< 13 March	15 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. J04n(talk page) 09:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HighDesign[edit]

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

Can't find reliable, secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage of this CAD tool in order to establish notability. Google news results appear to be press releases, but it's possible I've missed a real review here or there in more targeted publications. Sourced to it's own web site for six years. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a few reviews to the external links section. One is mostly press release, but the others seem independent. Don't know if that's still enough to demonstrate significant coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks to AdventurousSquirrel for the links. I'm not convincved they establish notability. This article is a product announcement with no critical review and I woudl count it as routine news coverage. This article is a regurgitated press release. This article is not bad, but not great. The author(s) indicate that they like the product, but doesn't really provide any sort of review or critical anlysis and so for me, still falls into the category of a product announcement that is routine news. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 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. J04n(talk page) 09:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Hakko[edit]

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

Biography of a living person with no external sources, written in glowing terms (like an official bio). At least one problem is that it's obviously a translation of the Turkish Wikipedia's article - tr:Cem Hakko - with no attribution. B (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright issue takes no longer to fix than to describe, so is not a reason for deletion. I have no opinion yet about any other issues with the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of what is on Google News is in Turkish, but there does seem to be a lot of it. I'm also seeing a number of hits on Google Books (again, nothing in English). I see this - reads like a press release, but does indicate that Vakko has been around since 1934 and I do see lots of substantial coverage for the brand, although that article also needs work doing on it. If Cem Hakko is shown not to be demonstrably notable enough (I can't really comment at this point) for a standalone article, it should certainly be a redirect to Vakko. Mabalu (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Google Books. Even without going to newspapers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how the Google Books sources demonstrate notability? For example, much of what I see looks like random namedrops in directories and lists of business individuals, which simply show that he exists, but don't appear sufficient from what is visible to demonstrate notability. Mabalu (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see this?

Jürgen Gottschlich, Dilek Zaptcioglu Istanbul 2011 Page 19 "Jewish businessmen as Ishak Alaton, which operates in the field of electronics, and the emperor of fashion Cem Hakko (Vakko) are currently among the best known of İstanbul."

This is in Italian In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read or understand Italian, which was why I was asking for clarification re the sources. Thank you for the translation. Mabalu (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I actually hadn't added the translation part when I added to article. My view is when I see a non-native Google Book hit (meaning in Italian not Turkish in this case) then hello that's probably notability, and with a major language like Italian Google Translate is pretty easy to use for AfD checking purposes (though the article footnote is my own translation) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 14 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) 22:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep – SJ + 02:00, 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 delete. Secret ^account 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blog:CMS[edit]

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

It seems to me that this page has multiple issues foremost of which is the topic appears to be lacking sufficient notability. At best some of the content might be merged into Nucleus CMS but even that is a push. Lord Matt (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability of this software - provided refs are forum posts, blog entries, and developer's sites. Dialectric (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, no releases in last two years, nothing about it online apart from rather old discussion threads on some fairly obscure developer sites. Most recent sections of their support forum has had no posts in two years, and some have had none in six years. Seems like a dead project to me, an interesting idea that never really took off. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:47, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blum (company)[edit]

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

Stub about a hinge-making company, the article ..erm ...hinges only on a company press release. In fact it makes no claims of notability. Can't find anything reliable online about it. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will begin by disclosing that I have been a licensed cabinet and millwork contractor in California for over 26 years, and am familiar with this company and their products on a daily basis. In my opinion, Julius Blum GmbH is the most influential company in the modernization of the worldwide cabinet industry in the past half century. They are a significant multinational corporation with over 5,000 employees. This article in the San Jose Mercury-News describes their efforts to recruit skilled workers in the United States. This article in the Charlotte Observer describes major expansion of their manufacturing facility in North Carolina. This 1997 article (in German) describes the company's growth in the United States. This 2009 article (in German) describes the devastating impact of the recession on their business. This 2010 article (in German) describes how they survived the recession. Their Bloomberg-Business Week profile verifies their revenues of $1.66 billion per year. This website of a solar energy company says that they have production facilities in Poland, Austria, Brazil and the United States, and describes their reliance on solar energy. Here's an Austrian business website that profiles the company. Here an article in the Charlotte Business Journal about their operations in the United States. Sweet's Catalog, the authoritative source for information about construction supplies, describes the company as "a leading manufacturer of functional hardware for the cabinet and furniture industry specializing in concealed hinges and drawer runner systems. Virtually all of the hardware needed to assemble and make casegoods functional are available within the wide range of lifetime guaranteed Blum products. Blum's manufacturing and distribution complex in Stanley, North Carolina supplies the North American markets through a network of more than 150 dependable distributors. Wholly owned by the Blum family, the company was formed in 1952 by Julius Blum and is headquartered in in Hoechst. Austria." If the article is kept, I will expand and reference it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submission withdrawn on the basis of the news sources found and the kind promise of Cullen to develop the article. Sionk (talk) 12:30, 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 delete. Secret ^account 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon Don (rapper)[edit]

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

Incubate, if someone commits to fix up the article. If nobody volunteers, then delete. Article is spammy and fails WP:NPOV. It should not be kept in mainspace. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument boils down to a similar premise as WP:RUBBISH. Barring occasional exceptions such as unreferenced and disparaging BLPs, or copyvios, we delete articles that cannot possibly be improved without external factors such as the subject becoming notable, not because nobody wants to work on them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/advertising articles are a perfectly valid reason to delete, for reasons which I hope are obvious enough that I don't have to explain them here. Indeed, it even says so right in the WP:RUBBISH link you posted: "problems like... advertising... need to be resolved as quickly as possible." Sometimes it's possible to edit the spam away, but that's a big thankless task people tend not to want to take on, and in this case I'd say the subject wouldn't be notable even if someone cleaned it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some confusion here - I agree with your above viewpoint that there's no point cleaning up an article if the subject isn't notable to start with. I've cleaned up the article a bit, removing (imho) the most blatant violations of NPOV, intend look at the article later today and make a decision on whether sufficient sources exist both on and off the article. I get confused about the term "spam", which I had took to mean "the same thing repeated lots of times". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's even the slightest doubt that the article is intended as advertising. If the content itself isn't enough to convince you (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), check out this edit, where someone (almost certainly Donald himself) asks for SEO tips about how to format it to get the picture to show up prominently on Google searches. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. According to the article, career pinnacle was winning an award from a local website that we don't have an article on. One of the links is to his MP3 album on Amazon, which is ranked #689,750 (the CD version of the same ablum doesn't even have a rank). The article also claims he's been active since 1996, so after 17 years he's probably about as notable as he's likely to get. In summary, doesn't meet our music artist notability guidelines and is unlikely to anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see that this article is so bad that deletion is the answer to the quality issue. With repsect to notability, He seems to just fall short. The sourcing in the article don't do it for me. I found this article which features him as the primary subject, but is an interview. On the whole, not enough for me to say notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look through the sources, and I can conclude the guy is marginally notable, but only for suing Rick Ross. That's a BIO1E and therefore he should not have a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Rick Ross, if anything. He's accomplised quite a bit but doesn't seem to be notable as a singer, just notable for his lawsuit. Shame really cause his songs are kinda catchy.--24.145.65.56 (talk) 04:19, 22 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 15:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Basingstoke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Basingstoke, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Similar pages such as List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket have been deleted. It also only has 3 references and includes only major routes. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:40, 14 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 14. Snotbot t • c » 19:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is not a suitable subject for a encyclopaedia, and whilst Wikipedia may have aspects of almanacs or gazetteers these should exist as a means to index encyclopaedic content and help readers find that content. Wikipedia is also not a directory (of routes) or a travel guide (explaining how to get to bus stop B from bus stop A) The list is sourced solely to primary sources, even if some of these primary sources are independent - This does not provide evidence that the subject is notable and meet the GNG. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:GNG which also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous decision was Keep. No material facts have changed in case for deletion. Just seems to be someone renominating the same article until they get their way. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not encyclopedic content; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Rather transient data, far from encyclopedic scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication why subject might be of significance.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. An article on Buses in Hampshire would be entirely appropriate however. Consensus seems to have shifted since the previous nomination in favour of deletion and/or transwikification Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to Wikivoyage, add ((wikivoyage)) template in refs for Basingstoke linking to related content there. – SJ + 01:59, 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 delete. Secret ^account 15:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Winchester, Hampshire[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Winchester, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Similar pages such as List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket have been deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is not a suitable subject for a encyclopaedia, and whilst Wikipedia may have aspects of almanacs or gazetteers these should exist as a means to index encyclopaedic content and help readers find that content. Wikipedia is also not a directory (of routes) or a travel guide (explaining how to get to bus stop B from bus stop A) The list is sourced solely to primary sources, even if some of these primary sources are independent - This does not provide evidence that the subject is notable and meet the GNG. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:GNG which also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. An article on Buses in Hampshire would be entirely appropriate however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage, add ((wikivoyage)) template in refs for Basingstoke linking to related content there. – SJ + 01:59, 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 delete. Secret ^account 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Eastleigh & Romsey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Eastleigh and Romsey, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Similar pages such as List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket have been deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is not a suitable subject for a encyclopaedia, and whilst Wikipedia may have aspects of almanacs or gazetteers these should exist as a means to index encyclopaedic content and help readers find that content. Wikipedia is also not a directory (of routes) or a travel guide (explaining how to get to bus stop B from bus stop A) The list is sourced solely to primary sources, even if some of these primary sources are independent - This does not provide evidence that the subject is notable and meet the GNG. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:GNG which also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. An article on Buses in Hampshire would be entirely appropriate however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage, add ((wikivoyage)) template in refs for Basingstoke linking to related content there. – SJ + 01:59, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 09:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bircent Karagaren[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Oleola (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs improvement. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't 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) 13:23, 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 15:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Andover[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Andover, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Similar pages such as List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket have been deleted. Also It only has 2 references. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is not a suitable subject for a encyclopaedia, and whilst Wikipedia may have aspects of almanacs or gazetteers these should exist as a means to index encyclopaedic content and help readers find that content. Wikipedia is also not a directory (of routes) or a travel guide (explaining how to get to bus stop B from bus stop A) The list is sourced solely to primary sources, even if some of these primary sources are independent - This does not provide evidence that the subject is notable and meet the GNG. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:GNG which also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous decision was Keep. No material facts have changed in case for deletion. Just seems to be someone renominating the same article until they get their way. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nunquam Dormio, you would do well to remember that consensus can change although the two articles you've left this comment on were closed as keep, neither myself nor Wilbysuffolk commented on them so his nomination and my support is not a "renomination until [we] get our way". It should also be noted that generally the bigger debate at that time occurred in relation to the Peterborough article which I did comment on and which closed as no consensus rather than keep (and isn't listed at this time because it's edit history needs retained.), that several points were procedural in relation to the wording of Bob's nomination rather than the other delete comments made, several keep points were on the basis of improvement which has not occurred, several merge points were counted as keep with required discussion which has not occurred and that broadly the consensus that these articles comply with policy has swung from "No consensus" (or Keep) to "Delete" hence a recent increase in these articles being deleted and the renomination of these for deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. An article on Buses in Hampshire would be entirely appropriate however. Consensus seems to have shifted since the previous nomination in favour of deletion and/or transwikification Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage, add ((wikivoyage)) template in refs for Basingstoke linking to related content there. – SJ + 01:59, 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 delete. Secret ^account 15:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Aldershot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Aldershot, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Similar pages such as List of bus routes in Bury St. Edmunds & Newmarket have been deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is not a suitable subject for a encyclopaedia, and whilst Wikipedia may have aspects of almanacs or gazetteers these should exist as a means to index encyclopaedic content and help readers find that content. Wikipedia is also not a directory (of routes) or a travel guide (explaining how to get to bus stop B from bus stop A) The list is sourced solely to primary sources, even if some of these primary sources are independent - This does not provide evidence that the subject is notable and meet the GNG. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:GNG which also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable third party sources. An article on Buses in Hampshire would be entirely appropriate however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Davey2010 Talk 02:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage, add ((wikivoyage)) template in refs for Basingstoke linking to related content there. – SJ + 01:59, 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) Mediran (t • c) 09:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Caswell Messenger[edit]

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

A small local newspaper from Caswell County, NC, not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Article is orphan since 2009 and a short stub. I have added a mention to the article on Caswell County so what is useful from here has already been merged. Jpacobb (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is much to be added to this article, but there seems to be no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberaccount (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of coverage in secondary sources, specifically, books. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; significant coverage in secondary sources per Cirt. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – SJ + 02:02, 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 delete. We don't merge unsourced content. Secret ^account 16:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I/O bound process[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I/O bound process

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

It duplicates an existing (even better) article: I/O bound. Vinkje83 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom that the topic of this article is a duplicate of the I/O bound article and that I/O bound does a better job at covering and referencing the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge to I/O bound but there doesn't seem like much here worth keeping. Ducknish (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge (this didn't need AfD), good luck in finding some content worth using. The better title is at I/O bound process, so deletion isn't appropriate for either. Neither of these articles are particularly good quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 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 no consensus. I earlier closed this as redirect which was a poor read of the discussion, mea culpa. On second look their is no clear consensus in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Prouty[edit]

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

Subject is not notable beyond a single event (BLP1E) and it is arguably the event, not the person, which is notable. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The single event here is history-making. Anders Breivik, after all, is only notable for a single event, and no-one is talking about deleting his bio. In the words of WP:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event: "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." Looking at BIO#People_notable_for_only_one_event I find: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Making Prouty's contribution subordinate to the Romney campaign is, as well, an error in thought; in the end Romney's campaign turned out to be subordinate to the actions of Prouty and those like him, not the other way around. Keep the article. Randwolf (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Video_of_private_fundraiser. The video undoubtedly had an extraordinary impact on the election, but that was the event not the person. Arguably a separate article for the video and fallout could be made, but Prouty himself is not particularly notable outside of the event. AniMate 20:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this looks very much like BLP1E at this moment. Redirect to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Video_of_private_fundraiser or to a sub-article specifically about the fundraiser video. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not Fox News. This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia by its stated purpose should include pages for all of the notable determinants in American history that Fox News operatives try to delete from the American consciousness. Just imagine the high school students in 2014 and beyond trying to write a paper on the biography and personal life choices of the one person who caused Romney to lose the election. Rednblu (talk)

Casting political aspersions isn't helpful. Frankly, anyone calling me a Fox News operative is hilarious in the extreme. In fact, there has been very little to no backlash from the right wing media that I can find in regards to Prouty. The fact is this fails WP:BLP1E. The only other truly remarkable thing Prouty has done was help save a woman in a car accident. That's a nice news story, but not notable in terms of an encyclopedia. Rather than attack editors you disagree with, try fleshing out the article with references. Proving notability is always better than going after other editors. AniMate 21:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - WP:BLP1E reddogsix (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I share the BLP1E concerns. On the other hand, I think there should be an article about the recording, and the person who made it can be discussed there. It is a part of Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, but I think there should be a whole article about the recording - who made it and how, where, what it shows, response, and impact on the election. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not be bold? Start the article yourself. I'd check talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 first, and look in the archives and see if it has been discussed before. Leave a note about your intention to create the new article, see what (if any) reactions there are, and decide where to go from there. AniMate 03:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not that well versed on the subject. Also, I have my hands full - I've made nearly 60,000 edits. You try it - it's hard. (And you were the first to suggest such an article here.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person who essentially sinks a major party candidacy for president of the United States is historically notable. Millions of people will Google this guy's name to learn what's been written about him. There will be hundreds, even thousands of appearances in the press that we can use as sources. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails criteria three of WP:BLP1E, "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." All three criteria need to be met to invoke BLP1E. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - subject known for a famous WORK, not merely an event. Is an international activist w rgd workplace conditions who now has, through his many public appearances, become a public person.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this is an important article in the history of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.63.182 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)— 24.141.63.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E. Pretty clear one event and not notable outside that event. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the thing you've linked and explain how each of the three criteria is met. Jehochman ^Talk 17:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the first sentence pretty much covers #1 Scott Prouty is an American bartender who recorded then Republican Party presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks at a private fundraiser. The whole article is in the context of that event. Plus it is a requirement to explain the event in order to present why he is even known. I have not seen anything to suggest that he will have any further impact, and all of his coverage is in reference to this event. His and the two others that helped save that women in 2005 are certainly commendable, but it does not appear to be a highly enclyopedic event. If not for him coming forward for this it is highly unlikely that hardly anyone outside of that community would ever have heard about that event. The video is notable, but Scott does not meet our criteria. Arzel (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read criteria 3 of BLP1E. This event is historically significant. Therefore, BLP1E does not apply. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "event" is already covered in depth within the presidential article. Prouty's role in the event is not even close to the significance of Hinkley's role in shooting Reagan. Reagan would not have been shot if not for Hinkley. Romney, would still have done everything he did if not for Prouty. He took a video of the event and released it into the wild. Arzel (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Video_of_private_fundraiser per AniMate & WP:BLP1E.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at this time to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Video_of_private_fundraiser, and later, I hope to Mitt Romney 47% video as I believe the video is of enormous historical importance. I will try to explain to Jehochman how the three criteria in WP:BLP1E apply in this case. 1. The sources cover Prouty only in the context of this one event. A rescue is wonderful but not otherwise notable. 2. Prouty is a low-profile individual who remained anonymous for six months and has repeatedly stated in recent days that he does not seek fame for himself. 3. Prouty's role was nowhere near as substantial as John Hinckley's in the Reagan assassination attempt. We have no articles about the videographers or photographers who documented that notable event. Hinckley caused that event himself by wounding four people including a U.S. president and severely disabling one of those, Jim Brady. Mitt Romney was the primary actor in this 2012 event, and if Romney had given his standard stump speech, Prouty would be unknown. Prouty was the messenger, not the historical actor, who was Romney. Prouty deserves a redirect, and some basic biographical information in whatever article describes the video and its political impact in greatest depth, but there is no need for a stand-alone article about him at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was 'not' a single event. By no reasonable interpretation of 'single event' was this a single event. This was a nine-month campaign of hundreds of events to 1) throw the election to Obama and then 2) smear Romney as a "vulture capitalist" whose vulture capitalist scheme to export American jobs to cheap labor markets attracted huge Republican campaign donations as proven in the video. At first, Prouty worked alone, posting teasing snippets of the Romney video to YouTube. Then from the reporters that showed an interest in what he posted to YouTube, Prouty carefully selected Charlie Kernaghan to assist him in getting universal publication through Mother Jones of the complete video of Romney's self-incriminating remarks while he, Prouty, remained anonymous as a deliberate move in Prouty's personal strategy to throw the election to Obama. After Obama was elected, Prouty revealed his identity to Kernaghan and formed an alliance with Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers, to plan his next move in smearing Romney as the vulture capitalist shipping jobs overseas that Prouty, Kernaghan, and Gerard think Romney has proven himself to be. In Prouty's latest move of his nine month campaign to smear Romney as the vulture capitalist revealed in the video, Prouty timed his personal interviews with Ed Schultz and Huffington Post to be just before Romney appeared at the Republican Conservative Political Action Conference. You won't find any of this on Fox News. I keep looking there for directions, but I don't find any. (smile) . . Rednblu (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rednblu, this actually does constitute a single notable event, as we understand that term on Wikipedia . A notable event will always have a variety of associated non-notable events connected with it. Nothing you have brought forward here leads to the conclusion that BLP1E doesn't apply here. Nice try, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cullen, that is not how we understand the term 'single event' on Wikipedia. I give you just a few counter-examples to your misinterpretation of how we understand the term 'single event' on Wikipedia: Norma McCorvey, Candy Lightner, Lorena Weeks, . . . Scott Prouty's role here was much more deliberate, more strategic, more effective, and much more substantial than was John Hinckley's role. Hinckley's actions may have harmed several people, but his actions were not a major factor in throwing the election to Walter Mondale. . . Rednblu (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was Rosa Parks just some lady who refused to give her bus seat to a white person? BLP1E...not. Historically significant events are those widely reported, and written about (such as in books). This is different from a soldier killed in action who gets written about in the local papers, for example. However, if that soldier then receives a Medal of Honor, we will create an article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When historians write some books about Prouty and his significance in this event then you will have something. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have [7] and there will be more. Scott Prouty isn't named, but he is mentioned throughout the book by pseudonym, I do believe, if I am reading it correctly. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A $0.99 e-book is hardly what I would consider an authoritative historical perspective. Any yahoo with a computer could write an e-book and try to make some money off of it. Arzel (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hee! That is a very clever joke, and so clever a joke that its internal puns and mockery have to be interpreted to the lay reader for any regular wit to get the joke! For example, the "Any yahoo" in the joke is none other than David Corn who won the George Polk Award for Political Reporting in 2012 for that very piece of reporting that is documented in the e-book. . . Rednblu (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – SJ + 02:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry SJ, but aren't you an administrator? The least you could do is provide some sort of rationale for your position, this isn't a vote after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.76.158.42 (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure. Thread migrated to Talk:Scott Prouty. – SJ + 20:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. TB randley 23:29, 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 delete. Secret ^account 04:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godalming International Tournament[edit]

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

Article restored following appeal at requests for deletion. As stands there is next to no attempt to establish notability, the references concern only the one off friendly that constituted the first tournament and seem more concerned with the appearance of a minor celebrity on one of the teams.

There are claims at the request for deletion that a slightly expanded tournament will take place this year but these come from the NFBoard blog rather than any formal announcement.

I'm not sure how this tournament could fulfill WP:GNG amidst a sea of small non fifa tournaments, this seems to be essentially an invitation tournament. I appreciate that most if not all non-fifa tournaments are invitational, but this tournament does not even attempt to seem all encompassing. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a bit of coverage about a "tournament" consisting of 2 teams happened at the time of the event. I see no enduring coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Fenix said, the tournament is still officially a 2-team affair with the sources stating that more teams will play next edition coming from a blog. Plus this article fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this tournament does not pass the general notability guideline yet. It might do in the future, but we wouldn't know that. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:25, 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 04:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Design frontierism[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason: Neologism of insufficient widespread use and original research. Self-promotion: article author is also the author of the dissertation that is supposed to have first introduced the term. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons Frog gave. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, promotion of article author's neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find evidence of widespread usage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, patent nonsense: Today, companies invest great effort and money in developing new and innovative design solutions on products and services as design being one of the most effective and powerful means to gain competitive edge in the market. As new and different design solutions appear in the market it is forcing other competitor companies to go even further in design solutions thus constantly generating new frontier in the market of fierce design competition. MEGO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not really nonsense, it's merely puffery. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note fronm the creator of this page: Keep - "Design Frontierism is a valid term. The term Design stands for creative problem solving, while Frontierism stands for attitude towards aggressive strategy. The combination of two words warrants what the author is saying as the definition of the term." On his behalf, Bearian (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A neologism that has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 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 04:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emad kayyam[edit]

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

An autobiography about a scientist that does not meet either general or academic notability guidelines. The material is original research and as far as I can see also not covered independently of the subject by reliable sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a forum for extensive fringe science diatribes. Syrthiss (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, this article's tone is awful, and it is clearly an autobiography (see page history), but apparently he's notable enough for a spot in commons.^King Jakob _C2 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can upload anything to Commons (within policy) and create a category out of the material. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is promotional and unverified. Ducknish (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wowzer. Manages to mangle together astronomy, anatomy and ancient history in a most bizarre manner. What will happen when he gets past A in the alphabet? I presume that these "scientific publications" weren't peer reviewed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of passing WP:BIO or any other notability criteria, which fortunately keeps us from having to examine the verifiability of his research :) Ray^Talk 20:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't make any credible claims to notability and verifiable sourcing is not provided nor can I find any. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as all above.
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a colorful character is not the same as being notable, and no evidence has yet been turned up that he is notable for being a colorful character. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – SJ + 02:03, 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 delete. Secret ^account 04:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raconteur Media[edit]

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

wholly unsourced. debatable notability. Aunva6 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Several searches are not yielding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 17:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Baptist Church[edit]

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

A ~~notability tag has been on this article for almost 2 months~~ but I see nothing added to the article that establishes notability. The tag was removed but I replaced it as I disagree with the argument that the articles in the local newspaper and the Biblical Recorder website are sufficient to establish notability, and further discussion on the talk page and my searches haven't turned up anything more. I note that the article's creator states that the Biblical Recorder is an independent source but I don't believe that the technical independence that he mentions makes it independent in a way that meets our criteria for independence of sources to to establish reliability. I'll add that I can't find the criteria mentioned by another editor at the talk page who writes "the the church seems to meet the Wikipedia criteria of local notability as shown by an independent RS". Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The church in question has been covered in nine cited news articles in the local newspaper since 2008, which demonstrates its notability. The newspaper is not locally owned (it's part of a chain) and it is a well-established reliable source on community affairs. I've taken the trouble to read it. The church has also been covered in other RS. Therefore the article meets the Wiki standards. I submit that editors of long-established local newspapers are credible experts on local affairs unless evidence is presented to the contrary. Dougweller has presented zero evidence to challenge the newspaper's credibility. Dougweller used the argument that his brother once was connected with a local newspaper somewhere else in the US which apparently was not very reliable....That's a poor argument. Dougweller also says the place is too "miniscule" (25,000 people) to be taken seriously by Wikipedia, an even weaker argument. He wants "major media sources" to cover the church before he will accept it--he seems to want the New York Times to provide credibility (he writes: "local newspapers aren't enough, unless the local newspaper is something like the New York Times"), but that's the weakest line of thought for an encyclopedia that tries to be inclusive. Rjensen (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that local newspapers can be reliable sources for matters of fact and I am not disputing that. I didn't present evidence to challenge its credibility because that's irrelevant, we were not discussing whether it can be used as a source. I will say that local newspapers cover local events and local organisations, and the smaller the area they cover (in terms of population) the more often they cover them. That's their life's blood. As for your comment about my brother's paper, I said "It is still very hard for an editor of a local newspaper to be negative - my brother owned such a newspaper once." This is a fact. When your readers are your neighbors and friends it is very different from journalism in a larger area where most of them will be strangers (I'll add that my brother's small town was much smaller than this county of about 24,000 people). This doesn't make a newspaper not reliable, it just means that like larger newspapers commercial interests aren't irrelevant to content. A newspaper needs readers. Your comment borders on insult and was not necessary. My NYTimes comment was "Just as restaurant reviews in local newspapers aren't enough, unless the local newspaper is something like the New York Times." That was probably OTT but the point is still there, a small local newspaper covering a local restaurant in a small county a number of times doesn't make that restaurant notable enough for an article here. And I still haven't found "the Wikipedia criteria of local notability as shown by an independent RS" in guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have carefully checked the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. So far as non-commercial orgs. are concerned their scope either must be national or international or, when local, they become notable "if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." The evidence provided for coverage falls far short of this requirement. The Caswell Messenger is clearly local and the Biblical Recorder, with its scattered distribution and specialist focus does not constitute substantial evidence for coverage by reliable independent sources (plural) even if it qualifies as one source, which I doubt. Jpacobb (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dougweller, the notability tag has only been up for a few days (4 I believe). It was up for a very short time earlier and was taken down because the organization seems to meet the standard of having secondary sources published about it.

As for deletion: KEEP:

I second all the reasons noted by Rjensen.
The Biblical Recorder is the official publication of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina and not at all connected with the church. It is substantial and independent. Furthermore, the article in that publication was relatively lengthy, about half a newspaper leaf in size.Yeoberry (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a notability tag was put on the article on January 23 and removed that same day because the organization, having two separate sources for published articles, seemed to meet the standard stated on the tag.
another notability tag was placed on the article on March 9 by Dougweller, writing, "I've restored the notability tag which was removed without discussion...".
To that, Rjensen responded defending the article's notability on the "talk" page, including: "the editor of a local newspaper can be considered a RS on institutions in that county."
On March 13, I wrote, "The notability tag wasn't removed without discussion. The reasons for this page meeting the notability requirements were given briefly and are still above."
Only 5 days after placing the notability tag on it, Dougweller nominated the article for deletion, saying "A notability tag has been on this article for almost 2 months" (above).
A new source has been added: "Covenant marks first anniversary," Danville Register & Bee, March 8, 2009. This is the newspaper serving Danville, Virginia.

Yeoberry (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Owned by the same company as the Caswell Messenger.~~ Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it is the case that the Caswell Messenger is owned by the same company as the Danville Register & Bee. Can you prove it? And how is it relevant since the two papers have different editorial staff and are thus two distinct publications. If a two publications (like Newsweek and the Washington Post) are both owned by the same company, are they then considered only one source? I doubt it.

MAJOR PROBLEM:

I had thought there was something odd about someone (Dougweller) putting so much time and attention into getting a page deleted.
I noted above that Dougweller stated a notability tag had been on the article for 2 months when, in fact, he had put it up only 5 days previous.
Just now I ascertained that The Caswell Messenger is owned by Womack Publishing Company (http://womackpublishing.com/our_papers/) while the Danville Register and Bee is owned by World Media Enterprises, a division of Berkshire Hathaway (http://www.worldmediaenterprise.com/section/wme02).
Why, then, above, did Dougweller state that The Caswell Messenger and The Danville Register and Bee were owned by the same company?

Yeoberry (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But for the record, the Notability tag was originally placed on 23 January, and promptly removed by you (the article's creator) [8]; no rationale was stated in the edit summary, but you did add comments to the talk page stating that the citations were reliable sources. It would have been better to discuss the matter on the talk page, seeking consensus before removing the tag. – Fayenatic London 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability tag gave objective criteria (articles by independent publications) which the organization meets. Having met the criteria, then notability was established and the tag was removed. I briefly made those comments. Dougweller's statement that a notability tag had been up for 2 months was simply untrue.

I've struck the statements I made in error - I hadn't noticed that you had removed the notability tag so quickly after it was added, without any agreement I might add. And the statement about the ownership of the two papers was meant to be a question but I didn't put the question mark on it. I'd assumed they might be because it seems a bit odd, there must be some link.

You know, you could have waited for me to reply before taking me to ANI. There's a little thing we call 'good faith' - see WP:AGF that asks editors not to assume people are acting from evil motives. As a Christian I would think you might behave as charitably as we ask all editors to behave. You've also stated that I have "put much time and attention into getting a page deleted". That's simply not true. This is a fairly routine thing that many, many editors do. It really doesn't take long. The most time involved actually trying to find reasons not to take the article to AfD by searching for sources that would establish notability - in other words, the most time was spent trying to find reasons to keep the article. Dougweller (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noted, in my recitation of the chain of events, your misrepresentation of the duration of the notability tag on March 14. You made subsequent comments and never retracted your claim that it had been tagged for notability for 2 months, nor retract your nomination for deletion which you based on that false claim. You then made a further false statement (about the ownership of two newspapers) as part of your campaign.

So, you had a chance to respond, but choose not to until I tried to draw attention to your misrepresentations.
Now, you've claimed your statement about the mutual ownership of the two newspapers was intended to be a question but there is no indication of that in what you wrote. Even if they two papers were owned by the same company, that would be irrelevant and that you bring that up is odd.
Now you've added (what can only charitably be called) another "misrepresentation". You've said (above), I "accused the other people at the AfD of somehow being involved with me". I said no such thing. I wrote (#6): "Are any of the other people who have chimed in to comment on the page's deletion associated with you?" Note the indicators of a question: (1) it begins with the verb and (2) ends with a question mark.
You've denied giving this a lot of attention. The fact is that you have at least three paragraphs of discussion here and more in the comments about notability.
I've not "assumed" bad faith on your part. But when you appear to obsess over a page, misrepresent (by about 7 weeks!) the duration of a notability tag you, yourself, applied; misrepresent the ownership of newspapers (that you could have looked up if you really were asking a question, and seeking to make a point that was irrelevant anyway), etc., it's no longer "assuming" bad faith but recognizing the preponderance of the facts.Yeoberry (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability tag was not the reason for the AfD, the reason for the AfD was the lack of notability. I asked the wrong question about the newspaper, the real question is what connection was there between the Danville newspaper and the church. As for accusing other people of being somehow involved with me, would you prefer the word suggested? A question like that is a suggestion. I'll answer it here and your talk page. I haven't informed anyone about this AfD but it is on a couple of lists of AfDs which is how people get here normally. I don't know what you mean by 'associated with you'. We're all editors, some have names that I recognise and we have participated in the same discussions. I don't know any of them outside Wikipedia. A much more important question has been asked on your talk page by another editor who (relating it to this question about my association) asked about your relationship to this church. Are you associated with it in some way? And you have no idea how quickly I think or type so no idea how long it took me to discuss the article on its talk page or raise this AfD. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, purely local church with no specific notability presented. It's also extremely poorly written, reading much like a brochure and you can tell they were getting pretty desperate to figure out stuff to say about it, eventually just giving up and tossing in any ol' trivia, such as where the pastor went to school(!) and what ages of kids are allowed to use the gym(!!!). I swear I'm not making this up, it really is all in there, to the point that it's actually comical. Luckily they stopped before tossing in how many spaces are in the parking lot or what brand of toilet paper they use. My absolute favourite part is the bold claim that "We don't believe in segregated churches", which would have been quite progressive in the 50s but this church has only existed since 2008! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable enough for this somewhat lengthy article: http://www.brnow.org/News/November-2008/%E2%80%98Reformed%E2%80%99-in-church-name-shows-Calvinism%E2%80%99s-growth. According to the notability standard originally presented, it requires two or more citations in independent publications. It's cited by three. I don't agree that it's poorly written and you gave no examples of that, instead choosing to note its description of its children's programs. Where the pastor went to school is of note as to whether and how he is educated (common in academic circles). And an integrated church in the rural South of the USA is still a novelty. The Biblical Recorder notes that it's identification as being "Reformed" is a novelty and thus notable.Yeoberry (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The chruch's scope and coverage are entirely local, thus failing WP:ORG. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the criteria originally cited for notability was that it was cited by at least two independent publications. It's cited by three. "Local" is a matter of interpretation since everything is local depending on where you draw the lines.Yeoberry (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Indeed those guidelines are open to intepretation. Part of those guidelines advises editors to consider the "number and nature of reliable sources" which I have considered. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - OWN COMMENT DELETED by me since it got caught up in an edit conflict. Jpacobb (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regret. Unlike Starblind, I don't find the page amusing. The citations are sufficient for WP:Verification but not for notability, as WP:ORG says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Given the specialist scope and related-party interest of the Baptist Recorder, I don't think it counts as a regional source. – Fayenatic London 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Biblical Recorder covers the whole state which I think would be "regional".Yeoberry (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local church with no indication of the kind of notability needed to pass WP:ORG. The articles in multiple local community newspapers are not in themselves enough to establish notability. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried very hard to see notability here, but just couldn't find it. There's nothing noteworthy about the church, as hard as the article tries to make it appear that there is. Media coverage per Orlady. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to the editors of this non-local paper, it was notable enough for this somewhat lengthy article: http://www.brnow.org/News/November-2008/%E2%80%98Reformed%E2%80%99-in-church-name-shows-Calvinism%E2%80%99s-growthYeoberry (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Baptist Recorder is the "Baptist State Convention’s official news journal". It's not independent in the manner required here, since it is essentially the newsletter of the church's Home Office. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is independent in the sense required here--it is not controlled or heavily influenced by the Covenant Reformed church (there are hundreds of Baptist churches in its jurisdiction). Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen is correct. The Biblical Recorder is entirely independent of the church and the church doesn't have a "home office"; such an assertion misunderstands the relationship of the church to the denomination, which is made of "autonomous" churches. Rjensen, however, understates the number of Southern Baptist churches in North Carolina which is, according to wikipedia, 4,300. You may want to familiarize yourself with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.Yeoberry (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there is no sense in which an official Baptist media outlet can be "independent" of a local Baptist church, not in the way that we require independence. It's like saying that a McDonald's Corporation newsletter can be "independent" of a local McDonald's franchisee, even though the franchise is, in fact, neither owned or operated by the corporation. The commonality between the Baptist State Convention and a local Baptist church is such that one doesn't look for , or expect, unbiased, neutral, independent coverage from the one about the other. To pretend otherwise is to grossly distort the meaning of "independent". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you should familiarize yourself with Baptist policy if you are going to make recommendations based on your assumptions about it. Your comparison of McDonalds franchises to the corporation (which demands conformity) shows you don't understand the organizational structure which puts a high premium on "autonomy". Besides, with 4,300 churches to report on, does the fact that the paper wrote an article of that length about this particular one suggest anything about it's notability?Yeoberry (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of promotionalism. This is a publicity release for the church, sourced to what are essentially other publicity releases. I can imagine no way or reusing or modify the content, as it is all about the goals and intentions of the church, not anything that might be of encyclopedic significance to other than its members or supporters, or those whom it hopes to attract as members or supporters. Saying it is notable because of the string of adjectives in its name is absurd--it's just a talking point for PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to show how that the two newspapers were releasing publicity statements with little or no editorial discretion. You're assuming that the papers' editors were carelessly reproducing publicity statements. Can you prove that? The purpose of requiring published sources and thus of wikipedia being a tertiary source, is that it depends on the judgement of editors in their particular field (in this case, two local newspapers and a regional religious publication). Also, why could not the church itself be of "encyclopedic significance"? If a reader wanted to know about Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, why shouldn't he be able to have an article in wikipedia informing him about it?Yeoberry (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quick answer to your question is because the Church does not meet Wikipedia's established standards of notability. Wikipedia is not in the business of supplying information about "non-notables". It is not a directory, it is not a manual of "how-tos" ... Jpacobb (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources are inadequate and better sources do not seem to be available to establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen, in the discussion about the notability, has shown that the Caswell Messenger as a source is not inadequate. That editor commented before The Danville Register and Bee was added as a source. Please see Rjensen's comments about the adequacy of a local newspaper.Yeoberry (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of the other comments here before I posted my comment. Is there something else that was posted after I posted my comment that I should look at? If there is an in-depth regional or national source I missed, please point me to it. - Mr X 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at WP:NONPROFIT, one of the criteria for a non-profit organization to be notable is that its activities should have national or international scope. This is a local church operating at a local level, so it fails that criterion. Others have already noted the lack of breadth of coverage. I agree with that: the coverage in two newspapers local to the church is not sufficiently broad coverage, and regardless of the exact polity of the NC Baptist Convention, The Biblical Recorder is not independent. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Biblical Recorder is independent.Yeoberry (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoberry, it is not necessary, or useful to your cause, to answer every comment here, especially when you repeat the same points again and again. Please allow that commenters here will have read the previous commentary and are familiar with your opinions. Please also allow that people may have different opinions than you do, and evaluate the information differently from you, and that repetition of your viewpoint is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps true for matters of opinion. That the Biblical Recorder is independent of the church is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Facts are facts and a statement that that paper is not independent is a statement of a falsehood, perhaps made in good faith but a falsehood nonetheless.Yeoberry (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeoberry, a "falsehood" is a lie, and I think it would be better if you didn't accuse other editors of lying, so please stop now before this goes too far, and you get blocked again. It would probably be best if you stop responding, because as things stand now, the article is going to be deleted, and nothing you say is going to change that at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable church, lacking in any real coverage outside the local area. Article is heavily promotional, primarily edited by one user, Yeoberry, with an apparent WP:COI and whom insists on trying to spam everyone who votes delete here, with a mixture of poor understanding of policy and borderline personal attacks (accusing people of making "a statement of a falsehood" is pretty borderline) Lukeno94 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every church in the land will have similar local coverage, but that doesn't make every small independent church notable, according to WP:ORG. First Light (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note that before voting I carefully evaluated all of Yeoberry's arguments and found them to be without merit, and I carefully evaluated the arguments of the other editors her and found them to be compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I've added a COI tag to the article. Yeoberry has been asked by 2 editors about a possible COI and has simply blanked his page. I've asked him again. He created an article in 2007 about the church's pastor, with edit summaries "Description of John B. Carpenter" and "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter" which had considerable detail but no sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really, really hope Yeoberry does have a conflict of interest. One way or another, he's making this church look ridiculous and pitiful in a very public manner on the 5th most-visited website on the planet. If he's doing this with the church's permission, then that's merely misguided and out of touch. If he's NOT doing this with the church's permission, then that's downright evil and I hope the church finds out who he is and stops him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In your opinion. IMHO, it's a good-faith attempt by an inexperienced editor. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's again removed my question about this. He's got a conflict of interest, I am certain about this (not just sure). Whether the congregation knows about this I have no idea. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Criteria

Here's the criteria for notability copied directly from the wikipedia guidelines:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

As for 1. check; 2. check: at least three secondary sources covering the subject; 3. check: multiple secondary sources; 4. check: while a church brochure is cited, the other sources are independent; 5. this is a matter of judgment. Yeoberry (talk) 16:47, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 09:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Lehman[edit]

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

While I see how notability could be claimed, there are few to no reliable sources that substantiate actual significance. dci | TALK 19:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an English translation of the Swedish article about Ari Lehman. There is a German, a Spanish, a French, a Portuguese and a Swedish article about Ari Lehman, why not keep one in English also (especially since he is American)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.147.67 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would much like too keep this article. "There is no reason to have it" seems wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Larzoni (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one stated that there is no reason to have it; the problem is that the subject's notability does not appear to be substantiated through third-party coverage. Also, WP:Notability (people)#Entertainers gives a decent overview of what's necessary in these types of articles. dci | TALK 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that he played the first Jason is in dozens of print sources commenting on the moment when Jason emerges from the lake. How is that not notable? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His role in the movie really doesn't seem the subject of significant coverage. Something of an example of this can be shown by Googling "Ari Lehman". dci | TALK 01:14, 3 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least, given Lehman's well documented iconic role, a redirect to the Jason article is the go. The is some (admitedely not the best) coverage in Alesia, Tom (19 March 2009), "THE MAN BEHIND THE MASK ; HARD-ROCK BAND FIRSTJASON MILKS THE SLASHER ROLE", The Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal - and - Tucker, Brian (11 April 2012), "First Jason to play Friday the 13th", Star-News. Another wekaer source "ORIGINAL JASON PENS HORROR TUNES", World Entertainment News Network, 30 May 2006 also mentions an upcoming article in "men's magazine" Blender. A stub or a redirect is appropriate here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 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, Keeper | 76 15:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jason Voorhees. All his notability seems based on this one role, and those interested in him are most likely curious about that role. Ducknish (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to doubt that anyone will look him up; also, I don't really know if redirecting an actor's name to that of a character is necessarily the best way to go about things. However, I have no real objection to a redirect if that is what consensus decides upon. dci | TALK 21:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier, the article is an English translation of the Swedish article about Ari Lehman. There is a German, a Spanish, a French, a Portuguese and a Swedish article about Ari Lehman, why not keep one in English also (especially since he is American)?
Keep – SJ + 02:06, 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 delete. Secret ^account 04:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G-Marl Jamal[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Citations indicate that he has posted some videos, opened (once) for a notable act, and been nominated for (but apparently not selected as) "Best Male Artist of the Month" in August 2012. None of the films listed in the filmography appear to exist (well, not at IMDb, at least). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing evidence that the subject satisfies WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 18:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not turning up any sources that satisfy WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There.. I wont be happy if this article get deleted I been trying to create this article for G-Marl Jamal and i have tried to explain everything about him and all the references but You seems not to understand But please try to..

Thanks Fresnelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresnelle (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria as there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sourcing in the article is fails on one or more of "independent", "significant", and "reliable". In partiuclar, the isangi.com.bi web site is used twice. In the first ref, the main portion of the article is not in English but is not substantial given the number words. The English portion of the article is simply a copy of tne bio taken verbatim from the artists's web site. The second ref using them is just a video. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Best ref is a photo-op with Kate Lundy. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:30, 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 delete. Secret ^account 04:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster spartan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ATH. No verifiable references, could find no valid sources on article subject 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of those Wikipedia eccentricities that draws a chuckle: an Indonesian flag (American) football team called "Lobster spartan?" Perhaps the team name translates better in Indonesian. Of course, the team is not a professional or even semi-professional team, and the article fails to establish the subject's notability per the general notability guidelines. The only sources for the article appear to be the team's weblog, Facebook page and Twitter account; none of the three constitutes an independent, reliable source per WP:RS for the purpose of establishing the team's notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. Nice article, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Go Lobster Spartan! But no coverage found in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 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) 01:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derzelas[edit]

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

No Sources, seems like it could fall under A7, i've also checked the notes. 1 bears no mentions of the article's subject, 2 brings up a 'Network Error' and 3 is completely unrelated to the subject of the article. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While i'm here I should point out that almost all of the IPs Contributions are page creations. Could someone please check through the reminaing contributions and see what else could go? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 15:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That IP editor seems to be deeply interested in Rumanian folklore. Most of the edits appear to be about real things and appear to me to be in good faith. They really ought to get an account, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The automated Scholar search reveals at minimum that there are sources confirming a Thracian or Dacian god of this name. "Darzalas" seems to be slightly more common. There are good sources, even if most of the current ones look unreliable. Forgotten gods are encyclopedia subjects even if little remains of their myths, imagery, or realms of influence. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of references (a book and a journal article) that look like reliable sources, both from the first page of a Google search, verifying the existence of the deity and their appearance on the coinage. This was a real deity, there are reliable sources, the article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article and its sources as they now stand seems to me to satisfy notability requirements. Ducknish (talk) 22:57, 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 speedy delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airlift glitch[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria. PlanetEditor (talk) 13:14, 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. Secret ^account 04:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis McCrea[edit]

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

No evidence of reliable secondary sources B (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered a redirect to one of the associated "parties", but in reality the subject has not had a particularly important role in any of them, and what roles he's had have not been the subject of significant independent coverage. And beyond the association with these organizations, there is no notability to speak of. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has not been elected, and his (minor) position with the Pirate Party does not merit a redirect. There also does not appear to be enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG Enos733 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia:POLITICIAN, and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. PK T(alk) 17:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable secondary sources and notability. Gamaliel (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - lean to delete - I am Travis McCrea, I am the standing leader of the Pirate Party of Canada (which is not listed on the article), but my predecessor never had nor needed an article and I don't need one either. I would argue the Pirate Party as notable but other notable Canadian minor political parties have leaders who are not as notable Canadian Action Party being one of them. Pride would like me to have an article, but it's really not important either way. If I could be objective I would argue an article on me would be "notable enough" but "not worth fighting over". ☠ Travis McCrea ^(T)(C) 20:02, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Grio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Grio

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

No secondary sources to establish notability Nightscream (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream: Here you go, and I would be careful trying to delete the largest US African-American news agency - it could look very bad.

http://www.facebook.com/theGrio https://twitter.com/theGrio

David Wilson Interview, Founder and Executive Editor http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/the-grio-african-american-breaking-news-and-opinion

The Grio's 100: http://www.today.com/video/today/50693393 http://vimeo.com/60289249

NBC Launches The Grio: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Positively_Black__NBC_Launches_The_Grio_New_York.html

About the Grio: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/307624-5

NBC Universal Media Village: http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcnews/thegriocom 66.91.118.141 15:37, March 14, 2013

Those are primary sources. Notability requires secondary sources. The only one of those above (which belong in the article, not in a deletion discussion), that appears to be a secondary source is the C-SPAN one, and there's barely any material at all in it. Next time you participate in a discussion like this, you might want to read what is said there, and learn what terms like "secondary sources" mean. You might also want to sign your talk posts. Not doing so could well, look bad. Nightscream (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This does appear to be notable to me. Of course, firstly, NBC News is a highly notable organization, and having a separate article for this division is a logical organizational scheme (cf., e.g., The Root (magazine), a division of Slate). Second, I do see sufficient sources available to establish notability.[9][10]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, another keep by Milowent. That looks suspicious. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as it happens Milowent is completely right, as is easily proved via a simple Google News search. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suggestion to nominator: withdraw. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Milowent found proof of its notability. Dream Focus 04:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Milowent demonstrated the notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good research, above, shows notability and secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggestion to Drmies:
- 1. Sources belong in the article. Not on deletion discussion pages. The article still does not contain those sources.
- 2. You can indent your comments with bullets by placing an asterisk in front of them. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You did notice what Drmies's sole edits to this page were... right? So what is there to get mad about? Additionally, an asterisk in the middle of a sentence does not bullet it, it simply asterisizes. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get mad, I was simply responding by pointing out that links to sources do not improve an article unless they're addded to the article. They don't go in edit summaries, deletion discussions, or any of other places that so many editors seem to think that they go. They go in the article in the form of inline citations.

As for my neglecting to mention the use of the "Return" button, point taken. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:REFACTOR, though, why add the bullet? The whole thing was one clear, readable comment; what was the point in splitting it? (I suppose it does help those who prefer to read straight down the page, but that's such a minute benefit that...well, I digress and will just double his signature.) As far as The article still does not contain those sources., though, I guess I don't see why this needed to be addressed to Drmies specifically. :) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent. – SJ + 02:07, 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 10:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Organization[edit]

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

Per WP:DICDEF. Suggest taking it to Wiktionary. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Economy and Society, the usual translation of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, an important book by Max Weber about which we already have an article. This doesn't look like a dictionary definition to me; it looks like an attempt to create a stub about one translation of part of Weber's work: Economic Organization is a term coined in a book, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, by Max Weber that was translated into English by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons.Weber, Max (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. Edited with an introduction by Talcott Parsons. New York: Free Press. As stated in the book's Preface, it is "a translation of part I of Max Weber's Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, which was in turn originally published as volume III of the collaborative work Grundriss der Sozialoekonomik." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 7 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not actually a dictionary definition because it doesn't define the word, it just says where it was defined, and I'm not even convinced by that: the article on the book doesn't mention "economic organization" as a phrase and I'm not convinced that the phrase has a meaning beyond the obvious. I'm unsure about a redirect - who would search for this term, and would they expect to find themselves on an article about a Weber book? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Colapeninsula on this one that a redirect would be implausible. Economic Organization is a broad term and I find it unlikely that the majority searching for such a term would be wanting to read about Mr. Weber's book. Ducknish (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doesn't seem it would be a useful redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousSquirrel (talk • contribs) 07:14, 15 March 2013‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One of the keeps commentators was blocked, the main keep commentator admitted the the sources for this is clearly lacking, nobody else gave policy based rationales. Secret ^account 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live2Support[edit]

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

I am completing this nomination for an anon who had replaced a speedy template with an AfD nomination. I have no opinion either way, although I will say that I think the article indicates enough importance (barely) to survive speedy deletion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Comment - This article was nominated for a speedy deletion, and I believe it needs a proper discussion. In my view Live2Support is clearly notable, it is one of the longest serving live chat softwares on the internet (founded in 2003) and there are other articles of a similar nature already on Wikipedia. These similar articles I mention have also survived AfD and are not as notable as this software. A few examples are Kayako, Velaro,_Inc. and Parature. These are only three examples, there are many more that can be found. I researched this heavily before reuploading the article to ensure I wasn't wasting people's time CouncellorStevens (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Parature has been deleted. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News finds only press release announcements, and Books, a couple of incidental mentions. References in the article are to tech business directory listings and reviews on review-aggregator sites, none of which are reliable sources and which are too industry-specific to provide notability. We do have too many articles on non-notable IT businesses, but I will take a look at the 'competitors' as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do believe the references could be better and from more credible sources. As mentioned in the article they serve 22,000 websites. I would say this makes them notable not only in their industry, but as an IT company. For example, LiveChat in my eyes are a very notable company, due to the type of clients they have and also where they have been discussed. However, when you visit their website you see that they say they only serve 4000 people per day. From this angle, unless this entire industry is visited and judged in the same way on Wikipedia, I would say the Live2Support article has to remain on here in some form.CouncellorStevens (talk) 11:21, 13 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. References in the article are press releases or otherwise not suitbale for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the biggest issue here is notability, and while the references aren't ideal, I've seen much worse. Simply due to the number of websites/clients this company seems to serve I would say they pass notability 77.97.185.18 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Much worse articles may just mean they ought to be deleted too, and has no bearing on this article. If the number of clients make them worthy of note, the we expect to see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I see no such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because an article currently doesn't currently have a number of reliable sources, doesn't mean we should delete it. I believe articles might be out there about this company, as they are with other 'competitors' mentioned above. It seems like quite a common topic to be discussed in the press, due to how commonly this type of software seems to be used by website owners. Looking over the history of the article, it seems that it's been given little chance to be improved. It has also had a number of editors with little history of editing working on it. Therefore I don't think there's enough history/attempts to improve this article. For this reason I think the article should be given a chance to be improved and have improvement notices placed upon it. 77.97.185.18 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Since you think this "quite a common topic", then it shouldn't be difficult for you to find the necessary coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I'm not suggesting for a minute that I am happy to work on this article to improve it, merely stating my opinion on the article. If an article is submitted to Wikipedia and wrongly listed for a speedy deletion, (which myself, Bongwarrior and CouncellorStevens seem to agree on) then the article should be given chance to be edited an improved based on Wikipedia:IMPERFECT. Stating a new article is not notable or reliable enough immediately after upload, indicates that we'd never use improvement notices on new articles. 77.97.185.18 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CS– SJ + 02:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article must be expanded and further elaboration is required, but I don't think it should be deleted before given the opportunity to fix these issues. - Michael Haephrati (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In terms of significant coverage, WP:GNG states that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". From what I can see on Live2Support there is no original research. Secondly I agree that the sources could be better in an ideal world. However to say the sources are not reliable, the majority aren't user published, blogs or biased/opinionated references? They are not ideal secondary references from a leading newspaper, but I have seen much worse. CouncellorStevens (talk) 12:14, 22 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. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone who wants to merge it into one of the targets suggested. J04n(talk page) 10:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme High Definition[edit]

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

Non-notable marketing gimmick created by a company. Does not use full HD resolution. If it became a widely accepted technology, it might be included in another article and would not warrant its own. NickCochrane (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything that suggests it's a widely used term. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:04, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search shows a couple of mentions from around 2006. But it was only ever a bit of marketing terminology, and doesn't describe a notable product/technology. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's basically nothing more than a description of what "Extreme High Definition" means, and it lacks the coverage in primary sources that is the most fundamental part of every notability guideline. In other words, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Alan^(E) 00:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Graphics display resolution or Display resolution. Please consider merging WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. This was a product announcement and marketing campaign from 2006 and doesn't seem to have gained enough coverage to achieve general notability required for a stand-alone article. Here is the coverage I found: [11], [12] and [13].

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reiji Sato[edit]

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

Player has not debuted in the first division and has only appeared in cup games, violates WP:NFOOTBALL. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 08:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. Ducknish (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article does not meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lets not be hypocrites here. We have created player pages for guys who have only played in cups before so why make this an exception. Sato has played for his club in the top domestic cup in Mexico and he has even scored a goal against a 2nd Division club from Mexico and the 2nd Division in Mexico is fully-pro. Thus he is notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As written, WP:NFOOTBALL does not explicitly state that cup games are not eligible for consideration. I can understand not making them the only consideration when the player is playing for a team in a non-professional league that participates in a larger cup competition, but why are cup games ineligible when the player is definitely on a professional league team squad and playing against another fully professional team (his most recent match was against Querétaro FC, a top division team)? Sato is also the first Japanese player to play a match for a Mexican top division team (and he has played in four matches so far, all cup games). That itself has generated some news in Japan. I have added two Japanese news articles as references. As for satisfying WP:GNG, beyond the articles already cited in English and Japanese, there are a number in Spanish: [14], [15], [16], etc. Michitaro (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if it was stated that playing only in cups does not establish notability (but the consensus here appears to be that playing in cups can establish notability), the fact that he received coverage in Japan means he passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a long-standing consensus that playing in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues passes WP:NFOOTY. Also looks like it passes the WP:GNG with Japanese sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. – SJ + 02:08, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gong show 18:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kwak Pom-gi[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - what we have is the coverage of a single speech he gave, which is a single event. It's possible he is generally important, but we don't have that information. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News Archive search shows that he has been a Vice-Premier of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea since 1998. Accordingly, he meets WP:POLITICIAN , and the article should be expanded rather than deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the artcle a bit, and have added several references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear Nat Gertler, This page was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. Please see the tag. Now, Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it has done a great job of expanding the stub. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first Afd nomination for the article. It was previously proded by Nat Gertler and contested by Geraldshields11. I've changed the tag to reflect this. Funny ^Pika! 14:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Funny ^Pika!, Thank you for changing the tag. Please would someone and another tag to reflect it new status? Also, please would someone help with the North Korean articles? Thank you in advance. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes WP:POLITICIAN. There aren't many English language sources but enough to confirm his identity, and I'm sure there are Korean-language sources too. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because he's notable for his position, not merely one speech. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep With the additional information that has been brought to the article in the wake of my nomination, I agree that he meets WP:POLITICIAN, and withdraw my request. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. With a bit of time this could be expanded into a good article iComputerSaysNo 16:26, 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 merge to Strongsville, Ohio#Education. J04n(talk page) 10:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongsville City Teachers' Strike of 2013[edit]

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

A new strike that (per the article) began on March 4, 2013. Nominating for deletion per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete news, not an article. May even qualify for A7 speedy deletion. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though a brief mention might be added to Strongsville,_Ohio#Education.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough. If something on this strike is added to Wikipedia, it should be added to Strongsville,_Ohio#Education. Corn cheese (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Corn cheese and WP:CHEAP. It is not that important, but if somebody happens to be looking for an article about Strongsville, that's the place. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 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 no consensus. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forceback[edit]

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

Article subject fails GNG. Andrew³²⁷ 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had not heard of this before, but the article has a couple of sources and there seem to be more available at GNews about this "popular schoolyard game" in NZ. Article needs expansion to mention the so-called "World Series" [17][18][19][20][21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only just. The game is covered very occasionally in national media and appears to be solely related to a prostrate cancer fund raiser called Movember. Has been run for a number of years. NealeFamily (talk) 23:35, 24 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) 09:55, 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, Sandstein 11:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it isn't known by many people outside of New Zealand, it sounds interesting, and could easily find it's way to a larger audience. I don't see any substantial reason to get rid of it. Kaoskitteh (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no in depth coverage here. There are some passing mentions, mainly in association with some charity events and a beer branding exercise. The presence of content on scoop (a press release site) clearly indicates marketting effort being expended to generate hype. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:23, 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – SJ + 02:09, 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) Mediran (t • c) 09:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs[edit]

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

non-neutral article used for advertising The Banner talk 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being South Africa's largest law firm (a reliably-sourced claim) makes it notable to my mind. However, the current article is very problematic (basically an advert) and it needs cleaning out. - htonl (talk) 16:16, 7 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for being a notable company. Completely agree that it needs to be re-written though Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does seem to be a notable South African company. But it obviously needs a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.88.44 (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to rewrite it. Unfortunately, both times my edits were quickly reverted. This convinced me that the single purpose of this article was advertising. The Banner talk 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. – SJ + 02:10, 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. per WP:SNOW. The article will air next week means it's already confirmed. Sources will be sorted and it would meet notability guidelines anyway as also quoted in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zane’s The Jump Off[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:GNG as I am unable to discover significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. Appears to be Wikipedia:Too_soon. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep These Max After Dark series usually have terrible sourcing for the sole reason of their timeslot and sexual content. But it's a confirmed series and unless something cataclysmic happens, it will air on March 29. Meets stub standards at the very least, and sources should hit within the next week. Nate • (chatter) 07:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed series As mentioned by the above user, the series is a confirmed series. The program is made by the same creator, Zane, of the Max After Dark series, Zane's Sex Chronicles. ManandtheCity (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mrschimpf. It makes sense that a program of this nature wouldn't exactly have much coverage, but could still be notable. Ducknish (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zane is hugely popular if you're into that kind of thing, and a regular television series would meet notability guidelines normally anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – SJ + 02:11, 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. ^King Jakob _C2 22:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Non-admin closure[reply]

Sylvio de Lellis[edit]

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

This has been tagged as unsourced and possibly non-notable for 5 years without improvement. I searched, but was not able to find the significant coverage in reliable sources that would demonstrate that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 7 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources under Silvio de Lellis. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As nominator, I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw the sources that were added since the nomination, however my !vote to delete still stands. The sources all have passing mentions of de Lellis only; they don't address him directly or in any detail. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given new sources. – SJ + 02:11, 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. J04n(talk page) 10:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kálmán Balogh[edit]

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

PROD was contested, but the article is still heavily promotional and the sources seem to be press releases or otherwise fail the test of independence. This is not a matter of a niche classical genre, but more of someone apparently on the fringes of a niche classical genre. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rough Guide to Hungary 2002 Page 454 "Kalman Balogh is one of the virtuosos of the cimbalom, ...", Global Minstrels 2006 "the arrival of Kalman Balogh's Gypsy Cimbalom Band on the world music scene offered not only some excellent music, but also an overdue corrective." and so on, dozens of refs in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand rewrite; notable within genre. – SJ + 02:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep ; notable; the prizes are well sourced Karmela (talk) 04:07, 22 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, currently fails WP:NMMA. No prejudice against recreation if he fights three times and thus passes WP:NMMA. Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Holobaugh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so far only one fight for a top tier organization, so he fails WP:NMMA. Certainly no prejudice against recreation if he gets more top tier fights. CaSJer (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. No objection to an article on him when/if he meets WP:NMMA, but right now it appears WP:TOOSOON.Mdtemp (talk) 18:14, 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. Michig (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Khaliev[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I may be incorrect here, but as I read the source cited on the page, all his fights thus far have been unsanctioned, and the page should be rejected per WP:NMMA. Ducknish (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an incomplete stub.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's not even a fight history listed in the article, but looking at his fight history in the source provided, it's clear that he has no fights for a top tier organization, so he fails WP:NMMA. CaSJer (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization. I found nothing to support the article's claim he fights for the UFC.Mdtemp (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. – SJ + 02:13, 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. AFD is not cleanup, and consensus is clear she meets WP:GNG. Secret ^account 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Moore[edit]

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

Not much notability for this very generic televangelist, certainly not up to Wikipedia standards. Laval (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't the place for flash-in-the-pan pop stars. As such, this one wasn't much of a flash, either. Dead links, canned website, brief period of activity... not notable. Rklawton (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"pop star"? Are you reading the same article? This person is an evangelist and author. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have you read the article and sources? yes "pop star" is an appropriate analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It would appear to be a self-promotion article. Weak and light on citations and links.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see no evidence that salting is necessary. Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once again, the quality of the article is irrelevant in deletion discussions. Easily passes WP:GNG - called the "most popular Bible teacher in America" in this cover story in Christianity Today. St Anselm (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The second and third Google News Archive links above, MLive and the Houston Chronicle, constitute multiple independent reliable sources. While the article does have a lot of non-RS'es and dead links, this appears to be a WP:BEFORE failure. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above Pass a Method talk 22:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:GNG? St Anselm (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - This subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Mutliple independent RSes. – SJ + 02:14, 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. Nomination withdrawn on good faith. (non-admin closure) TB randley 17:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y2K (Athoba, 'Sex Krome Aasitechhe')[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. After doing some studies, I can not find any reliable sources which discusses the topic in details. Tito Dutta (contact) 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously not notable.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. As a "Find sources" assigned by the AFD template does not always give fair results, I will await a Bengali-reading Wikipedian able to offer this film's original, non-English name so a better search can be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the original title. Here is the movie at Youtube! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you, but following the display of "Y2K" is what I suppose is the bengali script for the words "Athoba, 'Sex Krome Aasitechhe'". Could you take a look for it under the bengali language and advise? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No in-depth coverage! Second opinion will be helpful here, since I am the nominator! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Unfortunately we are lacking coverage in media for this one. However, this one is sort of a sleeper hit among the netizens. I myself saw the film in 2001 Kolkata Film Festival (well, I do not have any proof now of it being shown there!). It has gained sort of a cult status, but I cannot prove that rightaway with sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and get better multilingual sources. – SJ + 02:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw assuming good faith, specially after the comments of Dwaipayan that the movie was shown in a film festival! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:40, 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 Speedy delete. James086 ^Talk 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fleasack[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax or just something someone made up one day, but even if not, it still should be deleted for lack of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Ducknish (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. A creature from a novel that apparently doesn't exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible hoax.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious hoax. No RS, silly names, silly links. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going by the page history, this started out as a joke by Teddybrrr last July [22][23] before being tagged and used in the GettingStarted feature. Surprised no one noticed this sooner. Funny ^Pika! 15:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if it was PRODded and forgotten. Should have been speedied.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would have tagged it for speedy deletion, but I wasn't sure I could do that when a PROD had been declined, even though I think this should obviously be deleted. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:52, 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. Secret ^account 16:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haemi Choung[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Article was previously PRODed for having no sources. It was removed when two primary sources were added. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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) 00:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources don't indicate notability, and it doesn't seem like there's any way for this article to meet WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 02:45, 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.