the current sourcing nor can I find any myself. -- Whpq (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The database is important on its own and not with relation to the National Register of Historic Places. It has a history of its own that deserves its own article. Ducknish (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Can you please identify which sources represent that independent and significant coverage that woudl satisfy the general notability guidelines? I don't see that in any of the sourcing currently in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We cite this database routinely as WP:RS in articles on individual NRHP sites, so many of those pages link here. K7L (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being a reliable source does not make it notable. -- Whpq (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Special:WhatLinksHere shows that just 21 pages link to this article; bizarrely, it's linked by Winston, Georgia (not particularly helpfully), while all of the other links are user talk pages, WP talk: space pages, this deletion discussion, etc. No article on an individual NRHP site links here as of 3AM on 15 March. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Register of Historic Places. The database of the NRHP can easily, and should be, discussed as part of the NRHP main article. Several similar situations are mentioned above where databases and the organizations that the database are discussed together in one article. I do not see the need for distinct articles here. --Polaron | Talk 13:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 plane crash in Washington[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. While tragic, military crashes are quite common. Nobody notable killed. WP:NOTNEWS also applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC) ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sad but military aircraft accidents are rarely notable, nothing big hit and nobody notable killed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all notability standards. Sad but, alas, these things happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: but list in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) per WP:AIRCRASH. Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is only necessary to consider how many military aircraft losses (not to mention ships, land vehicles etc) there have been since the beginning to realise that this is not the place for an article on each one. --AJHingston (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no reason to keep. Ducknish (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIARY applies to all the recent articles started by the creator.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Me and You and Everyone We Know. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ratcliff[edit]

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

The only source given is the IMDb page of the subject. Even browsing the IMDb page, the subject doesn't even have anything there that would make looking for reliable sources worth while. Ratcliff has only done a handfull of independent films. He has had a couple "extra" roles in a couple T.V. series, mostly if not all uncredited. Aaron Booth (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, no significant coverage regarding the subject from non-primary reliable sources to indicate that the individual is notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The individual has had minor roles in multiple entertainment projects, however non-appear to reach the level where the subject is considered notable per WP:NACTOR. There are plenty of individuals (such as my cousin, and brother-in-law), and animals (such as Felicia Day's dog Cubby), who have IMDb entries, but that doesn't make the individual automatically notable on Wikipedia. The subject maybe notable one day, but right now this appears to fall under WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:06, 2 March 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, KTC (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To respectfully disagree with User:RightCowLeftCoast, in refining the search provided by the ineffective Find sources so as to remove false positives, we actually can find significant coverage of this young actor, with many reliable sources speaking positively about his work: See "Brandon Ratcliff" actor (but most seems to be about his award-winning role in Me and You and Everyone We Know). And while thanking RCLC for sharing, I am not concerned about his brother-in-law or cousin or various animals also having IMDB listings, as we do not judge any actor's notability by the least of any of their works but instead by their best, and the coverage of those best as found through searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources that were linked in the above google search link appears mainly to be passing mentions, and the award (Chlotrudis Award) appears to be a local award and isn't the same as being nominated (or being awarded) for an Oscar or Golden Globe. If this were the case every one and media that wins a local Emmy, or awarded a Purple Heart, would be notable, which past consensus over multiple AfDs inform us that they are not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." No

"2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Nope

"3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Again, no.

The award he won was questionably notable award for independent film. This award is not "a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. Nor has he made "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." even in regards to the award. Much of the coverage in the sources that can be found are trivial coverage of the subject, basically a handful of passing mentions. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:13, 10 March 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Me and You and Everyone We Know, the one film for which he any sort of sourcable recognition and where it is reasonable for his name to be included. While starting to eke upon WP:ENT, he has not arrived there quite yet. As for Chlotrudis Award WAX comparisons to the Academy Awards or Golden Globes... I do not wish to compare or argue BIG apples and small oranges, as the Chlotrudis is a different award by a different organization and set to recognize independent, not studio films... and it would simply be unnecessary drama to have this discussion devolve into one about how Wikipedia has not yet set any specific standard (other than WP:GNG) for determining whether an award is notable or not. Simply put, and per existing Wikipedia standards, this actor is close but not quite there yet as far as notability is concerned. Allow undeletion or recreation once it is. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would disagree that the subject is "close but not quite there yet", the subject is far from notable. However, I feel that redirects are far more preferable to deletions when a valid redirect target exist. It would be reasonable to redirect to Me and You and Everyone We Know, however the subject of that article, upon closer look appears to not have received significant coverage outside of reviews (which indicates notability per WP:NOTFILM). Let me explain, Roger Ebert gives the subject two paragraphs, but nothing further. No other reliable source gives the subject significant coverage as presently provided in the article; sure there are brief mentions, but outside of reviews not much else.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IF this indivdual had recognition (not simply verifiability) for something other than his role in Me and You and Everyone We Know, this would be a whole different discussion. "Far from Notable" is a subjective opinion just as is "close but not quite there yet". While he certainly does not have the notability of Justin Beeber, he certainly has more "notability" than any unknown-and-never-heard-of actor. Notability is not a matter of degrees. He either has it or he does not. Unless stopped by death or retirement, an actor's career rarely ceases... specially when he has already received peer recognition. That I think he might be slowly approaching ENT and have Wikipedia notability in the future is not an assertion that he already has. We can wait until notability is a more certain lock before allowing an article. (I like the use of color in responses as started her by the nominator) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What matters here is whether or not he meets ENT. The point that he may at some point meet criterion is an example of WP:NYA. He received one small award for a supporting role in one independent film. Most of what can be found out there as to establish ENT and verifiability just seem to be small passing references, and very little is said aside from actor "x" is playing role "y" or a similar statement. While at some point if he continues in his career he may meet ENT, he fails all three criteria. That being said, I agree that redirecting to Me and You and Everyone We Know until he meets ENT, if that time does in fact arrive. -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berit Brogaard[edit]

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

This individual does not pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. It all appears to be sourced to various primary sources, with only one mention of Brogaard in reliable sources that are not regarding the synesthesia research. I had previously tagged it for proposed deletion, but the only reason it was removed is because the de-tagger thought that it was "controversial" and requires a full AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment. The clearest potential qualification under PROF is her editorial position. From the context, "American editor" suggests a position subordinate to the Editor-in-Chief, which is the usual standard. Does anyone know how that journal is organized?— James Cantor (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject's GS page [22] shows 724 cites with an h-index of 13. This is probably enough to pass WP:Prof#1 in philosophy. Why did nominator ignore this matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I don't know that citation numbers alone are the right metric, but I'm seeing several papers in Google scholar by other people that are primarily about Brogaard's work (rather than just incidentally citing her), to the point that her name appears in their titles: Damschen et al 2006, Moretti 2008, Schaffer 2009, and one I don't have a link for, Szabo, Z. (2006). “Comments on Berit Brogaard’s 'The but not All: A New Account of PluralDefinite Descriptions’ ”, The Eastern Division Meeting of the APA, Dec. 30, 2006. I think in this field that level of coverage is probably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Xxanthippe, plus added International Who's Who in Poetry 2005 entry as Danish Poet "Publications: Danskere til Salg, 1991; Livet I lysthuset, 1992; Solnedgangens Orange" In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject's work has had a substantial degree of coverage in mainstream media. 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.45 (talk)
Keep because she's purty --Lord Bromblemore 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the one who removed the PROD tag, not because I have a horse in the race per se, but had a suspicion that further discussion of the subject would elicit a wider variety of opinion on subject's notability. I see from the foregoing discussion that that was indeed the case. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribunal Records[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable record label. A news search brought up this, which I'd question as being a reliable source. Doesn't appear to be anything else out there. There are a bunch of artists at List of Tribunal Records artists, but at least one of those is also sitting at AfD, one is tagged notability, and one goes to an unrelated article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero references in the article and I'm not finding any in Google news, books or web searches. No indication of how this is notable. This is especially problematic since band articles often use the notability of their label as demonstration of notability of the band. RadioFan (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Owner of label is also lead vocalist for Killwhitneydead, also being considered for deletion. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG.
Delete - As usual, record labels especially indie ones won't always receive the best coverage but I have to say this one received more than I expected. A search with "Matthew Rudzsinki" provided some results and a search with "Tribunal Records North Carolina" also provided some results in the first three pages. It seems they're best known for Killwhitneydead. Searches at Google Books only provided one brief mention of the label. Not much of an article could be built with these sources. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I moved my notion to a Strong Keep after finding this, [23] A simple Google search pulls up two pages worth of information on the label, nearly 20 different sites referencing them. Looking at their list of artists shows quite a few notable bands. For me the Google search alone is enough reason to keep this page. Going through a few of the sites gives more than enough information to add to this page and clean it up. Here is a reference for the kind of articles and coverage they are getting [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekingofdallas (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Voice of Vietnam. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Vietnam[edit]

There is a comprehensive list of all radio stations in Vietnam, both VOV and independents at http://www.asiawaves.net/vietnam-radio.htm I do not agree with the merger as it implies that VOV is the sole radio broadcaster in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.37.3 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

In it's current form it is a list of red links that are more appropriately discussed in the parent Voice of Vietnam article. Devoid of content apart from that. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 11:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there is certainly an encyclopedic list of radio stations in Vietnam to be made, this is not it. Merge the content to Voice of Vietnam then delete without prejudice for proper re-creation. - Dravecky (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Voice of Vietnam. If all radio stations in Vietnam are part of Voice of Vietnam, there's no reason to have 2 separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 NATO helicopter crash in Afghanistan[edit]

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

This article fails the WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. It is just a random news story, based on a few breaking news stories. As this military accident does not seem to be of any significance to future operational procedures, there is no reason for a standalone article per WP:AIRCRASH. --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH. Tragic but nobody notable on board....William 12:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete military aircraft accidents are rarely notable and then only if they hit something big or kill somebody notable, sad but this is just another non-notable accident. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I copied the one line in the article to List of Coalition aircraft crashes in Afghanistan since that's where the information would be relevent.— -dainomite 17:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable crash. Ducknish (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vio-lence. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and Dirt[edit]

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

As yet unreferenced article on a documentary. I found nothing reliable on the internetz to prove this is notable--the best I could find was a fairly empty page on Rotten Tomatoes. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to the article on the band Vio-lence. In lacking notability for a separate article for this documentary, we can at least send readers to where they might otherwise learn about the band subject of the documentary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I produced and Directed this DVD. It can be bought on Amazon and other online retailers. It is part of the Band, Vio-lence's discography. It has been verified by the Internet Movie Data Base. Such claims for deletion are baseless and the person making the claim is clearly ignorant and hasn't done his homework. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831350/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 ; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831350/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 . Velociraptor666 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Jerry Allen[reply]
- I'm not ignorant of Wikipedia's guidelines. Lots of non-notable things are for sale on Amazon. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? BlOOD AND DIRT has been verified by IMDB through their strict policy of validating real film releases. It came out in 2006. It is out of print at this time and currently only available on Amazon. When it was released, it was distributed to all areas of the globe and available on store shelves. Best Buy, Walmart, Rasputins and every online music retailer sold it. Just because it is now out of print does not diminish it from being an actual product that is extremely popular to it's target audience. Who are you to decide? Want me to provide reviews? This is ridiculous! Velociraptor666 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've provided links that show its listing on IMDB. Which you failed to mention. Any search for this DVD usually results in its IMDB listing. Drmies wrote "Lots of non-notable things are for sale on Amazon". If you did some research, you'd know that only NOTABLE titles are allowed on Internet Movie Data Base.

http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Vio-lence/Blood_and_Dirt/118603/

http://www.vio-lence.com/

https://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Vio-Lence_Blood_and_Dirt/70052622?locale=en-US

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=52264

I can keep going. Obviously Drmies Google button is broken. Velociraptor666 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more evidence that Blood and Dirt is a "verifiable" and "NOTABLE" title that meets any reputable reference site's guidelines.
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7227743 CD UNIVERSE = Huge music website. Still selling Title as of today.

http://cdon.eu/music/vio-lence/blood_%26_dirt_%5Bimport%5D-16310829

http://www.utopia.com.au/products/Vio%252dLence-%252d-Blood-And-Dirt-%252d-DVD-%252d-Music.html

http://www.overdrive.ie/?p=518

http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/album-groupe-Vio*lence-nom_album-Blood_and_Dirt-l-en.html

http://www.metalkingdom.net/band/band_discography.php?idx=640

http://www.hbdirect.com/album/1611964-vio-lence-blood-and-dirt-.html

http://falloutzine.blogspot.com/2010/02/vio-lence-blood-dirt-dvd-2006.html

http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/vio-lence--blood-and-dirt%28movie%29.aspx
I can keep going. And did you see that it is available on Netfix as well? Yep, Netflix just throws up any non-verifiable titles. Education is key. Velociraptor666 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velociraptor666, the consensus at Wikipedia is that listings by retailers and an IMDB listing are not sufficient bases for an encyclopedia article. The only really relevant part of your comment is the question, "want me to provide reviews?" Yes, if you want this article kept then the best way to go about it would be to cite reviews in publications that meet the requirements outlined in our guidance on identifying reliable sources, rather than come out with all guns blazing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly defend my page and I have listed so many links that include reviews, it's really sad.

File:Vio-Lence dvd rock sound.jpg

review

File:Vio blood review1.jpg

review 1

File:Vio blood review2.jpg

review 2

There you go. More reviews. Seriously now. I have provided so much proof, it's insane. Velociraptor666 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expect in this area, so won't comment on whether those reviews meet our requirements, but will point out that you would do better to simply provide such evidence without all of the bluster. I think that Drmies is much more knowledgeable than I about what sources are reliable for this sort of thing, but I wouldn't blame him for not coming back to this discussion after all of the insults that you've been throwing at him. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks Phil. Well, some of those reviews seem OK--they look to have been printed so that's a start. Essential bibliographical information is missing, though. But I'll do our metalhead a favor and ask Blackmetalbaz (if he's still around...) to have a look. Thank you much, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't mean to "offend" anyone. I worked my butt off on this DVD and put three years of blood. sweat and tears into it so It's something I'm passionate about. Please excuse my enthusiasm in defense of its right to be recognized for posterity. Essential Bibliographical info missing? Specifically what do you mean? The DVD's release info or the publications that reviewed the DVD? Seriously? How many hoops do I have to jump through just to keep a simple page up? Velociraptor666 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Velociraptor666: Mere existance and being sold by venders is not the same as notability. Please read WP:NF to understand what is required to show notability for film projects here on Wikipedia. We understand that it is listed at IMDB and is for sale at various retailers. That does not mean it meets notability requirements. Also, in accepting that you are the Jerry M. Allen who produced and directed this DVD, I need to point you to Wikipedia's policy and concerns about conflict of interest when a contributor writes about topics with which they have a vested interest and Wikipeia's policy toward not letting itself be used as a means to promote products. See WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTPROMOTION. As for what links might show notability, please review WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Citing sources and WP:ELNO. I would also urge you to take a look at WP:PRIMER to gain an understanding of what is required to write an article here. If the DVd has received coverage and commentary and analysis in what Wikipedia determines as reliable sources, then a keep may well be a result. But links to listings or sales sites or sites showing viewer opinions do not do it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. – Richard BB 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the criteria and Blood and Dirt not only meets, but exceeds the requirements as defined by the terms listed. You all keep adding new rules with every reply. The first statement by Drmies was that the only thing that could be found on Blood and Dirt was a blank Rotten Tomatoes page. I proved that to be false. You scoff at IMDB like it's some fan web site instead of a reference site for PREOFESSIONALS. The policy for inclusion on IMDB is a million times more complicated than this site and they require verification in advance. What this really comes down to is you people acting like your little Wiki Gods. Just because you are unfamiliar with the band and the DVD, you say it's not notable. Maybe in your worlds. To people into metal, it is very very notable. Netfix wouldn't have it in their playlist of titles if it weren't a valid title. As for me self promoting and this being a conflict of interest. More rubbish. I've made my case and I deserve to have a page. This is part of the band, Vio-lence's, discography. I wrote did the DVD to promote the band and made very little money from the DVD. I'm not making a dime from this page or benefiting from it other than providing information about the title for posterity. Isn't that what an encyclopedia does? Provide information? Does Wiki have a bias against metal music? This video has gotten rave reviews in print and web. Ugh, no not user reviews. JOURNALIST reviews. I've posted links. You chose to ignore them. Again, I've met every requirement for inclusion. Velociraptor666 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the review in Blabbermouth.net may be suitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth is not usually considered a reliable source. I wish Baz would come by to shed light on it: few people here know metal like he does. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete it no matter what I say or provide proof of, at least merge the page with the Vio-lence page. Please. It's their official DVD and it's list boldly on their officiaVelociraptor666 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really around on WP at the minute but was asked for comment on this. There are a number of problems with the arguments being made for keeping the article, not least of all the fact that it seems to be almost entirely the page's creator arguing for its inclusion. An initial note on the "sources" provided; only one passes WP:RS (the Blabbermouth news report). No blogs or webzines, Netflix or IMDB can be used to establish notability, nor can the band's own website as it's obviously not third-party. I've not come across Megaforce Records before, and it's a bit unclear whether or not they're a notable label - if I get a minute, I'll try and look into it; if it is that would be some good evidence in favour of notability. However, remember that WP:MUSIC states that not every release from a notable band is necessarily notable; it needs to have its own separate notability because of WP:NOTINHERITED. What the author really could do with is some reviews in reliable, third-party, preferably print sources (or there are some reliable web sources, just not the ones cited here! Note: "reliable" refers to the policy, not what the author may believe to be "reliable"). Unless these are found, the page lacks notability on its own, and there is little to be merged. A redirect would be more appropriate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Blackmetalbaz, you've not heard of Megaforce records? And you're a metal head? It was only Metallica, Anthrax and million other metal legends label.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaforce_Records

Wow. Just wow. Nah. they are not a notable label. The only thing notable here is the lack of fairness. 50.136.237.90 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in addition to Megaforce being a notable and legendary metal label...I mean it doesn't get much bigger than METALLICA, I myself, as a documentary music director, am notable. But no matter what I say or provide as far as evidence, you guys will somehow scoff at it because YOU PERSONALLY have never heard of it. What sort of encyclopedia criteria is that? Be real. Pretty soon the criteria will be "if my mom hasn't heard of it, it's not notable and doesn't exist". lol! I can provide all kinds of international print and web reviews for other works that I've produced and directed... hence forth proving "my" notability. I almost get the impression you all are just trying to break my balls here. I've provided many many links that I guarantee, you haven't looked at. Here's a few of my youtube clips. Check them out. I already know the response. "Youtube proof is not sufficient and neither are the actual print reviews you posted even though we asked for them. Face it Mr. Allen, nothing you post will satisfy us." It's getting comical now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZZ4_pq-AFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDJtXy3lm8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB6VO-w9LGM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velociraptor666 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Allen, I'm beginning to think of you less as a film director and more as a professional and bad-mannered lout. We have criteria, yes: stuff has to be written about in reliable sources. Simple as that. Sorry if that's too much to ask, while you're promoting your own business here. No one here is trying to break your balls, evidence of which is also lacking: a bit of shouting on a website does not give a person balls. Your scanned articles were probably removed as copyright violations (surely you've heard of the concept) and the "bibliographic information" that I mentioned above as missing was simple stuff, like, you know, what magazine, what date, what pages--stuff that my freshman composition students would know, and the kind of stuff that an encyclopedia runs on. And now I'm done with you. If you were any smarter, you'd try to make build bridges and seek understanding and compromise, rather than piss off the very people who are most likely to help you, like Blackmetalbaz. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Ah, yes, that Megaforce. I was confused by the redlink on the Vio-lence page which led me to believe that it was something separate. That is a strong bit of evidence to promote your cause, and would suggest that there would be large numbers of reviews in professional print media to establish notability. I haven't actually seen you point towards any however. No-one's trying to "break your balls" here, but your internet posturing is getting a bit silly. You may or may not be a "notable" human being, but that is not what is at question here. My simple suggestion to you: provide below three in-depth (and all I mean by that is a paragraph rather than a couple of sentences) reviews of your documentary in professional print magazines and you have established notability (issue number, date and page please). And don't whinge that thrash is underground and doesn't get coverage because we all know that's not true. I'd start by looking in the likes of Metal Hammer, Kerrang, Decibel, Terrorizer or Zero Tolerance. If you can't find those reviews, your documentary is not independently notable of the band article and should be deleted. Simple really. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Baz, there were images posted of printed reviews--but without any bibliographic information it was impossible to figure out what they were worth, where they were published. Three such reviews would go a long way, of course: pity that the relevant information wasn't provided, and it never showed up in the Google News or Book searches I did. If Mr. Allen would provide that information we could make hay here. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vio-lence - Notability is not inherited, I'm not seeing any cast-iron WP:RS anywhere, let alone anything in-depth in a WP:RS. The one keep voter has a clear conflict of interest as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vio-lence seems to be the most appropriate action here. Notability has not been established, nor has there been any meaningful covereage in reliable sources. --Cyrus Andiron 18:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Romanowski[edit]

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

Not notable Uberaccount (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LuckyKid (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the risk of being the contrarian here, I'm finding several good sources, for example Billboard, Billboard, Billboard, Electronic Musician and Tape Disc Business and Mix. - Mr X 01:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Here are three more references, all of which are currently used in the article: Michale Romanowski credits at Allmusic, article about Romanowski in Mix (magazine), "Tape Project" article on Positive Feedback website. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this page appears to be self promotion, given that author has made other pages about the same topic, which have been speedily deleted. See Michael Romanowski Mastering. Uberaccount (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That doesn't really matter. If the subject of the article meets the criteria for notability, the article should be kept. If the article reads like a promotion, it should be edited so that it's neutral and encyclopedic. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject as received mention from multiple non-primary reliable sources, however it is my opinion that those multiple mentions do not add up to equal significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Therefore, not passing WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, the article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom - not notable. Also, this looks like self-promotional material. - ʈucoxn\^talk 05:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete - Google News archives provided several results in the first two pages (mostly from Mix) with the "Music Indistry News Network" talking the most about him. Some of these articles mention the artists he has worked with including a few notable ones. I have to say, he has received more attention than other mixers and mastering producers and an article could be written but there doesn't seem to be anything different than any other person in this line of work (no awards, no notable partnerships/endorsements, etc.). I was a little on the fence at first but I think it would still be a stub (not there's anything wrong with stubs). I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Although the delete opinions are in greater quantity the majority of them are very weak arguments. Please focus on the merits of the subject and the validity of the sources not the page's creator. Thank you, J04n(talk page) 10:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE; coverage is routine or promotional. Miniapolis 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A.T.M JEFF[edit]

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

BLP article with minimal sources, if any real ones at all. I've been unable to find the subject's name in the sources listed. They remain unclear. The principle editor is using a username that is the same as the article subject. I believe this to be someone who is trying to make a name for themselves and not someone who is already notable per WP:MUSIC. Due to the grammatical errors in the article, it would need to be entirely re-written. Dismas|^(talk) 10:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following message was added to the talk page by the creator of this article. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Would you please do me a Favor? would please fix the references on this page, cause i have been trying but i don't know how to remove the numbers on the top of the references.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etiennebaheza (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 March 2013‎ -->

Delete The article as PROD'ed for having no real references. A bunch of references have been added, but the are either links to A.T.M Jeff's music videos posted at various locations around the web, or to stories having nothing to do with this artist. No actual significant coverage found for this artist, and the addition of false references does not bolster my confidence. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - non-notable, selfpromotion; borderline G11 speedy. ukexpat (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Jeff don't drink, smoke or take weed.". That's commendable, but it doesn't make up for a lack of third party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It's a vanity piece with a very funny "Personal Life" section, and it fails our guidelines for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 11:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please read this to understand me better

Hi

there i have seen all the messages, but i just couldn't reply to them cause i don't real know how to use the talk page. Also i have something to tell you.

1) I'm not the atm jeff guy, you guys think of, i only created this page for him cause i've check on google and he don't have one, that's why i decided to create one for him. I only seen him once at the show.

2) The reason why i used hes really name as my username, it's cause i had no other easry name to use, and that's why i decided to use (Etiennebaheza) which is hes real name so it can be easy for me to remember it.

3) the reason why i was asking if anybody could help me to fix the references, it's cause i'm new here and i don't know how to add the references, that's why i was asking. And please i do not want loose the time I spent in it, And i'm gone try and add the real References soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etiennebaheza (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editing under another person's name is forbidden. So, either you are Etienne Baheza (aka A.T.M JEFF) and you have created a vanity autobiography, or you are improperly impersonating him. In either case, you're doing something wrong. As for the references, they have been fixed. They're all bogus, but at least they're properly formatted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so guys what should i do now?? Is it anyhow i can change the name or sign up a new account using my real name??? (atmjeff (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Yes, you can create another account and abandon the one using Jeff's name. And the only way you have to save this article is to find some reliable sources that actually talk about Jeff. Not just links to his video but text or video interviews that deal specifically with him. You mention above that you have "real references", so why not use them now? Dismas|^(talk) 12:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

alright that's cool. But how am i gone create another article using the same name, while this page still online. Is it any how you can delete this page first so i can be able to create another page using my name and also creating the article under the name A.T.M JEFF again. Thank you --atmjeff (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no point in deleting the present article only to create a new article about the still non-notable musician. The article is not up for deletion because of the perceived conflict of interest, but because Jeff does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' If you can provide sources in the current article showing that he is notable then it won't be deleted. Dismas|^(talk) 04:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. A previous version of the article was speedily deleted for being promotional in tone - not much has changed. Hack (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish this guy well, but there's no evidence that WP:BIO is met at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bro i found 4 real references, so i hope that gone make this page to stay. As i have been around looking for other articles, some they have 2,3,4,5 references and they still don't have the deletion on they page. So i hope the 4 references i found is gone work.--atmjeff (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to share these "real references"? No references have been added to the article since it was nominated for deletion. Add the references to the article (or list them here) so we can evaluate them. But please, make sure that the actually mention the subject. I have removed all references that verifiably do not mention the subject, leaving a very poorly sourced article indeed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

brother this is what i found man.

1) Australia: A.T.M JEFF Lands three Kili Music Awards Nominations. http://isangi.com.bi/australia-a-t-m-jeff-lands-kili-music-awards-nominations/

2) A Beef between atm jeff and g-marl after he went out of Tao-boiz-crew http://www.eastafricanhit.com/a-beef-between-atm-jeff-and-g-marl-after-he-went-out-of-tao-boiz-crew/

3) Tanzania: Atm jeff Bags three African Australians Music Awards http://www.africanstube.com/tanzania-atm-jeff-bags-three-african-australians-music-awards/

--atmjeff (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, let's assess those citations:
1. http://isangi.com.bi/australia-a-t-m-jeff-lands-kili-music-awards-nominations/ : 404 error, not found. Further, http://isangi.com.bi appears to be an invalid URL.
2. A blog about G-Marl Jamal (another artist of questionable notability, presently also nominated for deletion) having a falling out with Tao Boiz (a band of questionable notability) and mentioning A.T.M Jeff as part of the dispute. Not significant.
3. A blog entry about ATM Jeff bagging three "African Australians Music Awards", even though no other website on the internet has ever heard of this award, and even AfricansTube.com only mentions the award in regard to Jeff's nomination. (Apparently, the link appears on lots of other pages, resulting in a fairly high hit count for this search term, but all linked to AfricansTube.com.)
So, all in all, I wouldn't say that we've made any progress toward finding significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

come on brother. that's the only links, i found. and the first one i don't know why is not working now, but yesterday it was. but please is it any how you can leave this page please?? i have seen alot with only 2 or 3 references. please brother let it go like this, that's the only thing i found after i've been online searching everyehre. --atmjeff (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep because I am a senile old man. Lord Bromblemore 18:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You forgot to include the sarcmarc so that we could properly recognize your sarcasm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not cool man, i know even you, you won't like it if you were in this position i'm in now. You guys told me to show the references that has something to do with this artist and then i did, but now you are saying something else. I have seen lot pages here with references that has nothing to do with the artist. but mine i just showed you the references and you are saying thing else. This is not cool brother--atmjeff (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, we told you to find significant coverage in reliable sources. What you found was trivial coverage and questionable sources. Sorry. As for the existence of other articles with poor references, that is irrelevant to the current discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok man, you can delete it, cause there is no point for it to stay there while you gone delete it. But thanx anyways--atmjeff (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Israel helicopter crash[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. While tragic, military crashes are quite common. Nobody notable killed. WP:NOTNEWS also applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC) ...William 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete military aircraft crash a lot and are unlikely to be notable unless they kill somebody important or hit something big, no sign that this is any more than a non-notable training accident. MilborneOne (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there has not been any continous coverage of the event. As a random news story, it fails the notability guidelines of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Also, there is no need for a standalone article per WP:AIRCRASH, because this accident did not result in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations. --FoxyOrange (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, per my initial proposal for deletion prior to creation of this AfD thread. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable air crash. Ducknish (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a joke. The creator should be warned for starting so many pages related to non-notable events.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Polytechnic of Namibia. J04n(talk page) 11:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia Business Innovation Center[edit]

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

Unremarkable 10-person unit of the Polytechnic of Namibia. Not at all on the importance level of an innovation hub, and even they typically do not have a separate article. Article is completely spam and has no suitable reference, but besides that I do not see the notability of this centre, although there are a few articles in the local press about it. Pgallert (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Polytechnic of Namibia. Google News finds only four routine announcements of conferences it sponsored. Text of the article is non-neutral gobbledygook. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley College, University of Sydney[edit]

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

DELETE: Non-notable hostel. No independent refs. Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people. Nothing obvious in google or google news A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 12. Snotbot t • c » 07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a hypothetical Accommodation at the University of Sydney along with The Women's College, University of Sydney. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article certainly needs improvement but that is not a reason for deletion. It needs work. I do not understand the rationale behind "Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people". The two notable Masters have their own articles that explain their work for the College. If the membership of the College is not supported by their articles (I have not checked them) they can be removed. The only other person mentioned is the Master and that detail is supported by the link to the College web page. The proposer is probably unaware that describing this College as a "hostel" will be seen by the members of the College as a rather unfortunate POV. This is a College that offers more than just a place to sleep. Colleges at the University of Sydney are important institutions. The building itself is notable and that section can be expanded. There are 4 more substantial articles on other Colleges and I do not believe there would be consensus to merge them to Accomodation at the University of Sydney, so having that article for just two colleges is not a good idea. I support keeping this article, although due to illness and travel I will not have the time to work on it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: that the nominator is currently blocked indefinitely. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I stated on this AfD. The University of Sydney aspired to the same level of the top British Universities of the 1850s during its formation, which means I'm going to treat this as inherently notable for consistency with Oxford, Cambridge and Durham colleges (to pick but three examples). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I invite you to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.The question is not (and has never been) "are residential university colleges notable?" the question is (and has always been) "has this particular entity received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per the WP:GNG and WP:ORG?" BourbonandRocks (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — BourbonandRocks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You need to remember that WP:GNG is a guideline. The actual important policies here are verifibility and neutral point of view. What the specific circumstances do (as seen at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, for instance) is it allows us to, provided at least one source proves such a subject's existence, to default to assuming sufficient reliable sources exist somewhere for such a subject, and we expect them to be available for verification somewhere - although their existence may appear in print records that are hard to find. Similarly, articles can have coverage in reliable sources yet deleted from Wikipedia anyway because they violate WP:NOT - The weather in Paris, for example, is verifiable by reliable sources, but not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Don't assume reliable source coverage is the be all and end all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would your view be on WP:Notability (schools) failing, leaving us to fall back on WP:ORG? As these instiutions are not schools? BourbonandRocks (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I'd provide some sources such as this, this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is another major college, there are plenty of reliable sources about. I'm adding a few, but they're just a drop in the ocean. --99of9 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, while you're looking for sources in the NSW National Library of Australia, 99of9, I don't suppose you could dig out another source for the "Criticism" section I put in? As living people are involved, I'm not sure it will stick with a single Sydney Morning Herald source. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NLA only digitizes out of copyright newspapers, and I didn't see any criticism in that really old stuff, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?/index.html would have more recent SMH articles Paul foord (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not a hostel. I wonder if this nomination is a negative reaction to something given that the nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Duplicate of the other nom. BerleT (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Women's College, University of Sydney[edit]

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

DELETE: Non-notable hostel. No independent refs. Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people. Nothing obvious in google or google news A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 12. Snotbot t • c » 07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a hypothetical Accommodation at the University of Sydney along with Wesley College, University of Sydney. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article certainly needs improvement but that is not a reason for deletion. It needs work. I do not understand the rationale behind "Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people". The alumni all have articles that state they were at the College. The only other person mentioned is the principal and that detail is supported by the link to the College web page. The proposer is probably unaware that describing this College as a "hostel" will be seen by the members of the College as a rather unfortunate POV. This is a College that offers more than just a place to sleep. Colleges at the University of Sydney are important institutions. The Women's College has I believe an interesting history as I recall from when I attended a conference there many years ago. It needs work, not deletion. There are 4 more substantial articles on other Colleges and I do not believe there would be consensus to merge them to Accommodation at the University of Sydney, so having that article for just two colleges is not a good idea. I support keeping this article, although due to illness and travel I will not have the time to work on it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: that the nominator is currently blocked indefinitely. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad nomination. Obviously not a hostel.--Auric talk 03:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NHS and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, places of tertiary education are generally assumed to be inherently notable. I assume that being the oldest Australian university, it models itself on the collegian system as seen in Oxford and Cambridge, which would have been the most obvious examples of British universities to refer to in the 1850s (source here), and hence where colleges are inherently notable in their own right. (Try AfDing this as a "hostel" and see how far you get!) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I invite you to read WP:OTHERSTUFF.The question is not (and has never been) "are residential university colleges notable?" the question is (and has always been) "has this particular entity received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per the WP:GNG and WP:ORG?" BourbonandRocks (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — BourbonandRocks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What would your view be on WP:Notability (schools) failing, leaving us to fall back on WP:ORG? As these instiutions are not schools? BourbonandRocks (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and University Colleges are not called schools in Australia or the UK. That is a US useage. But more seriously, we do need sources. We need someone to spend time looking for them. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything that has a long article about its opening in 1894 (cite added), and is still in operation, is pretty likely to be notable! --99of9 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(update) I'm up to 14 cited newspaper articles. Feel free to withdraw/close this whenever you're ready. --99of9 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is blocked and thus unlikely to withdraw the nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

recent SMH coverage would be found here http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?/index.html Paul foord (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not a hostel. I wonder if this nomination is a negative reaction to something given that the nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Duplicate of the other nom. BerleT (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gordon Matthew[edit]

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

Fails WP:Soldier Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only real claim to notability is his receipt of a CBE from the British crown, which is not an especially high honour (below a knighthood, for instance) but not the lowest honour. I had a quick look in newspaper archives and couldn't find anything about him, so I'm still no wiser as to why he got the CBE. Couldn't find him in the ODNB either. Without more sources, probably not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CBE, although not the OBE or MBE, has consistently been held to count as a "well-known and significant award or honor" under the terms of WP:BIO. Brigadier is considered to be a rank which confers notability under WP:SOLDIER (despite the nominator's incorrect claims that it does not), since although a brigadier has not been a general officer rank in Britain since the 1920s, it used to be and is in most other countries (a British brigadier is entirely equivalent in rank to a US brigadier general, for instance, even though one is a general and the other is not). He therefore qualifies for inclusion under both a guideline and another widely-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Necrothesp, I think we need to be consistent here. We get into difficulties in discussions as to why historical figures were notable and whether they deserved to be. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that he was notable at the time. --AJHingston (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. CBE is a notable award, just one rank below a knighthood, as is the Distinguished Service Order (DSO). Granted, there not much material out there that I could find at this stage, but there's enough. I think he fairly obviously received his CBE in the military division for services to the British Army during the Second World War; the DSO for similar reasons. WP:SOLDIER makes special note #6 of those who have commanded troops during wartime, and it wasn't exactly a minor war. Oh and obituary in The Times indicates WP:COVERAGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mike and Mabel Motley and Truman and Tacoma Motley to Motley's Crew, delete Rivalries of Mike Motley, and delete Mr. and Mrs. Motley, Mr. Motley, and Mrs. Motley then redirect to Motley (surname). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike and Mabel Motley[edit]

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

Totally in-universe biographies with what I surmise are "references" based on individual comic strips. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am also nominating the following "dab" pages, seeing as they are dependent on the nominations above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Motley's Crew. It appears to me that what there is now is just a couple of paragraphs for each character. I don't think that that this would bloat the Motley's Crew article beyond repair. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, redirect the disambiguation pages. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with GentlemanGhost and say merge. Although it might take longer for someone on dial-up to read the merge article about Motley's Crew than it does for us on broadband, the idea of having all this information on one article may not be bad for the encyclopedia in the long run. GVnayR (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is merged, it would have to be significantly pared down from its current form. As it is, the articles contain a large amount of in-universe perspective content along with original research. The articles also rely almost exclusively on primary sources. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Mike and Mabel Motley and Truman and Tacoma Motley to Motley's Crew. Delete Rivalries of Mike Motley because it is an implausible search term for this content ("rivalries" is not the same thing as "disliked people"). Delete Mr. and Mrs. Motley, Mr. Motley, and Mrs. Motley per nom and then redirect them all to Motley (surname). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mike and Mabel Motley, as long as we Merge Rivalries of Mike Motley into it. The rest can either be merged or redirected to Motley's Crew. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After realizing that Mike and Mabel Motley were the main characters of the comic strip Motley's Crew (and deserve) their own article, I have officially changed my vote for the Mike and Mabel Motley article to keep in addition to having the Rivalries of Mike Motley article merge into that article. All the other articles deserve to either be merged with the main article or to redirect to that article. GVnayR (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (I agree with Metropolitan90). --Cuoralho (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect titles exactly as Metropolitan90 suggests. bd2412 T 12:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90 and the various others who have agreed with said user. The various honorific+Motley combinations are incredibly silly and do not need to be linked to the comic strip in any way. dci | TALK 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Incredibly silly", I couldn't agree more. If the editor (who created all these "annoying" pages) wants to create pages like that, I suggest him to do it outside Wikipedia... Thanks for the cooperation. --Cuoralho (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Morrison (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Reads like a infomercial or promotional ad and from what I am reading of his article, most of this info has been said in his commercials. FusionLord (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:Advert. Five of the cited sources are his own website, with several others marketing sites and places like reviewopedia. Articles like this one are just written to provide marketing and legitimacy to people selling financial products. This article does not back up any kind of wp:notability, a couple of articles in the LA times, and a couple of books which are not claimed to be best sellers does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Martin. This article seems to serve no purpose but the promotion of its subject, and notability seems to be non-existent. Ducknish (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have first hand experience with this person using aliases to promote himself.Dakine1 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakine1 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pamela Geller. Consensus was the book didn't meet NBOOK/GNG, but that a redirect was appropriate. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America[edit]

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

fails WP:NBOOK [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pamela Geller. There's a little coverage in reliable sources: Daily Beast[25], a mention in Village Voice[26], and American Thinker probably meets WP:RS requirements[27]. But coverage tends to be about Geller as much as the book. The current article mainly cites the book's publicity material, not material published in reliable sources, so it's hardly worth saving. If someone finds more sources and expands the article on the book, I will reconsider. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pamela Geller, the subject of this AfD has received multiple mentions from non-primary reliable sources; however, it is my opinion that the sum of those mentions do not add up to significant coverage of the subject. Therefore it does not meet notability as defined by WP:GNG. That being said, it is written by a notable author, therefore, I agree with Colapeninsula and believe the article should be redirected to the author without any merger. If the article receives significant coverage in the future, it can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pamela Geller per above two comments. BerleT (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt - where a fringy book has been written about, but most of the coverage is about its author, we have redirected articles about books, lawsuits, articles, etc., to the primary author's article. See Orly Taitz and Edward Said as precedents in this category. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some successful rebuttal of the sources given by the nominator but there is no other arguments for deletion, and the GNG part seems like a no consensus for that thus keep. Secret ^account 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bodnick[edit]

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

Delete: This article meets the criteria for neither Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Notability (people).

From Wikipedia:Notability, there isn't Significant Coverage of this person in the media. While there are news articles about him, many of them are primarily about the companies he is involved with and not actually about him.
From Wikipedia:Notability (people), this person satisfies neither The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. nor The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field..
One of the things included in this article is that Marc Bodnick is the brother in law of Sheryl Sandberg. From Wikipedia:Notability (people), Relationships do not confer notability..
One point the creator of the article bring up in defense of this article ([[28]]) is "For goodness sake he's got 38 mentions major and minor (per my google search) in the New York Times[1], four in the Wall Street Journal, etc." While this is true, Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that search engine statistics are invalid criteria for notable. Furthermore, as noted above, many of the articles are actually not focus on him but on the companies he works with.
Of the things that he is supposedly notable for, it is co-founding Elevation Partners. This would be better off with a redirect to that page at the very least. The rest of his accomplishments listed in the article do not seem significant. This includes: working at Blackstone, leading investment rounds at Facebook and Yelp, and becoming an executive at Quora. These are not accomplishments that are an enduring part of the VC industry or something that historians will record, they're facts about his life that, on their own or all together, do not become notable enough within the context of Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Transcendence (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in Reuters, Fortune and the San Jose Mercury News. Disclosure: I sometimes write for Quora, and Bodnick is an investor in that company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? Most of the articles I've found are not focused on him but the companies he is involved with. In cases such as that, he should be mentioned on the company's page rather than having a stand-alone article.Transcendence (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first six articles in the Google News Archives (linked above) mention him by name in the headline. That sort of significant coverage makes him worthy of a stand-alone article, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, a Google Books search shows much discussion of his earlier work as a political scientist analyzing Reagan administration tax policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see one page or even one line mentions of him along with other people. I wouldn't call that significant either. https://www.google.com/search?q=marc+bodnick&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22marc+bodnick%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&fp=ec19cd75ded89684 Transcendence (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any link. In any case I just did a google news search. The articles I see mention him in the headline, but when I click on those links, he's not the main focus of the article. He's more of a mention. As such, I don't think it's right to use that justification for a stand-alone article. Transcendence (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as article creator this is pretty much WP:SNOW. He's a prominent venture capitalist. Leading the final venture capital rounds of Yelp and Facebook before they went public is a big deal. A comprehensive understanding of the VC industry would not be complete without mentioning him (which is why I started the article, to fill a gap in Wikipedia coverage). Because he did a number of notable things with different companies throughout his career, spreading that information across multiple articles would be a poor way of organizing things, making it hard for the article's 300-500 interested monthly readers[29] to learn about him. The many major mentions entirely devoted to him and his career in major news sources and industry trade publications easily pass the criteria for general notability. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this being under WP:SNOW. Your claim that a comprehensive understanding of the VC industry cannot be complete without this article is a complete exaggeration. He is not integral to the VC industry nor has he done anything monumental. If he did, why isn't it in the article? Founding a few companies and leading investment rounds in the context of the VC industry is not a major event. It happens quite frequently. You can't say that, in and of itself, is a reason for notability since the very purpose of the notability policies is to raise the bar for what gets into Wikipedia. If that is all he's notable for, then this really should be a redirect into the relevant articles.

You keep claiming that there are many major articles devoted entirely to him. Where are they? There are only two in the article and one of them is about him joining Quora, which is not significant or notable in terms of Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Notability (people) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/idUS115620791220110129) and the other (http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-bodnick-quora-2011-1) named four points, 1 is that his sister-in-law is the COO of Facebook which isn't a valid notable point, 2 is him saying Quora is the new TechCrunch, also not notable, 3, he has a long career, also not notable and 4, his investments in Facebook and Yelp, while laudable is not a major event in the VC industry. I have looked for such articles and have found none. You keep saying they exist, where are they? Transcendence (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. As are logic and reading comprehension. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do without the ad hominem attacks, thank you. I also have used Google and literally haven't found anything major as you have claimed and I'm pretty sure other people, provided they delved deeper past the headline of the article, won't find much either. Transcendence (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you were misstating my arguments to try to make me look bad and I couldn't resist such an easy target. 38 New York Times references is a big deal, not because that is a google statistic (which would indeed be an invalid argument) but because there are a whole bunch of individual articles from NYT alone that you can find with google and should take a look at before declaring that you can't find any significant coverage. Indeed, of the eight sources currently in the article five are entirely about either: (1) him, or (2) a specific aspect or event in his career. That is significant coverage, even if all but one (in the Mercury News) are industry trade publications you deem to be less than stellar journalists. My statement about completeness is that a comprehensive understanding of VC would not be complete without including him, not that he is "integral to the VC industry". Those are two different things. We aim for comprehensive coverage, not hitting the highlights. Hence we have articles on In-N-Out Burger and White Castle, not just McDonald's and Burger King. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll thank you~~ I ask you not to assume I was trying to make you look bad WP:AGF and again to refrain from making personal attacks by calling me an easy target WP:PERSONAL. I still assert that he isn't such a significant player in the VC industry such that "understanding of VC would not be complete without including him". As I keep stating, those articles are not primarily about him, they reference him. It isn't significant coverage about 'him', rather the companies he is involved with. In fact, I just did a google search (site:nytimes.com "marc bodnick") and there are only 14 articles. The first page says "about 33" hits but when you go to the second page, there really are only 14 (the rest are duplicates and are hidden) and none of them are about him, they're about the companies. In most of the articles, they're just quoting him exactly once. There's only one article where he's even mentioned more than once (it's two times). Some of them are just listing a lot of people and he's included, and one of them is him posting a comment. This goes back to my point that on the surface it seems like he has significant coverage, but there really isn't. Transcendence (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks are necessary but please, no flopping. The Times quotes him saying things, other sources profile him, yet others cover his career. I think you and I have had our say by this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making snide remarks. I am not flopping, rather you are being quite uncivil by repeatedly making personal statements against me rather than my arguments. Transcendence (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I count 3 articles that focus on him or his career. (I'm not sure which other two you are referring to.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-bodnick-quora-2011-1
http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/25/marc-bodnick-leaving-elevation-partners/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/idUS115620791220110129 - This one really shouldn't count since it's not even a journalistic article, it's just copy and paste from Quora Transcendence (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore subject is notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As defined by significant coverage, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. As I've stated above, the coverage is superficial and do not address the subject in detail. Could point out any examples otherwise?. Transcendence (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Was added twice my apologies Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's seems to be plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources. Without much effort expended, there is [30], [31], [32], and [33]. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killwhitneydead[edit]

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

I am not convinced of the notability of this band. None of their albums had anything in the way of verification or reviews, and this article doesn't have any either. Whether their label, Tribunal Records, is notable, that remains to be seen: I don't think we should have two doubtful crutches supporting each other. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak crutches at that. The only sources are from the label's website. According to the article, the label is owned by the band's lead singer. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and burn it with fire. No reliable, secondary sources to be found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability out there at all. I have also nominated the label, Tribunal Records for deletion here as it doesn't appear to be notable either. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is some coverage available, after all. Allmusic has reviews of their albums [34][35][36], while Sputnikmusic has a short bio [37]. They've even had a little shine from Piero Scaruffi [38], and their name is so unique that it's not hard to find plenty more coverage online: [39][40][41][42] (some of which may or may not be reliable). Still, I think that's enough to pass WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 11:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some of the same sources such as the metalinjection one and concluded they were self published and unsuitable for notability. The AllMusic sources are a good find though, and I see a connection with the charmingly titled Anal Cunt. Nevertheless, without major mainstream coverage and chart placings, notability still looks borderline at best. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. What is this band known for? Who they have influenced? These are simple questions to establish or not notability.--Malconfort (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for redirect target it's a clear redirect debate, but redirecting to what there isn't no consensus on. Discuss on talk. Secret ^account 03:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Zamboni[edit]

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

Student-run humor magazine. No evidence that this is anything close to being notable. See WP:GNG. Essentially a student club, also failing WP:CLUB. GrapedApe (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ice resurfacer; linking this may be useful because Zamboni is a trademark. Adding 'Tufts' to a Google search yields a story and an incidental mention in the Tufts student newspaper. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tufts University, or something similar. Shadowjams (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ice resurfacer. I agree on this-- I feel like the average user is more likely to be looking for Zamboni as in the machine rather than a school's paper. Ducknish (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tufts University given the absence of secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously notable topic where WP:SNOW applies. Article does in fact have secondary sources, contrary to claim in nomination--which seems like retaliation for troubles elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Gertler[edit]

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

The majority of sources listed are from his own website. This page reads like a straight up promotional piece advertising his work. I've made thousands of edits on wikipedia, but I'm new to AFD, so please help me do it right if I listed it wrong. Causeandedit (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of the article, let me note that actually, zero of the sources (references used to build the article) are from my website. Three of the six external links are to websites I control, but those are not listed as sources for the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are fine; notable author; meets WP:GNG. It is a further sign that the nominator User:Causeandedit is out of control and should be blocked from Wikipedia--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article has multiple secondary sources (Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, etc.) and the subject has been nominated for awards in his field more than once. It seems abundantly clear to me that this article meets notability guidelines. (I've got 99 problems, but notability ain't one.) Perhaps it was nominated in bad faith? If there are specific issues, surely they can be addressed on the talk page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Peligroso[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of full-length in depth professional reviews. No evidence of awards. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page has the necessary references for to be justified, is a EP very popular in my country and a jewlry of Latin Music, by a salsa master. All the rules of design of the page are fine, this page is a good reference for a person that wants to know about salsa music. Arroyo Peligroso mixed the most important genres in my country, will be very bad with my culture having many articles about the American music that not reach the rules. Thanks, sorry with my English. Luisnh1210 (Moved from my talk page, formatted. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - I'd have thought for anyone who has a contract with Sony and then releases an EP/LP after it is as notable as any other LP. With or without Joe Arroyo's statue. In this case notability comes from the two hits "La Fundillo Loco" and "El Torito". In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of full-length in depth professional reviews. No evidence of wards. No refs from reputable sources. BunyipMan (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet of Longjohnlong

I'm sorry, WP:AGF and all, but based on the speed of that comment from previous edits I don't believe the comment was based on having taken the time to conduct a google search in Spanish on the two main tracks on the EP. Joe Arroyo gets 2,030 Google Books refs and is Colombia's best known salsa singer, it's a bit like saying a Johnny Cash EP isn't notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that relavent? You know that Wikipedia:BEFORE only applies to nominators, right? The corresponding page for commenters in an AfD is WP:BCDD which conspicuously fails to mention trawling through search engines looking for refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is User Sebwhite and why his essay WP:BCDD Essay which doesn't mention checking noms either way a reason not to check a nom? If the nominator has searched Spanish sources then the nominator should make that clear in the nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Joe Arroyo was a top-echelon figure in the salsa world, the likelihood that significant coverage exists is high, and examples have now been supplied. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ST Andromedae[edit]

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

Although this article was dePRODded as being notable, I still do not believe it meets the notability guidelines. All search results in google scholar turned up only in large lists of objects, and the star obviously fails all the other criteria of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If it helps, Bogdanov & Taranova (2012) looks to have some relevant information. Praemonitus (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it meets WP:NASTRO criteria 2, obviously, as the star is cataloged in the General Catalog of Variable Stars and has been given a variable star designation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not to merge content into List of variable stars is left as an editorial decision. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SU Andromedae[edit]

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

Although this article was dePRODded as being notable, I still do not believe it meets the notability guidelines. All search results in google scholar turned up only in large lists of objects, and the star obviously fails all the other criteria of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it meets WP:NASTRO criteria 2, obviously, as the star is cataloged in the General Catalog of Variable Stars and has been given a variable star designation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of variable stars. I had no success finding substantial and reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. Praemonitus (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not to merge content into List of variable stars is left as an editorial decision. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RY Andromedae[edit]

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

Although this article was dePRODded as being notable, I still do not believe it meets the notability guidelines. All search results in google scholar turned up only in large lists of objects, and the star obviously fails all the other criteria of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it meets WP:NASTRO criteria 2, obviously, as the star is cataloged in the General Catalog of Variable Stars and has been given a variable star designation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of variable stars. I had no success finding substantial and reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. Praemonitus (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of variable stars, doesn't seem to have enough coverage for separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RU Andromedae[edit]

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

Although this article was dePRODded as being notable, I still do not believe it meets the notability guidelines. All search results in google scholar turned up only in large lists of objects, and the star obviously fails all the other criteria of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it meets WP:NASTRO criteria 2, obviously, as the star is cataloged in the General Catalog of Variable Stars and has been given a variable star designation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did find a few sources which provide some limited commentary specific to RU Andromedae (sometimes abbreviated as RU And. in the literature): [43], [44]; the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada on several occasions published a paragraph on the star in its "Variable Star Notes" (e.g. [45], [46]). Admittedly the commentary is short and the papers are relatively elderly, but taken together, these do provide "significant commentary" per WP:NASTCRIT #3. Factoring in the argument by Carlossuarez46 too, it seems to me that this star is notable. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediox[edit]

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

Per the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 March 4 the speedy deletion of this article was overturned but I am listing this for discussion on whether this subject meets our inclusion standard. As this listing is an administrative action in my role as DRV closer I take no formal position. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am gathering that what this business is trying to do is to insert multimedia advertisements onto food service trays. Google News finds two PR website links, as well as some Cyrillic links and OCR mistakes. Arguments for notability at deletion review cited YouTube videos, "Killer Startups", and other unreliable sources. They own a patent, too. And neither "Food Service magazine" nor "Euromonitor International: Market insight: The Market for Consumer Foodservice in the USA" sound like the sort of widely read outside the trade sources that contribute to notability. Come back when these things are in actual use somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia notability policy, the discovery must be independently reviewed. And QSR magazine and Digital Signage News are very credible sources. Google's goal is to insert advertising in search, so it is a business model that should not be penalized by deletion. Especially since the model changed. Cyrillic in the news shows the current heavy presence of the company in Eastern European markets since the partnership with Coby. MDEngineer (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerdis. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can someone independently review this deletion? It seems like the editor, who originally speedily deleted the article now wants to get it erased. After reviewing hundreds of similar company articles, I do not see any advertising there, just facts. The company made several notable discoveries and these discoveries were independently reviewed by the industry magazines like the QSR magazine, where it made the cover (please see links below). MDEngineer (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proof of Notability Per Wikipedia guidelines, notability depends on the presence in secondary sources (many of which were present in the original article). Here are a few links that should close the questions.

Before the company signed a contract with Coby, it was a restaurant media company and that is the most interesting part, because it was at the start of a new era in digital signage and even I would like to know the story. Here are the links that I found within 2 minutes on google (300K+ hits should probably have many more):

Most important one – a whole article in QSR Magazine (printed and online), an industry publication. Featured on the cover of the magazine [[47]]
Featured in Food Management magazine. "Tray of the future?" [[48]]
Killer Startups Review (independent, but surveyed the company) [[49]]
Fudzilla's breaking news on Mediox + Gigabyte partnership [[50]]
Press release by the Methuselah Foundation: President of Mediox, Inc donates 1% of company shares to the Methuselah foundation [[51]]
Digital Signage News newspiece: Mediox to introduce multimedia food trays [[52]]

MDEngineer (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quick Service and Fast Casual Restaurant does not strike me as the sort of news outlet that has the broad readership needed to turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. Your prize source doesn't even have a picture of a working model, and I think I know why. All of the stories seem to say the same thing: Here's a new business with a possibly clever idea. It's a startup, and you hired people to get the word out. This doesn't make you an encyclopedia subject. And none of those stories stray far from simply reporting the claims and hopes of the business founders, which isn't quite independent enough in my view either.

It's an intriguing idea, if only on a technical level. I'm curious to find out how you make these things stand up to a dishwasher. (They'll be used in proximity to food and drink constantly. You did plan on making them dishwasher safe, I hope.) But it isn't ready for a stand alone article in an encyclopedia yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear Smerdis of Tlön, those independent sources that reviewed the SmartTray like the QSR magazine, were also surprised. In was 2005 no iPhones and Galaxy Tabs were around. Mediox made the prototype, which operated from -20 to +100 and had inductive charging (charged in the tray stand) and filed a patent explaining some of these features [[53]]. That is why a deletion was very strange. MDEngineer (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The QSR article is tempting -- it has a lot of detail but in the end it's clearly fluff, consisting of nothing but quotes from company spokespeople fed to the writer who uncritically passed on everything Mediox wants you to know about them. This is typical of the kind of hype generated by a media-savvy startup company working to create buzz about a future product. Kudos to Mediox's marketing team. I searched the Gale (publisher) databases, Questia and HighBeam and found nothing in truly independent, high quality sources. ReferenceUSA has a brief directory listing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the days of the Smart Tray Mediox did not have a marketing team. It ended up as a shameful mainstream tablet maker (selling about 50K tablets and you can see many independent reviews of these), but back than it focused on reinventing the fast food industry and delivered working prototypes. It is unfortunate that at the end QSRs decided that it it too complex for them. Wikipedia has thousands of company records with much less. Cover article in QSR magazine was originated by QSR magazine. I don't think the group of editors is independent covering one editors unjustified speedy deletion and will no longer argue. There is no point. Nobody even suggested re-writing the article. MDEngineer (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. QSR is lazy then. Quality journalism is expensive and not many outlets do it these days. We still don't have good sources to base a Wikipedia article on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WealthTV. Keeper | 76 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Herring (businessman)[edit]

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

Basically notable for a Terry Schiavo incident, founding a little-known cable network does not confer notability in and of itself beyond that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Ducknish (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, however added together I do not believe they add up to significant coverage of the subject. Furthermore, although Wealth TV is notable, that doesn't mean the subject of this AfD is notable. Therefore, failing WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, the proper course of action is deletion. As a compromise, I can agree to changing the article to a redirect to Wealth TV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WealthTV which he founded. There is already quite a bit about him at that article, so no further merging is necessary. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Deenar Islamic Academy[edit]

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

All sources given are either official websites for the Academy itself or for its affiliates. Appears to be a violation of WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - But have someone who looks at USA colleges have a look. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malik Deenar. Consensus is that the article should not exist; across the two AfDs, there is a weak consensus that some material from the article should be merged into Malik Deenar. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Deenar Uroos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The reasons for this second nomination are the same as the reasons for the first. There is only one reason why this article wasn't deleted before, and that's because only one other editor responded and no consensus was found. This article obviously fails notability guidelines, as will be clear if only more editors would take interest in the discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC, no independent sources apart from several unreliable YT videos and Facebook pages alike. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Malik, son of Dinar In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Galera Yacht Club[edit]

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

Delete, fails notability standards, was on the edge of a csd but figured because it does participate in a national race it might have the barest claim to pass csd. No references provided and partially promotional in nature as added reasons. Also fails WP:CORP Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, if added together it is my humble opinion that if added up they do not sum up to be significant coverage of the subject. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, WP:ORG, & WP:CORP, deletion is in order. Perhaps it is too soon for the subject to have an article; if significant coverage is created in the future, the article can be recreated with verified content. Presently the majority of the content in the article is subject to WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It just hasn't received enough significant coverage from reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imama Mdia[edit]

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

The only source is for the official website of the academy from which the members of this organization graduated - hardly a reliable source for the purposes of WP:GNG. Additionally, the academy itself has also been nominated for AfD, as has most of the articles for affiliated bodies, due to issues with WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self published. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources, lack of notability, lack of any reason to maintain this page. Ducknish (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.M.S.A Pookoya Thangal[edit]

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

There are only three sources cited. The first is in a language which I can't read, and the second and third are both for blogs. I really don't see how this satisfies WP:Notability (people) and given that the account/s involved with this article have created a number of articles deleted for WP:ADVERT, I think it's safe to say that this is another case of creating a fan page to advertise for certain organizations and their websites. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I tagged this some time ago; I would have PROD'd it if it were an English language topic. I'd ask the closer to wait as long as possible in case a someone with the language skills can find sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - guys, the sources exist in English. Search on key terms not name spellings. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of the Indian National Congress. Meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Enos733 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian National Congress is a political party; membership of political parties doesn't confer notability under the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My error Stuartyeates is correct about his membership in the Indian National Congress not meeting WP:POLITICIAN. The article states that he was elected to the Madras legislative assembly, which also would not meet, by itself WP:POLITICIAN. My sense, though, is that the article should still be kept, as I assume that much of the article can be properly sourced. Enos733 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mobile advertising. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 16:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mobile advertising networks[edit]

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

Article consists of only a few notable companies. It has no content and is being used as a place to dump advertisements. I propose we create a category and just add the pages in this article to it. Free Bullets (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While I doubt that many of the businesses listed here are encyclopedia subjects, we do have an article on mobile advertising, the subject probably is notable, and as such a relatively short list like this could be appended to it. Those blue links will need to be looked at. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't see the need for the list to exist as an article. Perhaps it could be merged as described above, or it could be made into a template and added to the relevant article's pages. Ducknish (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It's a notable topic, and the list can do things categories can't, e.g. indicate where the company is defunct or has been taken over. It's on the short side for a list article, but not ridiculously short, and it could be expanded into a table with summary info, e.g. dates of founding, country it's based in, takeovers. However, there is an obvious merge target, so if the consensus is to merge I would not oppose. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. It appears to be corporate advertising. METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galust Grigoryan GRE[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject does get a name-check in this article. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article gives every appearance of being written by Grigoryan or a relative. I can't see anything of any substance at all online about him. The article doesn't make any claims of notability either, it just seems like a WP:PUFF piece, unfortunately! Sionk (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the (rather POV) article are insufficient and nothing sufficiently substantial has been located or brought forward in the several weeks this AfD has been running, so it does not seem possible to demonstrate the subject meets WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, not enough to pass GNG p b p 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar A Malik[edit]

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

No independent refs provided; I looked for them on Google News without success. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: most of the text in the article has just been removed as WP:COPYVIO. – Fayenatic London 09:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary source references only, apparently. Company executives are not inherently notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly important positions, and they can be documented from the sources given, which are good enough for plain facts, such as that he was CEO of what the article says he was: Chief Executive Officer of ICI Pakistan. Company executives are not inherently notable, but the CEOs of major companies have generally been so regarded. This is a national subsidiary of a major international company, and i think qualifies. /For a more readable version before copyvio was removed--copyvio which can easily be rewritten -- , see [54] DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, would you please explain what part of Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people) suggests that this person merits an article here? I don't see where WP:SIGCOV is met, which is the general threshold for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the problem that made me nominate it. He's clearly worthy of respect in his community, but worthy of note in a general encyclopedia? not by the standards of WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As head of a branch of a major firm in a large country, and chairman of others, it's true one would expect references. I decided to repeat the nom's search. With G news-- my experience is it has to be done also using G news archive in advanced mode, run twice , once with the time period "in archive" and again with the time period "anytime" Their logic escapes me, but this seems to work.

Checking G archive, archive First, selecting "any time" gives : pakistan todaywhich just mentions him as having been on the board of the National bank, and The News a substantial story about him in his role as Chairman of Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC). Another like that would meet the GNG.

Searching again, selecting the time period "in archive" I find 16 relevant ones The First, from The Daily Times is a full interview about him. That's the second source needed for GNG. Just as supplementary material, most of the others are more about ICI than about him, but this article in the Nation shows him as the one business figure they quoted in a general article, and in theDaily Times and this one there are short article showing his appointment to President was worth an article. They also provide 3rd party sourcing for some of the bio details.

I'm glad I repeated the search, because I found more than I expected to find, & more than is usual for Pakistani businessmen. I expect the nom will now withdraw the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm persuaded by DGG's sources. I suspect that he is supported by many more non-English sources. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; as nominator I now wish to withdraw this. Sorry I missed the above until now, and well done DGG for persisting with Google news archive. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhana J[edit]

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

The article do not meet WP:NOTABILITY. No RS found. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete the first source on the article is not about her. The second one is an amazon type page and therefore not reliable. After searching on google I could not find anything. GAtechnical (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 16:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transformative economics[edit]

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

This is one of the many articles created to promote the theories of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, in this case his Progressive Utilization Theory of economics. The problem appears to be that this is really a general phrase which the article creator co-opted in hopes of getting people to associate the idea with PROUT. The GBook searches tell the story plainly: searching for the phrase and excluding Sarkar produces numerous hits whose diversity shows that it isn't a term, while searching and explicitly including Sarkar or PROUT produces two hits: our article, and a book by Ravi Batra (a PROUT economist at SMU). We don't even get hits on other Sarkar books. Probably Sarkar's followers think his theories are transformative, but that's not a good enough justification for this article. Nobody will be surprised to learn that there aren't any secondary sources cited in the article. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term is generic, the article is misleading in that it implies otherwise. The article should probably be speedy deleted per CSD criteria # G11, 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion'. LK (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per LK; it should be an article about a more general mainstream term but its content is 100% coatrack for fringe content. bobrayner (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems simply promotional for the theory's source. There's no outside coverage of the idea to justify having an article. Ducknish (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Sells Stay Tooned[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 12 March 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, TB randley ^(review) 23:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of downloads ≠ notability. - Mr X 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MrX is right--should be deleted due to lack of coverage. Ducknish (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 14:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac Valley Swimming[edit]

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

Local swimming organizations are not inherently notable, as far as I know, and this one does not pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are several Washington Post articles that mention the organization, but none that discuss the subject in any depth. - Mr X 04:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all references are passing mentions, borderline A7 Secret ^account 05:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SABnzbd[edit]

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

Subject does not meet established guidelines for general notability. The Wikipedia article relies heavily on primary sources and blogs for content. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article for a Usenet news reader. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back It Up (Colette Carr song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. The only actual coverage of the song comes from blog sites that are not considered reliable sources. The MTV Music Chart isn't even a thing. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails specific notability guidelines p b p 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Skitszo. Keeper | 76 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(We Do It) Primo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. The only actual coverage of the song comes from blog sites that are not considered reliable sources. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Skitszo. Not yet notable. All relevant information has been merged over to the parent article by myself. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skitszo. The references currently consist of non-notable blogs, YouTube clips, iTunes listings, and the artist's record label site. I'm not finding sufficient coverage in reliable sources elsewhere online, so redirecting this to the parent album seems reasonable. Gong show 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twilight Frontier. Keeper | 76 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Fighter Zero[edit]

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

I tried searching for reliable sources that discussed this game, but came up short. A quick Google test doesn't bring up anything notable, aside from mainly fansites. So I think it should be deleted for not satisfying the criteria at WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (video games). 十八 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) --十八 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --十八 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twilight Frontier. This looks awesome, but unfortunately we can't keep stuff based on awesomeness or we'd easily have at least another five million entries here on Wikipedia. Most of what I found was unusable fansites or blog mentions. This did get a few mentions in websites like Wired, but always in passing mention. There might be some foreign language sources, but this seems to have the same issue that a lot of doujin works have: since it's underground and unofficial, it tends to go unnoticed or uncommented upon by the mainstream sources for the most part.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of links to fansite wikis, but without any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, this basically fails the general notability criteria at WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum—see WP:RFD for deletion of redirects. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

American Cheerleading[edit]

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

Unneeded and unused distinction, created by page move that had no prior discussion Thinkbui (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This strikes me as something speediable... Carrite (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that something I can nominate this page for? I had the impression that it's something only mods can do.Thinkbui (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this would be a keep usually on grounds of a good cheap redirect as there are other types of cheerleaders in other nations, but I must ask for a Procedual Keep as this is isn't the right venue. Should be brought up on WP:RFD instead as a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 03:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but does that still apply when the only other "national" type of cheerleading is referred to only as Ōendan? That added to the fact that this page has a trivial history from an improper page move?Thinkbui (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we have Cheerleading in the United Kingdom but that would seem to be the only nation-specific cheerleading article. Even if this were a useful redirect, wouldn't the proper title be Cheerleading in the United States? Stalwart111 06:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gloss[edit]

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

Art. created 7th March by User: Jasongloss; 8th tagged by for autobiography and notability concerns, both removed 11th March by Jasongloss. This is a BLP and virtually unsourced. Tried Google Search but found little that seemed relevant and certainly not RS. There is probably a similar type of problem with the article Philaflava.com. Another editor has inserted "citation needed" tags. Jpacobb (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best I could find in terms of coverage in reliable sources are these passing mentions. Nothing significant, however; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Gong show 01:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as an unsourced BLP. And a promotional one. Yech. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any good sources. And after looking through the sources Gongshow pulled, I still don't see notability. Ducknish (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourceable, there's nothing in article or on web to hint at notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citation, nothing to suggest notability.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 08:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article arguably could have been an A7 nomination aside from his unsubstantiated claims to winning an award. In conducting WP:BEFORE, very few reliable sources came up and hardly anything in the archives. Mkdw ^talk 23:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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