The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 06:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Edmond[edit]

Alison Edmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Being Fashion Editor of Harpers Bazaar is, in itself, not sufficient justification for a lengthy Wikipedia entry, in my view. I can't find any reliable evidence to back up the claim that she's "one of the best known celebrity stylists". If the Times article (behind a paywall and currently unidentifiable) is substantially about her it may not be enough to convince me she meets WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Harper's Bazaar is a pretty major publication. There is a precedent for articles on editors of notable magazines, although this may mainly be more for overall editors than for sub-editors. Under her tenure, the UK Harper's Bazaar was renamed from Harper & Queen, a major rebranding which is significant in terms of the magazine's history. I am pretty sure the sources are out there, and will look around. On the face of it, this is someone who sounds like she ought to pass notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, if she was the Editor I'd find better things to do. But she wasn't, while noone has found additional sources after two years. Sionk (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus [1] looks at first glance like a non-RS blog, but probing around, it appears to be a brand consultancy that specialises in professional women and promoting their work (and has been around a while, I found info on events they organised in Canada in 2008). I suspect there are probably quite a number of reliable sources that aren't readily available online for this lady - she's had a very impressive, long-running career and co-workers/colleagues (including Anna Wintour and Liz Tilberis) and is clearly highly respected in her field. Being a fashion editor for UK Vogue is pretty significant given that the magazine is focused on fashion. To people in the biz, she is clearly someone to know, although this is not always translated effectively into the wider world. I cannot support a delete vote in good faith for this reason, which is frustrating because we have kept arguably undeserving subjects due to technical notability, yet someone like Alison Edmond, who I am 100% sure would be notable if only she had a decent press agent keeping track of her published articles/interviews/features/press, is tricky to prove notability for. This is why my vote is a no consensus - personally, I want to keep the article, but I cannot support a keep vote, and there is no way that I can in good faith vote delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for utter lack of WP:RS to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The main editor of this magazine might be notable, but I doubt if the section editors are. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Harper's Bazaar, could even merge the lead paragraph. J04n(talk page) 10:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embroidery by naids[edit]

Embroidery by naids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only (unreferenced) awards are in local papers; unable to find significant secondary coverage of this (or the parent business—Alternative Stitching Co.— for that matter). Fails WP:GNG and such. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does fail WP:GNG. It also looks like an overly promotional article. Kevin12xd (contribs) 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree; totally fails WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Is it some sort of test article? A google search brings up exactly one result - the WP article itself. Stalwart111 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, those were my initial thoughts as well. Due to the claim of notability, though, I brought it to AfD—you never know about offline sources, or maybe the creator will chime in. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good call. Better a snow-closed AFD than a speedy deletion you're not quite comfortable with. Stalwart111 00:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:V along with WP:CORPDEPTH. I can find no trace of one award grantor. Another appears to be the website of a school's PTA. I can't even find primary sources for the company or its service. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 26 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. SpinningSpark 07:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timanous[edit]

Timanous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Some pretty heavy bias and lack of references. No one seems to want to help edit the page either. Mfribbs (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article barely even establishes notability for this summer camp. Most of the sources are either non-independent (the most often cited source is an offline publication co-written by the camp's co-owner), or broken links. And most of the article is unsourced anyway. The article is not much improved from how it was when it was last up for deletion in 2006 (the result then was "no consensus"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if this article winds up being kept (which could well happen), it should be moved (at that time) to Camp Timanous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that article would appropriately be listed as "Camp Timanous" (as seen elsewhere on this page, I vote to keep). --Crogle94 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am one of the article's primary authors and originators (although I have sought to avoid a proprietary stake in this as I believe Wikipedia is best served when open-sourced). There are compelling reasons for preserving this article

• Longevity: Timanous has existed for over 125 years, and continues to operate consistent with original institution
• Popular influence: Timanous has thousands of living alumni, aside from the famous alumni listed on the page
• History and Heritage: Timanous is plainly an example of the longstanding New England and Maine summer cultural and camping tradition. Aside from its perseverance, Timanous was founded by and operated by Luther Gulick, one of the established originators in Maine camping
• Economic impact: this could be better stated in the article itself, but Maine camping and tourism industry is crucial to the Maine economy and preserving it matters; Timanous is, again, a well-established example and member of that industry.
• Comparative value vis-a-vis similar Wikipedia pages: Timanous has long been a more comprehensive and detailed page than peer institutions
• Broader concern with targeting camping pages for deletion, not improvement: I am concerned in noting that several other Maine camp pages have been recently offered for deletion. I suggest, again, that Maine and New England sleepaway summer camps are an important element of American tradition and history.

Crogle94 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article is chock full of original research and dead links. I don't get it. What's so notable? Bearian (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't know if I'm allowed to take part in the discussion since I made this page, but here goes. Crogle94 -- it's great that the camp has all those traits and stuff, but why should it be in an encyclopedia? Just because the thing is 100 years old doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. I think, though, if you do want to keep it, you have to start editing the page. It's very biased and doesn't have many resources in it. Do you know how to use references, because the article doesn't refer to many using a superscript. Mfribbs (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're definitely allowed to take part in the discussion by making additional comments, but I struck out the "delete" above because your delete recommendation as the nominator is already being taken into account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mfribbs, I appreciate your above advice. I notice that you've both nominated this page for deletion, but spent a great deal of time and energy contributing to the Camp Agawam article (a peer institution) and that you likely rescued that article from deletion. That page is much improved and is a credit to your good work. I am familiar with Camp Agawam and consider it an integral part of the mosaic of New England camping heritage and tradition. I request that you consider Timanous to merit the same due diligence. In the last two days, I have begun overhauling and streamlining the page. Most obviously, I have edited dead links and I have added 3 bona fide, legitimate sources explicitly detailing or referring to Timanous and its cultural role: the Burlington Free Press, Boston Globe, and Washington Post. Over the next couple of days, i intend to add further sources, including episodes of Nightline and the Portland Press Herald. I intend to incorporate several of the major camping publications, dating back over 100 years, the refer or reference Timanous. Your rationale for keeping the Camp Agawam article was as follows: "There are, as I know of, approx. 7 resources. The article is much more expanded now than it was when it was proposed for deletion. I think if this article is deleted, than most of the camp articles in Maine should be as well. Also to note, I have several other sources that are notable when it comes time to add them to the article." This same rationale would apply to the Timanous article, except that there are now at least 9 resources cited, with more on the way. As editing will continue, I request that this discussion be tabled to allow for continued good work. Thank you.Crogle94 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, Crole94 this means that the page can be moved to your userspace where you can work on it without the specter of this deletion discussion hanging over your head. J04n(talk page) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up; the references have been somewhat improved (probably enabling the article to meet WP:GNG), but the article also needs to meet WP:NPOV. Miniapolis 13:58, 25 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or Userfy - I'm not convinced the current sources are enough to substantiate notability. Unfortunately, most of the arguments made for keeping the article so far are straight from the list of arguments for avoid during deletion discussions. Things like longevity, comparison to other subjects with WP articles, alumni and economic impact. While these things might help generate coverage, it's still the coverage we need to substantiate notability, not the things that might theoretically be covered in that coverage, if that makes sense. That said (if it made any sense), I'm inclined to think the long history of the camp mean it would have received coverage prior to the era of the internet. If such coverage could be substantiated then I think we'd get over the line. As such, I'd have no problem with userfication until such times as those sources can be found/added. I'm at weak delete because I think there's some room to assume good faith that such sources might be added soon and so temporarily userfying this until then might not be in the best interests of WP. TLDR - technically fails, can probably be fixed, happy if consensus is that it shouldn't temporarily be deleted. Stalwart111 00:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stalwart111, these are helpful comments and appreciated as I plainly endeavor to incorporate the diverse sources into a coherent whole. The subject of the article is not one that routinely creates "news" (here, perhaps, is a good reason to consider peer-class summer camp articles) which hinders the ability to find sources that are useful from The New York Times or similar periodicals, although during the 125 years of the camp, I have found useful, reliable, and on-point sources including: Nightline, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Portland Press Herald, scholarly references from the likes of Gary Paul Nabhan, and literary references from the likes of Samuel Pickering, Jr.. Many of these have now been incorporated into the article, substantiating and documenting the subject's notability. Deadlinks and other technical flaws have been eradicated. Concerns about POV are being addressed through editing and steady incorporation of reliable, objectively independent sources (consistent with WP guidelines). While this process is ongoing, I believe that the significant enhancement of the article, in the direction you've already recognized, further merits its continued inclusion in wikipedia.Crogle94 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The page looks cleaned up. I think it should be kept but the process of cleaning it up should definitely continue. Referencing isn't as much of an issue as it was when I nominated the page for deletion. Mfribbs (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy for further improvement. I have a feeling the camp is notable, but you can't tell it from the current references. The book contains just a passing mention, and what look like significant media articles are impossible to evaluate due to paywalls. I would encourage the article's author to find more sources that can be visualized (it isn't a requirement that a source be readable online, but it is very helpful in cases of disputed notability). I would also encourage them to trim or delete the detailed information about the camp's program and daily schedule, focusing more on the history and on what third parties have said about it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - userfication is acceptable to me, too. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -Lots of helpful ideas and commentary on this discussion, and I think the article has benefited from it. I'd like commenters to please consider the Camp Timanous article vis-a-vis peer articles, particularly Summer camps in Maine. Keeping in mind that comparisons are merely tools for evaluating an article's worthiness, I suggest that the Camp Timanous article's notability, POV, reliability, accuracy, and technical formatting put it and the Camp Agawam article at the top of this particular heap. In the past two weeks, sourcing, technical flaws, notability, and overall quality have been addressed. Can you compare the Maine summer camp articles, delete the Timanous page, but ignore the rest? That seems frustratingly inconsistent; the peer articles are littered with the very errors that have been excised from the Camp Timanous articles: too few (sometimes zero) reliable or independent sources; little more than assertions of notability; rambling written style (including first person experiences and thoughts); little integration into larger Wikipedia; inconsistent care-taking and editing; etc. Should the whole category and its articles be deleted? As I noted earlier, I still suggest retaining the Timanous page, but instead of userfying, let the improved page serve as an accessible standard for peer institution articles Crogle94 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Atalla[edit]

Luca Atalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Founder of a non-notable magazine (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GracieMag). His BJJ achievements don't meet WP:MANOTE since none of them were at the black belt level. The article has been tagged for 2+ years as needing independent sources so it's hard to say he meets WP:GNG and my search didn't turn up significant coverage from independent sourcs.Mdtemp (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article have no significant sources Swissjane (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article lacks significant sources to pass WP:GNG and doesn't meet any other notability criteria that I can see. Astudent0 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NRSNVNA. Algébrico (talk) 20:40, 30 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) 10:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hinton[edit]

Chad Hinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

With only 2 top tier fights he fails to meet WP:NMMA and he lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. Note as well -- he had a history of recent sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 23:39, 31 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, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Saint M[edit]

Ill Saint M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All sources are primary and there are no outside sources to support the claims made in the article. In addition, the article has a clearly promotional tone. Lack of coverage means he fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The promotional tone can be neutralized easily. I did find a source: [2]. Kevin12xd (contribs) 23:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this at all a reliable source? It seems to be from his publisher, "a family owned business", and the source is laden with praise. It's a promotion piece, not impartial outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another few minutes to find another source, I couldn't find one, so I will change my vote to Delete. Thanks for letting me know. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering. The page you found seems to me to be much like the rest of the sources backing the article--related to the subject and far from impartial, which only goes to further support deletion. Ducknish (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very little coverage found. The claims to notability in the article are rather vague (the phrase "sharing the stage" should never appear in a Wikipedia article) and not backed up by sources. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Mcewan (talk) 08:53, 26 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) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Gracie[edit]

Ralph Gracie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

MMA fighter who does not meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights. The sources given don't seem to show he meets WP:GNG, either. The only source that provides signficant coverage is bjjheroes.com and I don't know if that is a high quality source. The material there gives no additional claims of WP notability that aren't in the article and all the talk about his family members and who he's trained is just WP:NOTINHERITED.Mdtemp (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - He should pass WP:MANOTE with his BJJ titles listed on BJJ Heroes (which is fairly reliable IMO). However, more sourcing needs to be found about the tournaments for the article to meet WP:GNG. I'll hold off on a vote for the time being. Luchuslu (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Winning the Rio state championship does not meet the national or world championship levels given at WP:MANOTE and I didn't find significant independent coverage of him. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 4 in WP:MANOTE says repeat medalist in other significant tournaments are notable. I see four titles listed on BJJ Heroes, including two from Rio de Janeiro. BJJ titles in Brazil are certainly not given away like candy. Luchuslu (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the titles he's won are sufficient--the Rio state championship is nice (though it's not on the national/world level), but I'm not sure the other Rio title means anything. The other two are from the Bank of Brazil Athletic Association and a tournament in Grajáu (which is a district in the city of Sao Paolo) and I don't see notability from them. I'm waiting to see if other information gets added, but right now I don't see him meeting WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - This one's fairly close, since he's only one fight away from passing WP:NMMA and he's not that far off from passing WP:MANOTE either, but ultimately he does fail both guidelines. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt if he had some coverage, but there's almost nothing from independent sources, only three hits on Google News, none of which are about him. I'd say he just misses. CaSJer (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found many more than three independent refs, and input a number already.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if Iron were an editor in good standing, which he is not (see below), his !vote would not carry weight. The subject need not meet NMMA -- whether he meets it or not is irrelevant, as long as he meets GNG. Which he does.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. Also, he has a history of socking. Those who have familiarity with that approach to editing, and unearthing puppets, might keep that in mind as we look at contributions of others to AfDs upon which he !voted.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Same findings as CaSJer above. Notability isn't based on what might happen in a bit, and I can not find enough sources to qualify for right now. Page can be recreated when he qualifies.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found many more than three independent refs, and input a number already.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added a number of refs. There are many more -- but I got bored for the moment. He is covered a great deal in BBM, but also in the MMA Encyclopedia and other books.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With the addition of these references, in particular the ones from Black Belt Magazine, I'd have to say he passes based on WP:GNG. It's difficult to find online sources because much of his career predates the mainstream coverage of MMA and Jiu-Jitsu online, but he still received significant, non-trivial coverage in print. While he fails WP:NMMA and is borderline on WP:MANOTE, his notability in MMA, BJJ and as an instructor taken as a whole should merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Luchuslu (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated by Luchuslu above, because he meets wp:GNG inasmuch as he received significant, non-trivial coverage in aggregate as a fighter and as a trainer. Any !votes that did not consider GNG, but just focused on NMMA and/or MANOTE, of course should be discounted accordingly. It is, clearly, sufficient to meet GNG. And more than notable -- The Telegraph described him as "a legend in fighting circles."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - With the addition of the new references, I'm comfortable saying that he passes WP:GNG. Good work on digging them up. CaSJer (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Wolf (band). SpinningSpark 07:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Star (album)[edit]

Evil Star (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUMS.

Unreferenced, apart from an external link to the band's homepage. The only review I found which wasn't clearly user-generated is a 200-word piece at www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=6133 metal-observer.com (can't link because it's spam-blacklisted). That falls well short of the WP:GNG requirement for substantial coverage in reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See also deletion discussions for 2 other albums by Wolf (band): AFD: Black Wings (album) and AFD: Wolf (Wolf album). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This does not fail GNG, as I have found several sources including: [3], [4], [5]. Kevin12xd (contribs) 23:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. The "sources" you listed are:

1. cduniverse.com, an e-commerce site. It's not an independent review
2. answers.com fails WP:USERGENERATED.
3. last.fm is just a track listing.

Please read WP:GNG before commenting on notability. Any old links from a Google search are not enough to demonstrate notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All I could find was an Allmusic review ([6], from which the answers.com review is copied) and a short news item ([7]). I think this can be summarized in the article on the band and redirected there. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wolf (band), really nothing to merge. The album does not approach WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. J04n(talk page) 10:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Indeed, the person fails WP:NMMA. Indeed, failing WP:NMMA is not a reason to delete the article provided the person passes WP:GNG. There is no evidence that they pass WP:GNG, not in the article, not here, nor I was able to quickly find this evidence myself. Therefore the article is deleted, without any prejudice to restore it if the person ever passes WP:NMMA or WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magno Almeida[edit]

Magno Almeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

MMA fighter with only one top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Simply failing NMMA is not reason to delete an article at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Simply failing NMMA is not reason to delete an article at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. Note as well -- he had a history of recent sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current blockage had nothing to do with sockpuppets.74.43.63.145 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated, he had a history of recent sockpuppetry. Actually, it appears that MMA articles in particular have been a sockpuppetry focus.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA and I found nothing to show he meets WP:GNG.74.43.63.145 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 74.43.63.145 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wolf (band).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf (Wolf album)[edit]

Wolf (Wolf album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.

Referenced only to the CD cover and iTunes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How did you determine that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS? First place I looked was Allmusic, where I found this review. For a band and album called 'Wolf', Googling is going to be difficult. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Dunno how I missed that. It's a 340-word review, which is a little short, and it's only 1 item ... but if there is another review of that length I'll withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• See also deletion discussions for 2 other albums by Wolf (band): AFD: Evil Star (album) and AFD: Black Wings (album). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wolf (band).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Wings (album)[edit]

Black Wings (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM.

The article is currently unreferenced, apart from an external link to the band's homepage. The only review I could find is a 185-word shortie at www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=483 (can't link because it's on the spam blacklist), which falls way short of meeting WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There a review at Allmusic, but I didn't find much else. There may be print coverage, but merging to the band article would probably be best. --Michig (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• See also deletion discussions for 2 other albums by Wolf (band): AFD: Evil Star (album) and AFD: Wolf (Wolf album). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 26 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) 01:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of slaves[edit]

List of slaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The function of this list can be entirely fulfilled by the slaves category. "Slaves" is a category with the potential to be incredibly broad in scope, and thus, this list has no reasonable topic restraint. The list adds no use beyond that of the category, and the should be deleted, as the category will suffice. Ducknish (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Slaves are no different to notable people. Paul Bardson (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems as though their notability is entirely separate from their being slaves. For the majority of the list, being a slave is simply an aspect of their life that does not factor into their individual notability, and thus, it would be better suited as a category. Ducknish (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you wrote is an actual standard for lists, neither expressed in guidelines nor reflected in practice. We do not limit lists to what "factor[s] into their individual notability", but instead use both lists and categories as complementary indexes and navigational aids. See WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP, and for examples of this widespread practice, see any of the lists for people by place of origin, by educational institution, by year of birth or death...all of which are significant biographical facts but never why or for what someone is notable. What made you think otherwise? postdlf (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Their slavery is part of their notability. However, those less notable (i.e. without articles) should mostly be emancipated from this list, e.g. Aelfsige. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A considerable portion of people on the list have articles, which proves their notability. However, I do agree with Clarity that those slaves who are less notable should be removed. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with the opinions expressed that there are many on the list who are, in fact notable. However, I would say that for precious few of them is slavery the lynchpin of their notability. If you could remove the fact that many of these people are slaves and still find them notable enough for an article, there's no need for an article serving as a list to categorize them in this way. Ducknish (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree. It doesn't have to be the linchpin, just a significant factor in their lives (and slavery is surely that). Albert Einstein is best known for his physics, but his unrelated Jewishness is hard to ignore (e.g. List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which is a sublist of List of Jews). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:OUTCOMES via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of electricians which had basically the same parameters. Some people notable for being others things who happened to once have been electricians and people notable for being electricians. I !voted for deletion (weak) there and would probably do the same here were it not for the fact that community consensus seems to disagree at this stage. Stalwart111 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as standard index of notable people by a shared fact of biographical significance, complementary to the category structure. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 26 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) 23:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ramos[edit]

Jo Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

IP contested PROD without explanation. PROD reasoning was: "Fails WP:GNG as an individual. All notability is based on her father and notability is not inherited." Ducknish (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep - Unfortunately, unless a first child gains notability for his/her own achievements, then notability is not inherited. In her case, her death did receive a lot of coverage, but only because she was former President Ramos' daughter. As far as I know, there isn't enough coverage of her (apart from being a first child) during her lifetime. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC) But it appears that she was a musician of some note, which does establish notability (especially with the coverage below), but I didn't know that since I was born in the penultimate year of the Ramos administration (1997) and it appears that she was mainly active before I was born. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, from the sources I can find in the news search the subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, as can be seen here, and here, as two examples of the many articles where the subject of this AfD was the primary subject of the article. Therefore, the subject passes WP:GNG & Criteria #1 of WP:MUSBIO. I understand the concern about the individual being primarily notable due to her relationship with her father, Fidel V. Ramos, and that the majority of easily find-able web content is regarding her death, however if one does a little digging, you'll find that the subject of this AfD received significant coverage not directly related to her father, or her death.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 31 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 All the indications are that this is a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BrightSide Adult Entertainment[edit]

BrightSide Adult Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a hoax; I can't find any evidence of "BrightSide Adult Entertainment" online, and the article seems to be lightly rewritten from the Elegant Angel article. Trivialist (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Elegant Angel. I seem to have found evidence online, although certainly not from reliable sources. Not enough unique information to merge. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are not reliable, then they are irrelevant. Anyone can create unreliable sources making any false claims they like, and it is by no means unknown for authors of hoax articles to do just that. What is more, you haven't even told us what the unreliable sources are. We can't attach any weight at all to someone claiming to have unreliable sources that we can't even see for ourselves. See WP:RS and WP:V. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a more than probable hoax, fails verifiability. Zero GNews hits, zero GBooks hits, some Google hits that are all mirrors/derived from Wikipedia. I could have missed something, but none of the sources of the article appears to mention "BrightSide Adult Entertainment" or something similar. The same article mentions BrightSide just three times (in the infobox, in the lead and in the first sentence of History section), and for the rest it is a "copy and paste" of the Elegant Angel article. If someone has found some evidences about the contrary is welcome, but he should provide his evidences here. Cavarrone (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax. All sourcing appears phony or irrelevant. Article "creator" has no other edits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. The article is a copy of Elegant Angel with only the lead paragraph changed. Searches for Brightside Adult Entertainment get Wikipedia mirrors. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 26 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.

T.R. Dallas[edit]

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.R. Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - no evidence of being signed, charting, and only one source that is either in depth, or reliable. I couldn't find anything else in a Google search either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pretty much a household name in Ireland, in the bizarre genre of Country & Irish. "Who Shot JR?" was a #1,[8] and his renditions of "Hard To Be Humble" and "Daddy's Girl" almost certainly charted also. Has been the sole subject of television programs of the national broadcaster [9]. His place in the culture is demonstrated by pieces like this in the paper of record. Sad to relate this watergate. 86.42.107.13 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks, I now see he is notable, and withdraw this nomination - hopefully you can expand the article with those sources, as you seem to know a bit about him? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joy Division discography.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+− Singles 1978–80[edit]

+− Singles 1978–80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Come on; is this article on an insubstantial greatest hits album ever going to amount to anything? I say just delete articles like this. Lachlan Foley 08:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Joy Division discography. When there is apparently so little to say about a compilation beyond its tracks, my preference would be to summarise it in a discography. Simply deleting this would leave too little information about this release. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Joy Division discography. J04n(talk page) 15:38, 25 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 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge any applicable content to Joy Division discography. Greatest hits albums kinda need there to be something to write about to be notable, as they rarely chart. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:36, 25 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.

Mishor Rohoshyo[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'm now convinced of its notability and the article has been improved considerably. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mishor Rohoshyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Multiple issues plague this article, it's unreferenced, it's unreleased, and I can't find anything on the web that isn't primary, let alone any WP:RS. Unless someone can provide reliable Bengali sources, this is WP:TOOSOON, it seems. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFILM as best as I can tell. Unless someone has access to sources that I don't that show notability, I see no reason to keep this. Ducknish (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough sources now that I'm willing to keep this. Ducknish (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm finding some hits under the spelling of "Mishor Rahasya", although not much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found some sources and I was able to find where part of the filming has already wrapped up, but the big issue here is that the ToI is the only paper that has commented on the film production. They've somewhat fallen all over themselves, so I'm wondering if there are other sources out there under yet another spelling? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kakababu#Portrayal_in_film. Right now there's just enough to show that the film will likely become notable when it releases, but there's not enough in the here and now to show it passes WP:NFF. There's the ToI, but we need more than coverage by one paper to really show a depth of coverage. I discovered an article for the fictional character and while it does need work, this seems like a reasonable redirect to that article until the movie receives more coverage.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've certainly got no issue with a redirect - I would concur that it is likely to become notable, and that's precisely why I cited WP:TOOSOON in the nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The principal photography is complete, and release date set. This meets notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The film has got significant coverage in WP:RS, and the principal photography has also ended, meets the criteria of WP:NFILMS. 14:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per adequately meeting WP:NF. While certainly the nominated version[10] needed work, a little due diligence by Tokyogirl79 addressed the nominator's concerns.[11] Per WP:NOTCLEANUP We do not usually delete notable topics simply because an improvable article needs work. As we now have a sourced article on a completed film due for release, perhaps the nom might consider a withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think about a withdrawal, but there's a delete vote still there: so I can't. I know AfD isn't cleanup, but there wasn't any real sign of notability when I nominated it, nor from a Google search. The flaws with the article were a secondary part of the nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Raskin[edit]

Sasha Raskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. There are a heck of a lot of references in here, but I can't see any that are cast-iron WP:RS - a lot appear to be primary sources, blogs, or tabloidy/gossipy things. The fact that he publishes his music for free doesn't help matters either (means he's unsigned, and won't have charted) - and several of them appear to be barely mentioning this guy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article's current references do not appear to establish the subject's notability, and I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for him; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  Gong show 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, does not meet WP:GNG J04n(talk page) 23:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 00:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Dan[edit]

Dangerous Dan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not convinced that this character is notable. It says that he only appeared in the Beano comic strip for a few months during 2011, so people who didn't read Beano during 2011 have probably completely missed him.

There are five sources listed:

• Three different issues of Beano. Obviously dependent of the subject.
• A link to the artist's personal blog. Obviously dependent of the subject.
• A link to Photobucket, included in violation of WP:LINKVIO. This is actually to illustrate that there is a different character with the same name in the comic Desperate Dan. This one is obviously independent of Beano, but since it doesn't mention this character, it can't be used to establish that this character is notable.

A search on Google for "Dangerous Dan" and "Beano" returns mainly unreliable sources (such as forum discussions) and dependent sources (such as websites belonging to the publisher or to the artist). Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose merging to List of Beano comic strips instead. Eopsid (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just put most of the information in the article into the relevant section of List of Beano comic strips. I now think a delete is appropriate. Eopsid (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete (or merge, if there's anything useful). We still have a great surplus of Beano & Dandy character articles that are of far too minor significance to support them as separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:30, 29 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. Mike V • Talk 00:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Heart Tuesdays[edit]

I Heart Tuesdays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Kept at AfD due to supposed imminent appearance, we are now almost a year on and this looks like a definite no-show (ha ha no pun intended). So WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MAKINGTHINGSUPOUTOFTHINAIR and so on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pure WP:CRYSTAL. It wasn't kept at the prior AfD, it was userfied - which was the correct procedure in 2012 when it, potentially, might've aired. If it DOES get userfied again, make sure that there's some kind of enforcement for keeping it there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ne-Yo#Television. I've created a section about the proposed show on Ne-Yo's page and really, that's all that needs to be stated about it at most. I'm kind of ambivalent about whether or not it really needs that. It falls short of notability guidelines as it never really got any coverage other than the typical announcements that Ne-Yo was going to help create a show. I have no true problem with it getting userfied, although I think that it's probably semi-unlikely that it'll get created at this stage of the game. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. One of the conditions is that the event is "almost certain to take place". There's nothing certain about television program development. Many potential shows die on the vine. The article can always be recreated when the show actually happens, or at the very least when the network announces an air date. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:25, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fountainheads[edit]

The Fountainheads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable school a capella club. Not signed to a record label, no major hits, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hence, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Had a lot of youtube hits, but that doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Wikipedia:No one cares about your school's a capella group. GrapedApe (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BAND or WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 18 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, TBrandley 18:06, 25 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. SpinningSpark 09:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael Day[edit]

Ishmael Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged for notability since 2011. Best assertion of notability: "Little is known of his life, except that during the American Civil War he was sympathetic to the Union Army in a neighborhood that had sympathy for the Confederate Army." FallingGravity (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Little assertion of notability, and it seems likely that he's just a historical figure of little importance. Ducknish (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google Books search shows that he was discussed in several books in the post Civil War era, was the subject of a well known poem of that time, and has also been discussed in more recent books. A Google News archive source shows several articles in the New York Times, which also reprinted an article from the Baltimore American about Day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hesitant Keep, per Cullen328 above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 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/redirect to Astor House Hotel (Shanghai). MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900[edit]

History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is completely redundant to Astor House Hotel (Shanghai), which itself is already mostly redundant. The amount of excessive detail and trivia borders on the ridiculous for that main article, and there is nothing worth saving here. This isn't a walled garden, but it's a garden alright--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai), concerning a 40k splitoff from the main article, and our current "History" article is simply copied from that main article (in comparison, see this version from the day before the creation of the "History" article. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 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, TBrandley 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep or merge to Astor House Hotel (Shanghai). I find it hard to believe that an artile on the botel needs to be distinct from one on its history. I am slightly surprised that the article exists, but we have many on British buildings; so why not? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 27 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) 11:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Datapreserve[edit]

Datapreserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable software Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete. Another online backup and storage service advertising on Wikipedia. No showing of the sort of significant effects on history to be remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One minor ref does not make notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 31 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. SpinningSpark 16:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Jacobs[edit]

Buzz Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject seems to fail the WP:CREATIVE guidelines. Subject was a political consultant for McCain and a minor functionary in the Bush White House. While several sources are given for the article, most are fairly trivial about the subject, either a brief mention of the subject or a brief statement by the subject. PROD declined by article creator without explanation. Article is an autobiography. Safiel (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Safiel edit-conflicted me in creating this deletion discussion, beating me to doing so by seconds.) There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nearly all the references are pages which only mention Jacobs in passing, and the couple of exceptions are not independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Human capital#Risk. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Capital Risk[edit]

Human Capital Risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An essay, not a Wikipedia article, and a potential advertising/COI problem, given the author (though it is not explicitly spammy at the moment). No original research, etc. etc. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I usually mention this but forgot: I originally PRODded this, but the prod was declined by the author. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced, unencyclopedic essay. --Michig (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an essay, and probably could have been killed through PROD. Ducknish (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Human capital#Risk. This is a notable topic, with about 1,100 hits on Google scholar. Unfortunately, the present article is an original essay with no sources. To write a well-formed article on this topic would require blowing it up, per WP:TNT and starting over. In the mean time, human capital risk is discussed at Human capital#Risk. Given that the topic is notable and my best guess is that users may very well want to search for this term, it is better to redirect to a short exposition than outright deletion. This also provides the base for an editor to write a proper article on this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE. This is not a very helpful article. Much better info out there (see Conference Board research). Even the info in the Human Capital page #Risk is pretty awful. HC Risk is much larger than individual people leaving off manhole covers. It's systematic form of value and risk. Potami.potami (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)potami (excuse any issues with this -- first time editor) moved from article talk page Writ Keeper (t + c) 22:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Human capital#Risk. The article, as it stands, should be deleted. Independent of this, it is also a perfect candidate for a redirect to the Risk section of the Human capital article as noted by Mark viking. Two birds, one stone. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:20, 25 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. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Anderson (singer)[edit]

Jeff Anderson (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable person by our standards. Had one album on a somewhat notable label, and another one is mentioned in the infobox--but I don't see evidence of it and that by itself might not be enough. No hits, no coverage, nothing else? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable references added to article on March 3rd, 2013, including reference of hit single on Billboard's music charts. Article also cleaned of any promotional links to ensure the integrity of the article. ryanbattles (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 02:22, 17 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,  Gong show 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The CBN Music source appears to be nothing more than a profile page, that's not a valid reference for notability. The artist does appear to have two minor chartings from the Billboard source (although it does appear to disagree with the articles claim about the particular chart position). The Faith Artist Agency is blatantly not a WP:RS, nor is there anything substantial there anyway. AlphaOmegaNews doesn't appear to be a RS, and it really doesn't provide much of use anyway. Cross Rhythms seems decent, there's a good amount of coverage there - it's not a textbook RS, but it seems solid enough. The District Coffee House is neither a RS, nor does it provide much in the way of coverage. I'm not going to say delete yet, because this may be worth keeping, if another source turns up. There's no evidence of the Grammy award nomination, at least, not in the cited ref. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 25 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pocholo Gonzales[edit]

I believe this article has been compromised. He's one of the most notable voice over actor in the Philippines based on the websites and tv interviews. You check out his website. www.pochologonzales.com and www.creativoices.com

Pocholo Gonzales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Entirely promotional puff piece written presumably by someone with a COI. B (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Being a voice actor, it's possible that he can pass WP:ENTERTAINER if he's in several roles or has done a major of notable roles. Unfortunately, I failed to find enough reliable coverage for him. Being a fan of anime, and thus having a small interest in voice acting (or dubbing), it is with a heavy heart that I !vote weak delete, this time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:43, 17 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,  Gong show 14:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It would seem to me that the in-article claims of notability are not supported. In particular, the extent of his career as a voice actor. Ducknish (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the information in the article are not extensively supported by secondary sources. The rest are entirely promotional. Subject is not particularly notable. Xeltran (talk) 12:56, 28 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. LFaraone 02:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schuyler Iona Press[edit]

Schuyler Iona Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable singer lacking Ghtis and GNEWS of substance. The provided references are only single line entries and lack substance. There is no evidence of award or of nomination. Appears to be a vanity piece. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:AFTER showing that her work has received positive response.[12] One of the daugters of Darren and C. Fraser Press, she has received modest recognition just as is the entire Press family is receiving coverage. For example, a report on the2012 Orlando Film Festival screening of Theresa is a Mother speaks positively toward the film and family member's contributions to it, specifically stating "The multi-talented Schuyler Iona Press wrote and performed the feature’s score." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Schuyler Iona Press has been the subject of non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician. Reliable sources are properly cited in the article. In addition Schuyler Iona Press has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a notable film. The film for which she wrote the score has won multiple Best Film awards. This meets two necessary criteria for Music. Furthermore, under the criteria for General Notability Guideline, 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. To reiterate, Schuyler Iona Press has received coverage independent of the subject (Schuyler Iona Press) in reliable sources. Any issues with copyright regarding images is more about not providing enough or the correct information when uploading, this issue will be resolved as the intention is to upload images with Free License in Wikimedia Commons. The Schuyler Iona Press article is unbiased and was developed only after the topic (Schuyler Iona Press) received film festival awards as a musician, Film festival nominations as an actress, and coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schuyler Iona Press is a young (14 yo) artist with a growing fan base that is becoming more interested in her work and opinions. I would respectfully request not deleting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwalksintoabar (talk • contribs) 07:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - increasingly notable individually and as part of the family; better to have a separate article than to merge with Darren Press. – SJ + 02:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks like WP:TOOSOON to me, the West Orlando News piece cited by MQS is a start but was really just a local review of a film in their film festival. J04n(talk page) 11:07, 25 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,  Gong show 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Schuyler Iona Press is starring in a film that has been reviewed and has won Best Film at 3 film festivals including the Orlando Film Festival. She has also been nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Award from an established indie film festival in Washington DC. In addition, the music video for her song "Playground Museum" was a winner at a major west coast film festival. All cites are legitimate and fit the criteria for acceptable and reliable cites. The West Orlando News is a legitimate news source in Orlando, Florida and supports with published information that Schuyler Iona Press wrote the score for an award winning feature film. I would respectfully request not deleting this article.Manwalksintoabar (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While we're on the subject, Darren Press could use some attention--most of the sources there refer only to his projects, a number don't mention him at all, and I didn't see a published source that was exclusively about him. The same COI may be at play in Theresa is a Mother (Film), which is a press release at the moment. Perhaps they all meet notability, but there's a promotional hand in this. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED. Miniapolis 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see substantive coverage in reliable sources, only mentions and appearances because of the father and an interview in an online magazine. No criterion of WP:MUSICBIO is met. Notability is not inherited. Hekerui (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 00:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan Sikh riots[edit]

Amitabh Bachchan Sikh riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

can be merged with main amitabh bachan article Uncletomwood (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nominating user has not given any reason why this page should be deleted. Uncletomwood if you think it should be merged then use a merge proposal instead. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the content of this article has been deleted from Amitabh Bachchan on several occasions because of BLP issues, weighting, prose style and copyright violation. As such, this really amounts to a POV fork by someone who is determined to get the information on Wikipedia by one means or another. I rather think that it may still contain copyright violations. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content of the article looks correct, as this thing did appear in Media, however it doesn't require an article of its own. It was an allegation (without any proff) which was refuted by Amitabh Bachchan and also no further action is taken by any government or SGPC. The content of the article can however be inducted into 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, however after changing the tone a bit.--Vigyani (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a notable event deserving its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not deserve an independent article. A sentence or two may be added in Amitabh Bachchan. Salih (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallingbrook Community Elementary School[edit]

Fallingbrook Community Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Elementary school. Nothing special about it. A redirect to the school district has been reverted. Furthermore, the lead paragraph contains contact information, something that should be left out altogether. Recommending the creation of a protected redirect.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per long-standing consensus that all but the most exceptionally newsworthy elementary schools redirect to their school board or city. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and protect if necessary. Search for reliable sources yields only passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, and protect it. Unless the school becomes notable, there's no harm in having a locked down redirect to prevent reversion. Ducknish (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above Davey2010 Talk 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per general consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that verifiable elementary schools are not notable unless there is a specific reason in numerous reliable sources. TBrandley 20:51, 26 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. Mike V • Talk 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lorena Pinot[edit]

Lorena Pinot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

largely unsourced article. Sources not always backing up what is claimed. Due to a potential COI, article is unreliable. The Banner talk 14:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Her main claim to fame to date is being a member for a couple years of the revamped Miami Sound Machine (2001-3). I'm unable to find any coverage for her beyond passing mentions [13][14][15]. Miami Sound Machine does not have its own article, and redirecting to Gloria Estefan doesn't make sense. Subject also tried out for American Idol (season 7) but apparently did not make the top 24. She does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.  Gong show 15:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would have said redirect to the group's article, but as it doesn't exist, due to the lack of coverage the article ought to be deleted. Ducknish (talk) 21:19, 25 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. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewardship economy[edit]

Stewardship economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have a few concerns about this article which discusses the theory 'stewardship economy' which appeared in one self-published book by Julian Pratt in 2011. The vast majority of the references on the article predate this publication by some date and do not discuss this theory by name. I have searched for references to this theory in academic library and can find nothing that suggests to me it is a widely accepted and discussed term in this field. After discussing it briefly with the reviewer who accepted at AFC, two further web citations were found - I feel that these are blog coverage however rather than the level of academic commentary that I'd expect for a notable economic theory. For these reasons and also that the article was written by the author of the book which some might consider promotion of his theory/book I thought this would really merit some discussion to see what people think generally. _nonsense ferret 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree that this staff-signed book review from an established publisher's recommendation list and this post from New Economics Foundation staffer, economist, and historian David Boyle are mere blogs in the non-institutional sense. They are non-trivial independent reviews satisfying WP:BK. But the article isn't about the free book, it's about the concept, a reformulated variation on land value taxation, an increasingly popular form of property tax including in Africa where hospital faculty M.D. and primary article author Julian Pratt has been doing development work. Accordingly, here are some mentions of the term prior to Pratt's use of the term in his book which represent the same concept: 2000, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2010, 2010, 2011. Presumably those books should be added to "further reading". EllenCT (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from author

I agree that there is a reasonable concern about the notability of the topic and will be interested to see what consensus arises. The article does make several references to the self-published book of the same name. The references I put into the article do indeed predate the publication of the Stewardship Economy but are included to provide the reader with context and explanation, not to establish notability.

The thing that has convinced me of its notability has been the response of all three of the UK authors on land value taxation that I most admire. EllenCT has identified the response of David Boyle in his blog on the website of the New Economics Foundation, which is I think the most respected neutral UK body that is open to heterodox economic ideas. I have included in the article the review that Tony Vickers (author of Location Matters and Chair of the Lib Dems policy group on land value taxation and economic reform) that he submitted to the Lib Dem's magazine Challenge (www.stewardship.ac/reviews.htm) in which he describes it as 'a term that deserves to stick' and says 'There will be no success for us land-taxers until we can frame our policies within a stewardship context'. But the most weighty endorsement of the ideas comes from the influential newsletter of James Robertson (author of many books including Benefits and Taxes and founder of the New Economics Foundation) (http://www.jamesrobertson.com/news-jul11.htm). I was also delighted when the main UK publisher on Land Value Taxation, Shepheard-Walwyn, chose to promote it on their Ethical Economics website.

Whether these are sufficient indications of notability only the Wikipedia community can decide. But there is a real problem faced by anything in the field of heterodox economics, that there will never be a long list of articles in widely respected peer reviewed academic journals, because it lies outside the remit of such journals.

I will attend to the removal of bullets and addition of references to the benefits section, but that is I think a side issue. And my Africa credentials are interesting to me but not material.

Many thanks for giving your time to this Julianpratt (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: On first pass, given the placement in the economic footer and reading it, it sounded like an easy keep. Upon closer examination, I could find only one real source for this: A single book by one author. Given that is is being shown as an important economic model, I would think there would be one reference on Google News, World Cat, National Library of Australia, National Library of Australia, the US Library of Congress, Newsbank, Google Books, the University of Canberra catalog, The Economist website, the Chicago Tribune. I just could not find anything there to support this being an economy type of any note. Reading the text and absent any other reliable sources based on independent search, it appears to border on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Of the sources listed by EllenCT, the first is trivial, the second references "product stewardship economy" and is unclear if it is the same topic (and also trivial), Sustaining the earth source is also trivial, the next source has more details but is also about "product stewardship economy" which never appears in the article, Report - Water Resources Center, University of California, Issues 77-84 is a trivial mention to a resource stewardship economy and is trivial, the next reference is also trivial, and the same for the last. Not the same names and trivial. Does not establish WP:GNG and shows major problems with WP:V for this article. --LauraHale (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I agree with the nominator's rationale. Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the nominator and also User:LauraHale above. I'd expect that if this was a notable theory the book would be widely available in libraries, but the only copy I was able to find anywhere in the world was in the Rhodes University library in South Africa. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, I didn't notice initially, but the book also seems to be vanity published through Lulu. Not usually a good sign. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 00:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obopay[edit]

Obopay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has been deleted six times: once by PROD and five times by speedy deletion. I think it is time to settle the issue of whether it should exist once and for all.

It is a largely promotional article, with no evidence of notability. At least one reference is a link to a page that does not mention Obopay, one is a dead link. Another one is a page at www.obopay.com. The rest appear to mostly be pages on sites which provide promotional services to businesses. Some are obviously that, such as one at www.prnewswire.com, but others are clearly similar in nature if you look closer. For example, there is a page at www.finextra.com, a site which says of itself "Finextra is the leading independent newswire and information source for the worldwide financial technology community. ... Finextra offers a range of advertising, lead generation and promotional opportunities to support marketing campaigns, build brands, attract delegates to events and reach new prospects." Another reference is a page on a website which says of itself "F&I Management & Technology Magazine's mission is to be the leading business media resource for dealer F&I opportunities", which is a roundabout way of saying that it provides advertising. It is, in fact, not clear to me that any of the references is a genuinely independent source, the most promising of them apparently being write-ups of a few press releases telling the world about particular business deals that Obopay has entered into. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. Completely agree with nominator's analysis of the sources in the article. On a search of Google News, I found one article of significant coverage at Business Week. Other items that look at first glance like significant coverage turned out to be press releases, such as this one published by (and disavowed by) Reuters. Google News Archive turns up a few passing mentions in Reliable Sources like Bloomberg. Bottom line, a single article in Business Week plus some passing mentions and press releases do not amount to significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and this subject does not pass WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt as per MelanieN and JamesBWatson: couldn't put it better myself if I tried. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. Fails WP:CORP, the nominator has analyzed the article better than I ever could at this point, and I agree with his assessment.
• Delete, As noted by MelanieN the subject has received significant coverage once, and has received multiple passing mentions in non-primary reliable sources, that being said it is my opinion that the article the subject has not yet passed general notability as one significant coverage article is IMHO sufficient to pass GNG. Perhaps it is too soon for this subject to be considered notable, so I am not ready to declare that the article title should be salted, given that the multiple other mentions may increase at some point in the future where they may added up to be significant coverage, I would say it is just too soon for this article to be considered notable at this point in time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created and recreated SEVEN TIMES. There is clearly somebody really pushing this. I still say salt, and if there is better information in the future, they can request that it be unsalted. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Presumably "sufficient to pass GNG" should read "insufficient to pass GNG".
2. The fact that the situation may change in the future is not a reason for not salting, as it can always be unsalted if and when new evidence is found. Nevertheless, my choice would be to leave it unsalted for now. If the people who keep re-creating it accept the consensus here then there is no need for salting, and if they don't, and re-create it, then will be the time for salting. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been deleted 6 times already. Your assumption of good faith is commendable, but I don't think we can expect them not to keep recreating this. It needs salting. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The coverage is mostly passing coverage or press releases. I could not find anything beyond the Businessweek item already mentioned above. As for salting, given that this article has only previously been deleted with low scrutiny methods (PROD and speedies), I think we can leave it unsalted and deal with salting later if it reappears and is still not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mike V • Talk 00:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Pabrai[edit]

Ali Pabrai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Long tagged as resume-like, at least one of the claims of notability has long been verification-failed per talk-page, overall reads like hopelessly promotional piece. Both the original and recent major contributor are COI (one of those is who deprodded (prod supported by two other editors) and made it even more blatantly promotional instead. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient WP:RS to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can find him quoted here and there, and there's a bunch of press releases but nothing to establish inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Intent, Pennsylvania[edit]

Good Intent, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an unincorporated spot, that doesn't show any notability. It's not a Census-designated place or a seat for a township. The sole source here is that the US Geological survey saying that it exists. Google didn't turn up much either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Again, whether this unincorporated community has a zip code or not is irrelevant. Whether this is a township seat is irrelevant. Whether this is or ever was a notable place is the question. The nominator's contention that Google "didn't turn up much" is not entirely correct, as these things go. Take, for example, this HISTORY OF THE GOOD INTENT FIRE COMPANY of Pottsville, published in 1899, noting organization in 1846. Is that a firm name or is that a firm name derived from a place name? Is that a firm name that provided the origin of a future community place name? Not entirely clear. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm assuming good faith here, so I'd appreciate it if you do the same. I'm not "entirely incorrect". In fact, you're pretty incorrect. That source is about a fire company in Pottsville, which is on the other side of the state. While you're wildly guessing about company names etc, I'm not. Since I'm actually familiar with the location, I don't have to chase my tail about a fire company that doesn't exist (because Good Intent doesn't have one. They're covered by one of the Finley townships.), from a town on the other side of the state. Good Intent is a sign post and a gas station. That's it. A township seat or zip code would give some indication that we might find notability. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ENN tell us that simply existing isn't enough. There needs to be significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at your source, it is made clear that they're talking about Pottsville, Pennsylvania, the county seat of Schuylkill County, and that is has nothing at all to do with Good Intent. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sneering demeanor notwithstanding (love the bolding, nice), I tend to agree with you at this point that Good Intent is a non-notable unincorporated suburb of Pottsville. There is certainly a far less substantial case here than there, if you follow me. Try a little WP:AGF, it works wonders... Carrite (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have zero room to talk about AGF my friend. And you are still not getting it. I don't know or care if there is a suburb of Pottsville called Good Intent. We're talking about the one in Washington County, not Schuylkill County. Your source (and apparently you) are talking about the wrong place. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix that but got shut down by a site interruption. Your point is well taken about my pdf link being to a company in another part of the state, now fixed. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not finding any indication that this is a commonly used designation for a populated place, backed by sourcing. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And I removed my bold print. You're right, it wasn't really necessary.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - would this source help establish notability and common-use designation for a populated place? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice article, but I don't see where it really demonstrates notability. In fact, the anecdote about how it got left off the map tends to indicate how non-notable it is. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, it would. Striking my delete, I will sit this one out. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment (more sources): rather than add clutter here, I added more potential sources to the talk page 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the five pillars, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and therefore should include articles on all verified settlements. Based on WP:OUTCOMES and a whole lot of past AfDs, there is a lot of precedent for keeping settlement articles as well. The GNIS citation in the article and the source provided by 78.26 show that this is a verified place. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, nobody disputes that it's there. I attended elementary school there. Actually, the 5 pillars doesn't say this is a gazetteer. It says it combines features of gazettees with other things. While Outcomes is interesting, it's not policy or even a guideline. It certainly doesn't carry more weight than WP:NGEO, which tells us that populated places without a legal designations need to pass GNG or be redirected to the bigger entity (in this case West Finley Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. TheCatalyst31 is correct. This is a real place, and we've now found some substantial coverage. That's enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. OUTCOMES documents the overwhelming precedent at past AFDs that real communities whose existence is proven will be kept; this article is no different from the subjects of past AFDs. A major reason that we keep communities is that local histories are routinely printed about them, although many haven't yet made it online; someone who visits the Washington city library or the university libraries in Washington, California, or Pittsburgh will find reliable local histories that discuss this community's history. Meanwhile, note that there's no such designation as "township seat", at least in Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The township seat is a relative term. It would be where the board actually meets or even where the township gets their mail. Neither would apply here. I happen to be one of those who has been to the libraries you mentioned. Even the offices of the newspaper in question. I know my personal experience isn't a reliable source, but it does seem strange that the only person in this conversation that has actually been there is the one who knows it isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TheCatalyst31. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 18:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TheCatalyst31. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have expanded the article with sources found. There are two sources with significant, reliable coverage (White, Roddy). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Coal town guyCoal town guy (talk) 20:22, 31 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. Apparently consensus is that if something happens in a mine or factory of the same name as a nearby town, then notability is absorbed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania[edit]

Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an unincorporated spot, that doesn't show any notability. It's not a Census-designated place or a seat for a township. The sole source here is that the US Geological survey saying that it exists. Google didn't turn up much either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Apparently a mining ghost town or a locale significant for identifying purposes of specific mines per Coal Miners Memorial: Hazel Kirk Mine No. 1, Hazel Kirk Mine No. 2, Hazel Kirk Mine No. 3 (Website of the Virtual Museum of Coal Mining in Western Pensylvania). That alone seems to provide sufficient justification for inclusion, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same source, different page, indicates that Hazel Kirk is an unincorporated area that is part of Carroll Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Flicker photo caption of a 1948 photo doesn't count towards GNG (not that this is all that important in terms of notability of places of confirmed exitence) but does lend support to the idea that this was a mining ghost town, calling it a "village." THIS from the same set of photos repeats the claim and gives a look at the unincorporated community as it appeared in 1948. That seems amply sufficient for verifiability of a place. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER WEB SITE (Coal Camp USA) offers a color photo of surviving homes from what would seem to be the company town period of Hazel Kirk and notes that Hazel Kirk No. 2 was the site of a mining disaster. You will note that the caption also refers to "Hazel Kirk, PA" as a place. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody denies it exists. So proving it exists isn't really helpful. Neither is showing where it is. What is being questioned is the notability. It is not a CDP. It doesn't have a zip code that I can find. Simply existing doesn't make something notable. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect to Carroll Township. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a place that exists, we are done here. I've added sourced content on the 1905 Hazel Kirk mine disaster which should be more than sufficient reason to demonstrate why company town pages are worth keeping, even if the United States Postal Service doesn't give them a zip code in 2013. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If it exists we are done? Wrong. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ENN disagree. Second, your claim about the accident is a red herring. The name of the mine was Hazel Kirk No. 2. The article refers to it as a mine, not a town. It goes so far as to say "near the village of Van Voohis, six miles from Monongahela". It never talks about a town or village of Hazel Kirk. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at WP:OUTCOMES. Populated places of verified existence are almost always kept. Whether something has a zip code or is a township seat is irrelevant. MAP QUEST doesn't seem to be confused as to whether there is a place called "Hazel Kirk, PA." The search engine RECORDSBASE.COM seems to think it is a place that exists... Carrite (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I've seen it before. That essay is an interesting read, but not policy or guideline. A more detailed essay relevant here would be WP:NGEO. For Populated places without legal recognition (which is what this would be) it says "are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." GNG, which is exactly why I'm here. I see coverage of a mine with that name, but as a "community", I don't see anything passing GNG. In the event that GNG isn't met, then "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." would apply, bringing us back to the redirect that I said I wouldn't oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would like to make formal note that the nominator is stripping out new work and laying in inapplicable DUBIOUS tags in an effort to tendentiously undermine the saving of this piece. I am going to step back now for a day or two to allow others to weigh in here and advise the seemingly overinvested nominator to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'd like to make a formal note that the complainer keeps removing tags by arbitrarily declaring a source perfectly valid with rationale like them being "non-commercial". He also needs to read WP:AGFn his way to read WP:RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think published newspapers and non-commercial historical websites are not Reliable Sources, the RS Noticeboard is thataway.-----> Burden of proof that they are unreliable is upon you. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, nobody said a newspaper isn't a reliable source. But your source isn't a newspaper, it's a Geocities site where two women type things and tell you that's what the newspaper said. And yeah, check your talk page, already at the RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the five pillars, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and therefore should include articles on all verified settlements. Based on WP:OUTCOMES and a whole lot of past AfDs, there is a lot of precedent for keeping settlement articles as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, nobody disputes that it's there. Actually, the 5 pillars doesn't say this is a gazetteer. It says it combines features of gazettees with other things. While Outcomes is interesting, it's not policy or even a guideline. It certainly doesn't carry more weight than WP:NGEO, which tells us that populated places without a legal designations need to pass GNG or be redirected to the bigger entity (in this case Carroll Township). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Reliable Sources Noticeboard debate related to sources cited in this piece is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_published_history_site. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources name it as a company town. United Mine Workers Locals 1477 and 2029 were there.[16] The location was home to many Slovakian immigrant miners and their families, and boasted a schoolhouse. (Pittsburgh History, 1993, volumes 76 and 77, pages 102, 113. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania.) The 1926 edition of Pennsylvania: A History (Lewis Historical Publishing Co.) describes a farming and mining township called Carroll, near Monongahela, containing seven towns: Frye, Hazel Kirk, Riverview, Black Diamond, Eldora, Baird and Baidland. Two obituaries describe persons born in Hazel Kirk, PA: Raymond L. Dale and August Katrencik, Sr. A bus franchise dispute was described in 1932 as involving transit between Monongahela and the "mining communities" of Hazel Kirk, Dunkirk and Van Voorhis. A 2005 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described a guy documenting all the disappearing "coal towns" of Pennsylvania, including Hazel Kirk. A 1984 newspaper article describes the danger of flooding because of ice jams at Hazel Kirk and Van Voorhis. A 1968 news article is datelined "Hazel Kirk", discussing mine fires. A 1905 news article differentiates between the Hazel Kirk mines and the community named Hazel Kirk. A 1988 news article discusses a power outage in Carroll Township affecting Hazel Kirk residents. I think the article should be kept because the place has an interesting history, and the topic can be made informative enough for our readers. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm amazed at how mere mentions that someplace exists (something not in dispute) keeps getting seen as significant coverage. Even the first source you cite here is a table that names the mine, then gives the address as someplace else. Apparently separating the fact that there were mines named Hazel Kirk from an actual notable community named Hazel Kirk is not possible. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder why so much effort is being expended to erase valid and useful information from the encyclopedia. The place exists, we all agree, so why delete it? Various interesting events have occurred in this place; a fuller article may be composed about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. OUTCOMES documents the overwhelming precedent at past AFDs that real communities whose existence is proven will be kept; this article is no different from the subjects of past AFDs. A major reason that we keep communities is that local histories are routinely printed about them, although many haven't yet made it online; someone who visits the Washington city library or the university libraries in Washington, California, or Pittsburgh will find reliable local histories that discuss this community's history. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Until someone visits? Um, I'm the only one in the conversation that has visited the Washington library (hundreds of times), and the Observer-Reporter offices We're here citing mere mentions as coverage. If this amount of coverage were being given to an actor, he'd likely get deleted. Same for a company. But the argument to avoid WP:ITEXISTS seems to get suspended when it's a signpost along a back road or named similarly to some mines that had an actual event.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being, of course, that notability for actors is a relatively high bar while the notability of populated communities is the lowest of low bars. Long-established precedent is that named populated communities of confirmed existence are kept. I appreciate that you are apparently local and feel strongly about this, but this seems a clearcut keep per both precedent and cited sources. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per every keep !vote above. Why prolong this converstation?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  23:54, 25 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. SpinningSpark 01:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MizzFIT[edit]

MizzFIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is apparently an article about MizzFIT and not about Bianca Jade. That's just a false veneer trying to hide it's true purpose. But for now I'll pretend. Since this is about MizzFIT lets look at the sources. Passing mentions of the subject. EG The New YorK Post used three times. A Baldwin attends an avent related to MizzFIT, passing mention that is so important that this "encycopedia" article fells it's so important to use it repeatedly. Look at the rest, which provides independent covereage of MizzFIT beyound saying Bianca Jade of MizzFIT. A bunch of pieces where they talk to Jade, they mention Jade or are provided by MizzFIT or Jade (not independent). Stopping pretending, This is just an attempt to backdoor an article about Bianca Jade pretending to be about her website. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If in doubt, WP:IAR to stop Wi[pipedia from being overtaken by spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of credible sources, what exists has been stretched out beyond reason. No significant coverage about the website or its role in the grander scheme of things. Passing mentions, but no extensive coverage. As this is the third time the page has been created, would salting be appropriate? Mabalu (talk) 11:38, 27 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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Prophetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Musical group, but I can't find any indepth, reliable, and independent sources which discuss it. All sources are superficial (mere listings of their recordings) or they aren't reliable (a few non-reliable blogs) or they aren't independent (the group's own website, for example). It doesn't appear that any reliable sources have covered this group outside of themselves, and as such, the article does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. Jayron32 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]