< 13 May	15 May >

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) 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Michael Schwartze[edit]

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

Is an honorary consul a notable position; is there really much else to claim notability here? I think he fails GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem notable. Note: 1 of the 2 references is to the German wikipedia. 1292simon (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And that other source is just the website of the German embassy to Australia. I could find no independent news coverage. The German Wikipedia article has just one source (again, a link to the embassy website). Perhaps notability enforcement is more lax there... Marechal Ney (talk) 21:18, 21 May 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) 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Weku[edit]

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

Request by article subject. VRTS ticket # 2013051210004547. L Faraone 23:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written BLP about a subject that fails WP:ATHLETE. L Faraone 23:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:athlete 1292simon (talk) 05:27, 18 May 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) 01:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Vada[edit]

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

Player has only played for youth teams so far. He lacks notability. Jaellee (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 483.000 results when you google Vada's name and you carry on asserting he hasn't received "significant coverage". So I am asking, what does "significant coverage" means exactly? To what extend "significant coverage" would reach an acceptable level in your opinion? Let's take another example. Nicolas Maurice-Belay, a player from Bordeaux has half the google results (287.000) as Valentin Vada. But he plays on a professional level in the first team, and has received less media coverage than Vada. And Nicolas M-Belay gets an english Wikipedia page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedropunky (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although he seems to have signed for a Ligue 1 team, he isn't listed as a player on the FC Girondins de Bordeaux page and the article says he is still playing U19 - which fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. As there is not enough in-depth coverage in reliable source, the subject also fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I found online was about him signing for the club, which is not enough. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pedropunky Pedropunky (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)He might not be listed on the Girondins de Bordeaux Wikipedia page, but he sure is listed on their official website... There also has been a large coverage in the french medias on the player (google.fr), due to the administrative case between the player and the FIFA, who considered the player too young (under 18) to play in Europe, despite him holding an Italian passport. THe matter has been resolved, but before his signature, the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona or Man Utd claimed through agents to be able to sign the player in 2 days. See http://keirradnedge.com/2011/10/29/bordeaux-take-on-fifa-at-cas-over-starlet-vada/ Plus there is a huge difference between the french media coverage on this issue and the english speaking media coverage.. No wonder you want to delete this page... I am gonna make a french wikipedia page instead which will surely get me less problems.Pedropunky (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Pedropunky[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. L Faraone 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RtlCreateUserThread[edit]

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

Was PROD but contributor removed the tag, API calls are not of themselves notable, and the article does not provide any indication this call is exceptional. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is part of the undocumented Windows NT kernel API, but I don't see how it merits an article. I can't even recommend a redirect to Architecture of Windows NT, it wouldn't make any sense. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and as much as per nom is frowned upon, the nomination summarizes succincly the case for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTMANUAL. 1292simon (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real way that this random command can be developed into an article. It is not particularly significant and, as a computer command, has not received news coverage. Marechal Ney (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kulmun[edit]

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

Non-notable school club/group. Completely bereft of third party reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG standard of notability GrapedApe (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be one of many articles on run-of-the-mill model UN groups propped up by self-published sources. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seomun[edit]

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

Non-notable school club/group. Completely bereft of third party sources, so it fails WP:GNG standard of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be one of many articles on run-of-the-mill model UN groups propped up by self-published sources. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 14 May 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. L Faraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Vista Lake[edit]

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

Since we cannot even find secondary sources to establish whether it is a private or public lake, I think it is just difficult to maintain an article where we cannot verify information about it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Geographic features are deemed to be inherently notable, but the information must meet verifiability. I can find no sources to verify that the lake exists. I searched for the name at the Geographic Names Information System and turned up nothing. I generated a list of all lakes and reservoirs in Pike County PA to review manually, and found no lake with a name that was even similar to Penn Vista Lake. Perhaps it is know by some other name. I'll happily change my mind if we can get one reliable source to verify it's existence. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not named on the USGS topo map, but it is named on Google Maps at 41°15′45″N 75°16′45″W / 41.2625°N 75.2793°W / 41.2625; -75.2793. Looks rather like an overgrown farm pond to me. Deor (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be about 200 metres in diameter. I wouldn't call that a major geographic feature and its ~~lake~~lack of an entry in the GNIS would make this for me, and unremarkable bit of water. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS to establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 05:34, 18 May 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. L Faraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egothor[edit]

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

Article doesn't make a clear assertion of notability ("currently mostly used as a demo or in small scale projects"); no secondary sources in the article; no obvious secondary sources when I searched for them. On the other hand this is not a topic that I know much about; does the fact that it is an open source search engine written in Java and can perform both vector and Boolean search render it notable? This does not seem likely to me. TheGrappler (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a fair number of hits in CS literature but they are just passing mentions, for example [1] [2] [3]. I get the impression that the it may be notable within the academia, but that would still leave us with only the developer's website to base the article on — Frankie (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. No need for a standalone article. Merge if a suitable parent article exists, references could be better though... 1292simon (talk) 05:35, 18 May 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. L Faraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Brawl[edit]

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

Unremarkable cancelled game. Nothing establishing why this game's short-lived production was in any way notable, or why it being cancelled was in any way notable. All that we have for this game is a logo and a vague description of how the characters would look. — Richard BB 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created the article back when it was actually slated for release. There was very little information about it then and this didn't get any better as it continually got delayed and then finally canceled. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom. Feedback ^☎ 12:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. STATic message me! 13:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jewishprincess (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Richard BB and Jtalledo.LM2000 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This decision does not mean that a merge discussion can not be continued. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICCF U.S.A.[edit]

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

Not notable, over-detailed, unsourced, puffery. Redirect declined for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not worth effort to clean up. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Sourcable. ("Not worth effort" - who's effort? You don't seem to be the editor inclined to do the cleanup. How is it that you can put a value on other editors' time?) ("Over-detailed". Agreed, but that can be trimmed and is not a reason to delete. "Redirect declined for no reason". A blatant lie. You attempted to destroy the article by circumventing process with a REDIRECT, as stated in the revert edit sum.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a GNews search for "ICCF US chess" seems to run to three pages, most of which look like reliable, non-trivial sources, many some are in snippet view and/or paywalled. It certainly appears that the coverage exceeds the tagging. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to add the coverage, or are you going to leave in its present condition, which is more tag than article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is your newest argument for Delete, that because the article has so many tags, it should be deleted?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is, if you think it's notable, prove it. Don't just say "but but but, there are sources!" Show me where they are. Add them. Do anything to fix the article. Don't say "keep" unless you wanna do something to improve it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been receiving The Chess Correspondent since the 1970s and have a virtual library of (hardcopy) issues, ISSN 0009-3327. It used to be published bi-monthly but is now published quarerly. [4]. The magazine has won several awards as you can see. Are you saying this publication counts for nothing? Do you really know what you are talking about?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't beat around the bush. Do any of the magazine issues mention this thing or not? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they do. I have over 100 issues, have looked at them usually casually in the last many years when they've arrived. I still have most all of them. Also, Chess Life magazine has had a monthly correspondence chess column ("The Check is in the Mail") for many years, author mostly Alex Dunne. I'm sure ICCF-related matters have been presented in that magazine as well when they relate to their organizations. The WP policy, and AfD, demands for notability that an article can be sourced, not that it is at the time demanded by an editor filing an AfD. (Please be considerate in what you might respond with, if anything. Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, let the article improve itself. If we just sit on it and do nothing, it'll become an FA overnight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a 1991 book by Alex Dunne, The Complete Guide to Correspondence Chess (Thinkers Press). I don't have it, but Google Books says 35 pages contain "ICCF" [5], and since Dunne is a US postal player I'm sure it would be a source for some of the ICCF relationship topics. (I'm not going to buy the book because I'm not a fan of Dunne for specifics reasons I won't elaborate on here. I beat him in a USCF postal game, and playing him left a bad taste in my mouth.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have that book and also the 1980 book Correspondence Chess, by Hanon Russell. The books aren't indexed, so I'm going to have to search. However, Russell does talk about the CCLA (as it was named then) on page 171. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I found, by the way, were passing mentions that just say "X was a member of ICCF USA". Do you really think that's enough to flesh out a whole article?! Get real. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability claim not supported by sources. The only references I found were passing mentions, so perhaps people voting "keep" might like to provide specific links. PS please keep things WP:civil with WP:faith. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending the delete request to the current USA ICCF delegate. IF he wishes to expand the article or revise it - fine. I wrote the article but I do not wish to revise it so I leave it to better people. --Yoavd (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can supply at least one reference establishing notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two independent sources added, establishing notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to sound harsh, but references verifying that they published a fanzine does not establish notability for the article. 1292simon (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fanzine - it is a legitimate publication, starting in 1930. And the two books establish notability of the organization. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:1292simon, according to American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.), a fanzine is "an amateur-produced fan magazine". There is nothing mentioned in this thread even remotely approaching that definition, so what ever are you talking about?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sample issue of it can be here, and you can see whether or not it is a fanzine. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link is dead. I think u mean this. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That sure doesn't seem like a fanzine to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The organization still calls themselves the "Correspondence Chess League of America", not "ICCF U.S.A." - even though they are the official ICCF member for the US. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a bit confused. I thought that ICCF-US or ICCF-USA was the new name of the CCLA. But this says that the CCLA and USCF (and another organization that is ending) comprise ICCF-US. The CCLA seems to be the main organization, not the ICCF-US, so perhaps the article should be about the CCLA. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I thought the CCLA and the ICCF-US was the same thing. It seems that they are not. The references I gave are actually for CCLA. I wrote to the ICCF-US yesterday to see if they could clarify the relationship but I haven't gotten a reply. Here is some info. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is the answer of Leonard Schakel the delegate of ICCF-US.

Forwarded message ----------

From: Leonard Schakel Date: Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Article about ICCF US To: Yoav Dothan

Hi Yoav, I could update it, or have someone do that, if deletion is being considered because it is not current. I would appreciate your opinion and suggestions. The only source that could easily be provided is iccfus.com. The criticism that it sounds like an editorial/opinion does not sound right. It’s just history and facts, correct as of 2007. I’d be glad to update it, but would not want to put in the effort if it will be deleted anyway. Best wishse! Cork

HE added:

Hi Yoav, OK. I have not figured out how to add comments, but will go after it today. It sounds like an account is needed to edit, and will target to get it done in the next week. Cork

--Yoavd (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the relationship between the ICCF-USA and the CCLA? Should the article be more about the CCLA? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Correspondence Chess Federation, since the child article is larger than its parent. Sources should be added to the article, not merely listed at the AfD discussion. Miniapolis 13:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Article is only supported by 4 distinct references and sourcing inline with that makes for a substandard article. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 14 May 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, Dea db eef 21:42, 14 May 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. L Faraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Darley-Usmar[edit]

((Please delete this article. I m not the subject. I worked with Victor Darley-Usmar and I created the article. Dr. Darley-Usmar recently contacted me and asked that the article about him be deleted. Please comply with this request and delete the article. Thanks.))

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

The subject of this article, Victor Darley-Usmar, requested that the article about him be deleted. Can you please remove the article from Wikipedia? Thanks.

Completing incomplete nom by Brzelick (talk · contribs). — Train2104 (talk • contribs) — and Dea db eef 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject passes WP:PROF criterion 5. With respect to the subject, he is notable enough for inclusion, and the article is not negatively written. Dea db eef 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Brzelick (talk · contribs) is the author of this article and has requested its deletion. As there have been no other content contributors (excluding minor/general fixes and categorization), I would have no issue seeing the article deleted as a CSD G7 (author request). I also sway towards deletion as a courtesy since the author is also the subject and sourcing is minimal. No predjudice on recreation if somebody wished to create a properly sourced article that meets notability requirements. --auburnpilot talk 03:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree generally (as per below), there have been enough edits from other editors to disqualify the article from G7. The rub is that those edits came after the AFD began. But there's no way to unring that bell. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing both WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited researcher) and #C5 (he holds an endowed chair at UAB). I can go along with subject requests in marginal cases but this one is pretty clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I just added some better sources to the article. It turns out that he is also an editor in chief of a journal and may pass #C8 on that basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a GS h-index of nearly 60, enough for even a highly cited area. The article does not seem offensive. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment this is somewhat problematic. The article seems to contain information from personal knowledge in violation of WP:NOR, and WP:V. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed some information about his family that should not be in the article without a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, there's quite a bit more (e.g. date of birth, the year can at least be corroborated through www.findmypast.co.uk, as strange as it seems he seems to have an unique name). But yes, we need to strip out the unverified stuff and see if what's left is worth salvaging. Not in Who's Who, btw. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is, as Xxan and David have said, too notable for us to delete. But perhaps some administrator can apply pending changes or semiprotection to the article as a BLP whose subject has had overly personal information posted on it in the past? Ray^Talk 14:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, so this is not within the discretionary range. But it's standard practice to omit exact day of birth if the subject requests, and leave only the year. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cases like this demonstrate the bankruptcy of WP:PROF. A living individual - whom no independent publishers have heretofore profiled - finds himself the subject of an article in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. He reasonably requests deletion. Nay, says the wikibureaucracy, because the subject passes the accolade-based criteria at WP:PROF.
I personally find WP:PROF to be a very silly, but mostly harmless, policy. All that is needed is WP:N in my view: a subject can be the focus of a neutral article on Wikipedia if and only if it or he has so been elsewhere. When WP:PROF is wrongheadedly taken to trump WP:N, CV-like disasters like this article are the results. Wrongheaded, but mostly harmless, I said. But when the subject himself requests deletion and he does not pass the gold standard of WP:N, the request should be honored. 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the case for notability here is thin indeed, and trumped by the subject's own request. If the notability were more clear cut, obviously it would be a different question - but I don't think the weight of evidence here supports a keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am insufficiently familiar with US academic titles (withe every lefcturer being a professor), but I thought that the holder of a named professorship was regardfed as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 22 May 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. L Faraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Fiedler[edit]

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

I haven't seen a tremendous amount of coverage and this seems like a solid case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Mkdw ^talk 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E , even if some might argue that he was dead during that event. There seems little potential for an actual biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- Scray (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear case of WP:BLP1E ("living" obviously applies because if he'd died then nobody would be paying any attention). He might be mentioned in Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation if anyone had any sources, but based on the terrible state of the article and the fact that he's done nothing except undergo a medical procedure, deletion is called for. There may be a case for an article for very exceptional subjects of very significant medical procedures, e.g. first heart transplant patient or first test tube baby, but only if they receive a lot of detailed press coverage, which this doesn't meet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What is notable and being covered is the resuscitation tecchnique for what I was able to find. See [6] for an aexmaple. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 15 May 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. L Faraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Kick Boxing Organisation[edit]

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

Another minor kickboxing organization with no claims of notability or significant independent coverage. It doesn't even have champions for the great majority of its divisions.Mdtemp (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search turned up a couple YouTube videos that I didn't bother watching and a Sherdog page from 1998 about a single fight (which ended in a draw). --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Search turns up no good secondary sources.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 04:07, 15 May 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. L Faraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Professional Kickboxing Council[edit]

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

Kickboxing organization with no claims of notability and no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable coverage exists. Even the existing article claims this is a minor sanctioning organization. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons mentioned above.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More/less[edit]

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

Non-notable sculpture. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This clearly fails WP:GNG. The artists do not have articles and if they are not notable, then their work most likely is not notable on its own. This is obviously a case of WP:TOOSOON. It looks like an interesting work of art but Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability. freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 15 May 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. L Faraone 23:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Full Contact Association[edit]

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

There is no significant independent coverage of this organization and nothing to show notability. The article's only source is to a report on a fight that said that a WFCA title was on the line and that's just a passing mention.Mdtemp (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, for now, per nom this article needs secondary sources. I wasnt able to find any on the google machine. However, this organization does seem to have, per their web site, global reach, so if so the secondary sources should be there. Maybe I'm missing them, but if the author can supply them there is no notability here.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "unless the author can supply them" instead of "if ..."? Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found nothing to show this organization is notable. There's a definite lack of WP:SIGCOV--even the article lacks good sources. For an organization founded in 1997, I also think it's strange that all 64 of the full contact titles listed on its website are vacant [7]. Most of the titles for the other fighting rules (MMA, kickboxing, MT, etc.) are also vacant. The few world championship bouts that have been held are usually between two Dutch fighters (the WFCA is headquartered there). There is certainly no indication that this is a significant worldwide fighting organization. Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 20 May 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 Sensation. L Faraone 23:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthesia[edit]

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

See page history Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't this go to WP:RFD? Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a redirect in it's current state. Does it really even matter that much? Aren't the procedures the same? Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 00:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sensation as it did originally. I agree this is the wrong forum, but also it shouldn't have been blanked. In this case, reverting to the uncontroversial redirect is the best immediate action; it could then be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if there is more debate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sense or Sensation (psychology), as Aesthesia means "ability to feel or perceive sensations". I was responsible for the page blanking by the way — sorry about that, I wasn't aware of the policy for redirect deletion and assumed that blanking a redirect was equivalent to requesting a speedy deletion. After reading through the redirect policy I now feel this page should point to its antonym, sense. --Xiaphias (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sensation (psychology) as per the above. Sensation is off the table because it is a disambiguation page - far better, generally, to redirect to a specific target. We have one, in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:06, 22 May 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 Sonauli, Bihar. J04n(talk page) 01:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonouli[edit]

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

This appears to be a fork of Sonauli, Bihar which in turn was split off due to naming conflict from Sonauli. I considered redirecting this article to Sonaului, Bihar but "Sonouli" does not appear to be a transliteration that is in use for this town so I am submitting for deletion instead. Whpq (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonauli, Bihar. I agree that these two articles are duplicates (the details in them, such as proximity to Mashrakh, make this clear), and both Google Maps and Map My India label the village as Sonauli. But "Sonouli" may be a legitimate spelling variant, as Google Maps (26°03′43″N 84°44′49″E / 26.062°N 84.747°E / 26.062; 84.747) uses that spelling in the name of the main road through the village, as well as a local pond and the village's post office and mosque. In any event, we don't need two unsourced articles on the same place. Deor (talk) 16:07, 15 May 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. L Faraone 23:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūkyū Province[edit]

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

See WP talk:WikiProject Japan#Ryūkyū province and domain in which some argue that the article about the province should not exist. In other words, some argue in effect that Ryūkyū Province should not be in Template:Japan Old Province and Category:Provinces of Japan despite cited sources in the article here Maybe this venue can generate a wider discussion which leads to consensus? --Ansei (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I think the page should not be deleted, but this AfD venue may be needed in order to parse the relevant issues.
In a conventional AfD discussion, it would not be off-topic to cite US Department of State. (1906). A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements (John Bassett Moore, ed.), Vol. 5, p. 759. --Ansei (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article subject. The fact that Ryūkyū Province is in an 1899 revision to 1894 Japan-US and Japan-UK treaties shows a need for this article. In other words, the article is needed to answer the questions "What and where is Ryukyu Province?"

Cited sources show that noteworthy scholars have written about this subject. For example,

George H. Kerr thought the subject was important enough to include it in the title of his 1953 book Ryukyu Kingdom and Province before 1945.
Ronald Toby thought the subject was important enough to mention it in his 1991 book State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia and the development of the Tokugawa bakufu (citing research at the Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo); excerpt, "Ieyasu granted the Shimazu clan the right to "rule" over Ryukyu ... [and] contemporary Japanese even referred to the Shimazu clan as 'lords of four provinces', which could only mean that they were including the Ryukyuan kingdom in their calculations"; accord Steve Rabson. (1997). "Assimilation Policy in Okinawa: Promotion, Resistance, and "Reconstruction," New directions in the study of Meiji Japan: Proceedings of the Conference on Meiji Studies, held at Harvard University from May 4-6, 1994 (Helen Hardacre, ed.), p. 639.

The notability of this small subject and the need for an article about Ryūkyū Province is proven by these cited sources. The fact that this also the subject of a current dispute among scholars here is another reason for keeping and improving this article -- not deleting it or marginalizing the subject in a merge.

If I am mistaken in this, I hope this AfD thread will help me understand. Unless this AfD thread shows me how to reason through this problem differently, I can't know why or how this cite-based reasoning process is flawed. --Ansei (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider: the National Archives of Japan (NAJ) includes maps which have been digitized. The NAJ explains that there were four times that the Tokugawa ordered cadastral maps of every "kuni" in Japan -- including Ryūkyū-no-kuni. The maps were created in Keicho (1596–1615), Shoho (1644–1648), Genroku (1688-1704) and Tenpō (1830–1844) -- see "Genroku Kuniezu" and related pages which are in English.

Is this not graphic and documentary support for the existence of an article about Ryūkyū-no kuni (琉球国) (Ryūkyū Province)? --Ansei (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ansei, it is not. Did you even read your reference? First, it references "Ryukyu-koku", not "Ryukyu no Kuni". And as stated below, "Ryukyu-koku" means "Ryukyu Kingdom". It does NOT mean "Ryukyu Province". Such an entity never existed. During this period, Ryukyu was a tributary state of Japan (and of China); it was NOT a province of Japan. Ryukyu was never recognized as a province, only a domain and a prefecture. In fact, did you notice how all the real provinces in your link end in "-no-Kuni" whereas Ryukyu ends in "-koku"? That's because "-no-Kuni" signifies province and Ryukyu was never a province. Even user Shikai_Shaw, who started the "Ryukyu Province" article has now admitted that it should be deleted. Your obstinacy in the face of evidence has not changed since your editing ban. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered all EN sources cited by Ansei for this AfD. All sources are not authoritative, misquoted, or both. There is no debate between even ultranationalists on de jure status of Ryukyu from 1609 to 1872. It is fiction to think it was a actual de jure province during this time period. Ryukyu Province and Ryukyu Domain should be single article, written better to emphasize change of status in Ryukyu and final fall of Sho Dynasty, and covering only 1872 to 1879. More debate on this AfD is not productive. Jun Kayama 08:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- Ryūkyū Province into Ryūkyū Kingdom or Delete and possibly even Salt.
Strong Delete and Salt. Article is fiction and WP:OR. Regardless of other controversies about status of Ryukyu islands, no Ryukyu Province existed from 1609 to 1872, and no verifiable source will demonstrate it ever had this de jure status during time period in question.

- Ryūkyū Kingdom retained limited diplomatic autonomy and a sovereign head of state in Shō Nei even under subservience to Satsuma [8].

- Any document after 1871 referencing it as province in then-contemporary affairs is a reflection of the Abolition of the han system and not de jure existence of Ryūkyū Province from 1609.

- Main EN language source supporting Ryūkyū Province here [9] states on page 47 the Bakufu regarded Ryukyu as a foreign country and status was not 国 under Satsuma.

- Other EN language source from article [10] on page 31 describes Ryukyu continued to function as a quasi-independent country throughout the Tokugawa Period and not as 令制国.

- It is not even on List of provinces of ancient Japan as 令制国.

Content of Ryūkyū Province is thin and not properly supported by JA language sources. Even the EN language sources do not support it. Ryūkyū Province is fiction. There is no good reason for this article to exist as historical reference. Jun Kayama 06:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ JunKayama --Yes, thank you for helping to sharpen the focus. Your bullet points are clear, but there are problems in the summary conclusions of the first sentence and the last paragraph.

Yes, according to The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, "[t]he status of Ryukyu is ambiguous when looked at from the perspective of modern European international law, although there appears to have been no serious issues concerning the status of Ryukyu at that time." Please notice that the word "ambiguous" plus cite support has been added in the opening sentence here. Also please notice that the cited excerpt from Ernest Satow in the Geography section highlights the ambiguity by naming specific islands and also explaining that "[t]he ordinary maps of Japan do not include any of the islands south of Yaku no Shima".

Yes, because of its fuzzy logic, this subject and this article are difficult to parse using a pigeonholing process . --Ansei (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - de jure status of Ryukyu from Ming or Qing Chinese perspective was that of independent kingdom. Likewise, de jure status of Ryukyu from Tokugawa Bakufu and Satsuma perspective was that of quasi-independent kingdom under control of Satsuma for reasons of prestige. There is no issue of Ryukyu being a province to then-contemporary Japanese in 1609, regardless of de facto control by Satsuma. Retroactively branding Ryukyu a 令制国 is historical fiction.

Page 482 of your last quoted source [11]: (C)oncepts of modern European international law such as the sovereign State, territorial sovereignty, the sovereign States system, or the State boundary cannot be directly applied to East Asia in early modern times. None of the EN sources in Ryūkyū Province support consideration of Ryukyu to be other than a tributary foreign vassal state of Satsuma with its own hereditary non-Japanese monarchy until 1879. ~~I will not change my vote.~~ Jun Kayama 13:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ JunKayama -- Yes, it is very much on-point to highlight the "Ming or Qing Chinese perspective". I would guess that the post-Qing Chinese perspective is also implied by what you write.

The understandable attention given to the term "de facto" is not wrong. This distracting word has been removed from the article here.

It is helpful to me that you continue to focus on what the cited sources support. It may be constructive to highlight the sentence which follows the excerpt you cite from the Oxford handbook above,

" [C]oncepts of modern European international law such as the sovereign State, territorial sovereignty, the sovereign States system, or the State boundary cannot be directly applied to East Asia in early modern times. That is definitely one reason why Ryukyu's status seems to be puzzling.

The word "puzzling" is useful in the context of this AfD thread. In part, this article needs to exist precisely because the subject is puzzling. It is the subject of likely questions. In part, the article needs to exist because it is a subject of dispute as mentioned in the Oxford handbook,

"This issue is still now under much heated discussion. In the report of the Joint Japan-China History Committee (31 January 2010), the Japanese insisted that Ryukyu was under effective control of the Satsuma domain from the 17th century and that this fact was known to China, while the Chinese persevered that Ryukyu was an independent state until 1879, when Ryukyu was annexed by Japan."

The purpose of our encyclopedia article is not to resolve anything, but instead, can we agree that the purpose of Ryūkyū Province is to provide an overview of a verifiable subject which is ambiguous and puzzling and disputed? --Ansei (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My answer is no. The only ambiguity here is the EN cited sources, which are quoted selectively and completely out of context. Article is misleading, it implies that Ryukyu Kingdom was 令制国, which is the foundation for stating it was a 'province'. It never held such status. Tokugawa Bakufu and Satsuma never gave it such status. How could Shogunate ever rationalize having two hereditary monarchies in Japan, with one on a 'province'?

Post-Qing is not important. Issue ends at 1879 on creation of Okinawa Prefecture. JA Wikipedia AfD was not wrong. Cited EN sources also do not support Ryukyu as 令制国. There was vested interest for Tokugawa Bakufu and Satsuma to maintain structure of semi-autonomous Ryukyu Kingdom. EN sources do not support this article. No serious JA source would ever support this article. I will only change my position if there is historical document in JA from Tokugawa Bakufu which recognizes Ryukyu as 令制国 while stating without equivocation Sho Dynasty has no status as the ruling hereditary monarchy of the Ryukyu Kingdom from 1609-1872. Such document does not exist. Jun Kayama 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to learn that you think the article is misleading. Please edit any sentence which is written in a misleading way. I hope to learn how to write better as I think carefully about any changes you make. If there is no specific problem with any specific sentence, then I'm a uncertain about the point you're trying to make. --Ansei (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Specific problem is with entire article. It is historical fiction and WP:OR. None of the EN sources can demonstrate Ryukyu Province ever existed from 1609 - 1872 because it did not actually exist. ~~This is not personal vendetta. I don't care about admonish, censure, or edit war.~~ This is the most annoying AfD I have ever seen. This article is historical fiction, JA Wikipedia killed it in AfD for that reason, and selective quoting of obscure academic text in EN does not change historical reality. From 1609 to 1872, Ryukyu Kingdom existed as tributary vassal state of Satsuma with distinct head of state for convenience of all parties, until façade was no longer necessary in 1872 and it became Ryukyu Domain in status reduction, with Shō Tai forced to abdicate in 1879 to create Okinawa Prefecture. How is this unclear? This is not "agree to disagree" situation. Length of this AfD discussion is ridiculous. I now want to see this article if deleted become Salted. Jun Kayama 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and admonish Ansei: Ansei has been edit warring over the difference between the Ryukyu Domain and the Ryukyu Province ever since we had two articles on the subject made by another editor, but then he changed his mind about it. It would seem that the Japanese Wikipedia has discovered that the "令制国" version never existed according to any records they could find. There was no need to bring this to AFD when the page could have just been left as a damn redirect instead of restoring the content fork of Ryukyu Domain, but you just kept edit warring.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, Ansei, you didn't even put this on the AFD log.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC), I added this AFD to the May 14, 2013, AFD log as it was never listed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once this debate ends, make sure you alert the Chinese Wikipedians about zh:琉球國 (令制), depending on how it goes here WhisperToMe (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese have their own concept of what happened to the islands so it's probably not going to help anything there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even they would not object to seeing this particular article AfD, considering their position is the same on the de jure status of Ryukyu Kingdom being independent until 1872. Jun Kayama 10:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess the important thing for me is that 令制国 provinces were formal government divisions. So we can point to the specific date on which Iwaki Province was established in 1868, for example, and the government act that did it. It's clear (to me, at least) that there was no de jure Ryukyu Province in existence prior to the Meiji Period since, whatever its de facto status, everyone was at least pretending it was an independent state. And if Ryukyu Province was established during the Meiji Period, there would be a easily found paper trail. The term "琉球国" does appear in some Meiji period government documents post-dating the establishment of Okinawa Prefecture, primarily in a geographical sense. But my guess would be that that is read "Ryukyu-koku" rather than "Ryukyu-no-kuni". Cckerberos (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* That is the case in contemporary use. [12] [13] [14] Jun Kayama 21:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly "Ryukyu-koku", and it does not refer to it being a province of Japan. See, for example, the entry for 琉球国 from 平凡社's 日本歴史地名大系, in which it clearly states: 琉球国は元来、日本の古代律令制に由来する国ではなく、日本とは別個に独立した小国として誕生した. [15] In other words, 琉球国 was an independent country (i.e., the Ryukyu Kingdom). It was never a province under the Ritsuryo system. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm well aware of the modern usage of 琉球国. But the Japanese National Archives uses "Ryukyu-no-kuni" rather than "Ryukyu-koku" for 1870s maps of 琉球国. [16] And when a 1894 law uses "琉球国那覇港", it's not referring to the no longer existent independent country, it's referring to a place in what had already become Okinawa prefecture. [17] So it's not like there's no chance that 琉球国 was read "Ryukyu-no-kuni" during the early Meiji period, even though no province existed. Cckerberos (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are dated to Meiji Year 6, which is 1873. Discard of old system of naming (廃藩置県) was in effect from 1871 and not complete until 1888. Status reduction of Ryukyu Kingdom to 藩 started in 1872. Naming it as Ryukyu-no-kuni in 1873 is statement of de facto state of affairs already in place (not Kingdom, really just a Province) because façade was over year before in 1872, but it would be much more likely to be Ryukyu-koku for this time period. Naming conventions were in flux during this time for even personal name order. Considering background upheaval caused by social and political reform is useful. Intent of Meiji government was to destroy all old domain/provinces for new order in 廃藩置県. Jun Kayama 13:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jun Kayama -- Please consider Kanenori Matsuo. (2005). The Secret Royal Martial Arts of Ryūkyū, p. 40., p. 40, at Google Books; excerpt, "In 1872, Ryukyu Province was formed, and in 1874, ties were broken with Qing China. Due to this, Japanese and Chinese tensions continued. In 1879, the Meiji government occupied the royal castle by force, and abolished the province, simultaneously establishing Ryukyu Prefecture" (bold added)? This brief excerpt seems to go along with your diff above. As I evaluate the available information, a modest basis for an article about Ryūkyū Province is explained, in part, by your diff and by this cite ... in addition to the other cite support which has been listed above. --Ansei (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ansei. What is your point? Your source quite obviously uses the term "province" incorrectly. If he's saying that the "province" was established in 1872, then he is referring to 琉球藩 (= Ryūkyū Domain), not what you've called 琉球国 ("Ryūkyū Province" <--- note, this "province" never existed; Okinawa was a vassal state of Japan that also paid tribute to China during this period. It was NOT a province of Japan.) Please stop citing sources that are quite obviously incorrect. "Ryūkyū Domain" should be an article; "Ryūkyū Province" should not. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am incredulous this AfD is still up. Jun Kayama 06:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Japanese Wikipedia used to have an article for this, but it was recently deleted on account of it being bullshit: [18] Bueller 007 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The official name of the Ryukyu Kingdom is "琉球国" (琉球國). "国" has multiple meanings in Japanese. (country, state, province, home, etc...) Therefore, the evidence "Ryūkyū Province" that was present, laws and regulations of Japan is required. More than it can not be found, should we think that it was a common name only, like Ezo Province or Karafuto Province. In addition, article of Karafuto Province has been removed. Delete reason is non-existent law Karafuto Province that was established. This is the same as the reason for deletion of the Ryūkyū Province. See ja:ノート:樺太国/削除 and ja:ノート:琉球国 (令制). I thought that I needed an article on "Ryūkyū Province" in English version, but because there was an article in the Japanese version, Because the evidence is not found, it is removed, it is unnecessary longer article.--shikai shaw (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be helpful to highlight a constructive fact -- that this thread adduced new support for the verifiability of Ryūkyū Province as an article according to the conventional standards and procedures of our en:Wikipedia project:

1609-1872 "province" verified by book written for scholarly readership + National Archives of Japan (in Japanese); (in English)
1872-1879 "province" verified by book written for general readership
1879-1947 "province" verified by US Dept. of State + National Archives of Japan (in Japanese)
1609-1947 "province" verified by book written for US Pacific Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council

Sources in English and in Japanese are complementary. Also, please notice that the cites which link to the work of scholars are enhanced by links to brief articles about them, e.g., George H. Kerr, Ronald Toby, Gregory Smits.

The intensity of preference expressed by some suggests that there is no real question of notability.

Taken together, verifiability and notability are good reasons for this article to exist. No one disputes that the content of the article may be edited in ways that reflect the opinions expressed by participants in this discussion; however, this AfD is only about whether our article about Ryūkyū Province will continue to exist, isn't it? --Ansei (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to his old tricks that got him banned, ~~Tenmei~~ Ansei is being fundamentally dishonest in citing his sources.

His first English source for 'province' status from 1609 to 1872 specifically says that "some contemporary Japanese even referred to ...[Ryukyu as a province]" (emphasis my own). Clearly if "SOME EVEN" referred to it as a province, its status as a province WAS NOT THE STATUS QUO.
There is absolutely nothing in his first Japanese source to suggest that Ryukyu is a province. Ansei cannot read Japanese. It is listed as Ryukyu-koku (which means "Kingdom of Ryukyu"), not Ryukyu-no-Kuni because it is a kingdom, NOT a province.
His source for Ryukyu being a "province" from 1872 to 1879 is clearly a mistranslation of Ryukyu Domain, which was founded in 1872 and abolished in 1879. It provides absolutely no support for the Ryukyu Province (1609–1872) article whose deletion is being debated here.
1879-1947 province???? Seriously? Now you know that Ansei is desperate. First of all, EVERYONE knows that Okinawa was made a prefecture in 1879, NOT A PROVINCE. And in any case this is once again completely irrelevant to the article in question which deals with the status of Ryukyu from 1609–1872. Finally, I see no support for this in his links, as---at least in my country---there is no preview for these sources.
1609-1947. Once again, "province" status not supported by his reference as far as I can tell from Google Books' snippet view, except for a single line about Okinawa being considered a province in 1890. Again, this obviously refers to Okinawa Prefecture, and it is completely irrelevant to the status of Ryukyu from 1609 to 1872.

Ansei, stop wasting everyone's time and just admit that you were wrong. Ryukyu was NOT a province; the Japanese Wikipedia article was deleted for a reason. If you wish to learn something about Okinawan history during this period, feel free to consult the Ph.D. dissertation Becoming Okinawan: Japanese Capitalism and Changing Representations of Okinawa by Wendy Matsumura, freely available online [[19]]. Or any other reliable source of Japanese history. Ryukyu was a KINGDOM from 1609 to 1872. As such, it was a vassal state of Japan (specifically the Satsuma Domain) and also a tributary of China. This is fact. All you have to do is look up Disposition of Ryukyu (琉球処分, Ryūkyū shobun) in a Japanese dictionary/encyclopedia or online to see that Okinawa was a kingdom (not a province) until 1879. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has highlighted many on-point aspects of this small subject. Perhaps we can sharpen the focus a bit? In addition to the other reliable sources cited above, this article is verified by Genroku kuniezu (1696-1702) which was a complete set of provincial maps (kuniezu). It included Ryūkyū. -- see Ryūkyū kuniezu shiryōshū 琉球国絵図史料集 which was published by Okinawa Prefecture. This is translated Collected historical materials of provincial maps of Ryūkyū at The History of Cartography, p. 397 n211? --Ansei (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyu was included in the provincial maps because the maps were created for tax purposes. Since Ryukyu had to pay land taxes to the Shimazu and the shogunate wanted its cut, it had to be included. You'll notice that unlike the other maps which are listed as "-no-kuni", the ones for Ryukyu are listed as "-koku". And the translation "provincial maps of Ryukyu" is due to the customary translation of "kuniezu" being "provincial maps", nothing more. But in any case, this is still nibbling around the edges of the issue: if Ryukyu Province existed, it was established as a formal governmental entity in relatively recent history. We shouldn't have to sift through vague indirect and informal references to it like it was from the Yamato Period, we should be able to just point at the mountain of official documents establishing and explicitly mentioning it. Cckerberos (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cckerberos -- Yes, thank you. The status of Ryūkyū in 1609-1872 and one strand of the arguments of Bueller 007 and Jun Kayama is summarized succinctly. This analysis implicitly recognizes that there is an ambiguous subject which further edits at Ryūkyū Province may try to explain. Although your short diff does not mention it, it bears repeating that other cited sources in this thread show that Ryūkyū's status in 1872-1879 is less ambiguous; and the meaning of "province" in 1879-1947 is different. --Ansei (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD discussion has highlighted nothing but pointlessness of retaining this article.

- Previous to 1609, status was Ryukyu Kingdom.

- After 1609 there was Invasion of Ryukyu by Satsuma. From article:

The kingdom's royal governmental structures remained intact, along with its royal lineage. The Ryukyus remained nominally independent, a "foreign country" (異国, ikoku)^[1] to the Japanese, and efforts were made to obscure Satsuma's domination of Ryukyu from the Chinese Court, in order to ensure the continuation of trade and diplomacy, since China refused to conduct formal relations or trade with Japan at the time. However, though the king retained considerable powers, he was only permitted to operate within a framework of strict guidelines set down by Satsuma, and was required to pay considerable amounts in tribute to Satsuma on a regular basis.

- To insist Ryukyu Kingdom was province from 1609 to 1872, Invasion of Ryukyu article must be edited. Also, official document (Bakufu edict, Imperial Proclamation) declaring Ryukyu Kingdom to be province and removing status of Shō Dynasties from monarch to lesser status before 1872 must be located and precisely quoted. There is no authentic position which will have Ryukyu Province exist before without reconciling status of Shō Dynasties, never mind actual Bakufu or Imperial documents. Tangential quotes of Google Books contents or titles by foreign academics, or deliberate misreading of "琉球国" (琉球國) as smoking gun is stupid and not sincere. Keep argument here has nothing, just stupid mistranslation, stupid misquote of barely relevant document or map catalogue, and stupid WP:OR.

- Content of article in terms of supporting existence of Ryukyu Province from 1609 - 1872 is not verifiable if editor has WP:GF. Article should be deleted immediately and Salted. Does AfD need one more Delete vote? Is that why this AfD is still up?

If I am mistaken in this, I hope this AfD thread will help me understand. --Ansei (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You do not understand. Saying "sharpen focus" for you is tool to try to confuse people. Maybe because you do not actually read/write/speak Japanese, maybe because you think historical truth is inconvenient to you. Several people have explained same consistent position, but you misquote all sources used, and you insist article should exist when JA Wikipedia has already tossed it because it does not conform to reality.

Ryukyu Province article needs deletion, Ryukyu Domain article needs rewrite to not be low quality, and Invasion of Ryukyu needs protection if User:Ansei edits it. Stop wasting everyone's time, User:Ansei. Jun Kayama 03:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOWBALL. The rationales for keep are resounding and spot-on per policy and guideline. The nominator's deletion rationale acts to ignore WP:NF and WP:SIGCOV. While appreciating his intentions, the nominator should understand that it is only when WP:NF and WP:GNG are failed that we then look to see if a film might meet still other inclusion criteria in their absence. The nominator is encouraged to discuss with project film, any inclusion criteria with which he may disagree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill List[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kill List

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

Kill List is low budget horror flick that fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). most of the sources are reviews by websites. Kill List was not widely distributed and grossed less than 200k, is not historically notable, not preserved in the national archive, not taught in university classes, and is not a unique accomplishment in cinema. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a topic that easily satisfies Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. The film has been reviewed by the following reliable sources: Los Angeles Times, Village Voice, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Globe, The New York Times, National Public Radio, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, Financial Times, et cetera. Darkstar1st and I were discussing whether or not Kill List should be disambiguated as Kill List (film) as seen as Talk:Kill List. He has misread WP:NFILM and assumes that a film article has to meet the criteria there. That criteria is in addition to what is at WP:GNG. In short, a film is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, the notablity guidelines for films, or both. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even without further googling, the article already shows multiple reviews from large national newspapers (we have GA-class film articles that would kill for such coverage); the film is even covered by enough secondary sources that two different review aggregation sites have collated an average review score for it, which is hardly something that happens for uncovered obscure pieces. Film clearly passes the bar at GNG. GRAPPLE X 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable enough to have an article. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Yes it's a low-budget, low-circulation film but so what? WP:GNG and associated film guidelines do not simply limit us to Oscar-winning films, Hollywood blockbusters and art films that have had university press monographs written about them. This is a film by a notable, relatively high profile and critically lauded director, which itself garnered widespread feature and review coverage. N-HH talk/edits 11:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Rotten Tomatoes lists 83 reviews. This film was widely reviewed and critically acclaimed. Being low budget is not grounds for deletion. This looks like a nomination by someone who objects to the article title rather than the article, and certainly a total failure to do the research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you are not aware of the specific guidelines for films? Kill List meets none, see above. rotten tomatoes reviews every film so do many other websites and film critics. some believe wp should includes all such films, i do not, yet encourage those who do to expand the criteria should there be community support. Britannica includes films like star wars, star trek, Firefly (film) and 2001: A Space Odyssey, but does not mention scanners, Foxfire (1996 film), Firefox (film), because they did not meet the basic benchmark. do we really need to replicate every page of IMDB here? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually suggesting that we should not have entries for, for example, Scanners or Firefox? And that excluding them would both accord with notability policy and consensus practice, and do so while making for a better information resource? Seriously? N-HH talk/edits 13:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The threshold of the notability guidelines is based on the policy of verifiability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." You are incorrect in saying that Rotten Tomatoes reviews every film; Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates film reviews in one place. Thus, it is a good place to see if there are multiple reviews from reliable sources for a given film. There are some cases where a film has a Rotten Tomatoes page but has zero reviews; the page exists for database purposes. It is the same with the Internet Movie Database; there are many, many more non-notable movies than notable ones. I'm not sure if you comprehend just how many films there exist around the world. The notability guidelines are meant to allow us to have an article in which we can talk about the film. That is the goal of this virtual encyclopedia. We are following reliable sources' leads in covering films; if they have covered it, it makes sense for us to cover it too. I strongly suggest that you read through all these policies and guidelines and understand that some of Wikipedia's best content can be from films not covered in the Britannica. That is a key drawing point of Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Request immediate closure per WP:SNOW. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 15 May 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. Spinning Spark 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revmob[edit]

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

Notability not established QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Reads like blatant advertising. For instance, "Its founder, Gui Schvartsman, is a guru of monetization and was able to make several million dollars out of these two games. " Powerpiper (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the sourcing in the article, the TNW article is okay, but is in specialty/trade magazine/site. The mobiel marketer article is marginal, and the performance marketing insider article is an interview. I could find no other coverage myself. Taken together, I don't think this is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 15 May 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. L Faraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Chameleon[edit]

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

I hate to take this into AfD, but article has already been prodded and declined. Clearly this is a real drink and can be found on a number of mixed drink sites. But no sign that it has notability apart from simply existing. The article itself consists of merely the recipe for the drink. I would lean to delete at the moment. Safiel (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic drink recipe. —teb728 t c 23:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because wikipedia is a place where you should be able to find info on anything including drinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer87 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete No book hits that aren't for actual chameleons. Wikipedia is not for mixed drink memes. Mangoe (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See WP:NOTRECIPE Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this drink in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO unless sources with significant secondary treatment are forthcoming before this AfD closes. Deor (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability or sources.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like the similar Queen Victoria (drink) (see here) and Cherry bomb (drink) (cherry coke and gin), this is not a notable drink. The Cuba libre, Gin and tonic, Harvey Wallbanger, and similar famous cocktails, are notable. Wikipedia gave up being eveything for everyone at least six years ago; we have long since required notability. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. The Angry Chameleon is not an IBA Official Cocktail nor is it on our list of notable cocktails. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 20 May 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) 00:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Esperanto Union[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a significant organization. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for every organization that has a small conference every couple of years or takes out an ad in a French paper. Article appears to be a permastub, and probably should be merged with another Esperanto article. A7 CSD was declined. p b p 16:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried finding sources in English, and while my search wasn't exhaustive, I was only able to find one additional source: Tongues are loosened at Esperanto conference in Galway. But given the nature of topic, there may be many additional sources but not in English. We should take some extra care to make sure that this topic isn't notable in non-English speaking countries before deleting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I asked the editors of our Language Reference Desk to see if they can find any non-English sources.[20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an active organization, with representation on European Commission integration platforms, and with relevance to the most important international auxiliary language in the world. A web search of the organization's actual name, instead of the English translation yields hundreds more results. The article can be significantly expanded to cover meetings and the linguistic developments arising from them, not to mention its continued involvement in larger discussions of European integration. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable organization. 86.128.5.222 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above rationale. --JorisvS (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep VanIsaac makes a good case. And the media does cover some of their activities, they worth mentioning surely. Dream Focus 20:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I count three interwiki links. Shii (tock) 08:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and being improved.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 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. L Faraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sauermann[edit]

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

Why does this article exist? Evidence why it shouldn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iurie_Boreico http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Scholze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darij_Grinberg

The same arguments as in the discussions linked to above apply here. Even much more strongly here, since the subjects above are tremendously more notable in terms of their research output (in particular Peter Scholze) and have still been excluded. Brainiac1729 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call into question the subjects notability and the categorization as a mathematician. According to WP:ACAMEDIC winning high school competitions is not a valid criterion for notability. To the second point there is no evidence cited as to the contributions to mathematics of the subject and if they bear sufficient significance for inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainiac1729 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2013

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 14. Snotbot t • c » 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nomination by a brand-new user that is purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTNOTABLE - no policy-based reason for deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I gave good rational reasons for deletion. You did not refute these reasons. I plan on making contributions to wikipedia other than this proposal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainiac1729 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree the nomination rationale amounts to "X was deleted, so Y should be too". However, in assessing the subject's notability, she fails WP:GNG as none of the three sources on the article is about her (though one of those three is open to debate) and I could find no further sources about her. WP:ACADEMIC specifically excludes winning high school student competitions as a criterion for meeting that notability guideline. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Student competitions are not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, by longstanding precedent. ~~I see no other claim to notability.~~ The nominator unfortunately muddled his writing in such a way as to suggest WP:OTHERCRAP, but his underlying rationale seems to be in line with our notability guidelines. Ray^Talk 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination, there are sufficient interviews and other coverage of the subject to meet the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, on the Gnews link above (including several articles on Der Spiegel, which for some reason I cannot get to at the moment). Ray^Talk 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No valid rationale presented by the nominator, outside of a handful of OTHERSTUFF links. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The so-called OTHERSTUFF links are deletion discussions, some of them quite detailed, about similar individuals. These prior discussions, and the consensus that they formed, are imminently relevant to the matter at hand. It's very unfortunate that even among common participants in AfD discussion, OTHERSTUFF seems to have become a magic bullet to head off any argument. So much so, in fact, that someone has actually suggested that there is such a thing as a "Procedural keep" that can be applied. Hopefully to set this misconception to rest, I cite the very WP:OTHERSTUFF policy, which says quite clearly "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."

That said, the nominator should have provided some analysis of these debates, as he tried to do here. I don't think the original deletion rationale should have been struck through though. What these prior discussions show is that there is a long precedent that student accolades of an identical, or nearly identical nature (IMO/Putnam), to the subject under discussion are in and of themselves not sufficient to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. This is fully consistent with the language at WP:ACADEMIC, and shows that a literal reading of that guideline is fully consistent with the community consensus as pertaining to individuals that have performed outstandingly on the IMO: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that the reason the original nomination rationale was struck was because the nominator deleted his/her original rationale, and as a result the subsequent replies and comments made no sense (WP:REDACT). I reinstated the comments with the strikethroughs so that other users could see what exactly the "speedy/procedural keep" !voters were responding to. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't yet meet WP:ACADEMIC but meets WP:BIO through ample coverage in reliable sources, though many of them are German. The article in Spiegel stands out. Her German Wikipedia article also has more sources. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The article might fail WP:Academic, but she did receive some press coverage as well. Moreover Brainiac1729 seems to be a single purpose acount bend on deleting that article in all interwikis without really bothering what local might apply (WP:ACADEMIC for instance does not exist on de.wp, but he cites it their anyway).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 22 May 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. L Faraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergi Samper[edit]

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

Has not played a fully-pro game yet, and junior caps are not enough for notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 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. L Faraone 23:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chariot (Australia)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, single line stub that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Has been tagged as needing references for 3 years. Previously prodded the article but it was contested without making any attempt to demonstrate notability. AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No legitimate deletion argument has been presented. Has the nominator followed WP:BEFORE? Plenty of sources are available: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. AfD is not WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pburka (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "plenty of sources" that you've presented constitute 5 newspaper articles over a 4.5 year period and the youngest is 5 years old. Based on that sort of coverage, I'm notable. It doesn't really demonstrate that the company is notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG per the sources presented above by User:Pburka. Also, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G4 and salted for 6 months. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2014[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very little information about pageant. MU 2013 is still ambiguous right now. Article is mostly composed of links with very little information. GrayFullbuster (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon. Don't yet know where it will be, or who will be there. CSD G4 may also apply, as the previous deletion discussion resulted in the article being deleted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This is still far too soon for an entry and given that this has been repeatedly deleted (one prior AfD and a speedy) and repeatedly un-redirected (and then reverted back to a redirect about 3 times), this should absolutely be salted until/if the next pageant occurs and shows notability. I'd say a protected redirect, but the various IPs and users have pretty much abused that notion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I'm tagging this as a G4 since this is substantially the same as the prior versions. The only difference is a slight addition to a table that doesn't entirely have anything to do with the Miss Universe contest. They have won various other pageants and in most cases it's presumed that they'll progress to the MU pageant, but that's not always the case. In any case, none of the links in the article show notability for the actual pageant being discussed Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author request, nomination was by the only other contributor. L Faraone 23:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Leaf Poetry[edit]

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

Non-notable poetry club. They have announced their poetry contest on their twitter feed (https://twitter.com/RLPoetryIndia), but that's hardly a reliable source. The article author informs me that they intend to enlist Ranjit Hoskote and Arundhathi Subramaniam as jurists for their contest, which might make the organization notable, but only a) if they can pull it off; and b) any independent source takes notice. However, until then, I don't see this poetry club as meeting our criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Brand-new club that hasn't done anything notable yet. Tiny number of Twitter followers underscores just how small and non-notable this is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GO AHEAD DELETE IT ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclear23 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Can we consider this as the equivalent of a ((tl:db-author))? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:29, 18 May 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. There are strong arguments here that the page meets WP:GNG and should be kept but also is WP:NOTINHERITED, specifically that he has not done anything independantly of his father, and should be deleted. I think each argument was sufficiently well supported and am unable to say that one was stronger than the other. Ultimately, RightCowLeftCoast's suggestion may be the best compromise but it didn't receive sufficient support in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagg Romney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No hint of even an assertion of notability exists in the article; it almost begs for a CSD tag. He's the son of a famous politician; nothing more. Reasonably well written, well sourced, and...thoroughly non-notable by Wikipedia standards. Hasn't published anything, isn't well-known in any field, hasn't generated any controversy. Notability is not inherited. Frank | talk 12:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...? - I started the article in October 2012, in another historical context. After that, a lot of people have edited/expanded the article. Please, let those people speak by themselves regarding "notability", thank you! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long, well referenced article without a shadow of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep. I came to this AfD expecting to !vote "delete"; then I reviewed the footnote sources already in the article, which include multiple feature articles (i.e. in-depth coverage) in national publications about the subject more than sufficient to satisfy any interpretation of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. These are not passing mentions of the subject in articles about the famous father, but feature articles whose principle topic is the famous father's son. Not one, but dozens. I also considered whether it might be more appropriate to merge a limited amount of biographical content to the parent Mitt Romney article; then I reviewed the existing coverage of the children of national politicians. I note that there are stand-alone articles for Tricia Nixon Cox, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Michael Gerald Ford, John Gardner Ford, Steven Ford, Susan Ford, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and Barbara and Jenna Bush. The Obama daughters, both minors who their parents have carefully guarded from the overly intrusive press, are covered appropriately as part of the Barack Obama family article. Bottom line: there is ample "precedent" for stand-alone articles for the children of high-profile national politicians when ample in-depth coverage exists in reliable sources about those children to satisfy WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of WP:OSE, so disputing on the basis of it is perhaps not a great strategy, however...as far I can tell, each of those articles you mention has a glaring difference from this one: they are children of people who actually became POTUS. It's still true that notability is not inherited, but it does tend to rub off a bit more when you are the child of the holder of the highest elected office in the country. Regarding the references...the most significant point you make yourself is that these "feature articles" are about the "famous father's son". That smacks of inherited notability in the clearest way. A perusal of the titles of those references bears this out: the vast majority of them mention Mitt Romney, politics, Ann Romney, or Obama. Furthermore, a high percentage of those references are dated in the two months before the 2012 election. None of this supports the notion of notability of the subject of this article. Frank | talk 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the article makes it clear that he hasn't actually achieved anything notable at all in his own right. We should ask if the article would exist in the first place if he was not the son of a famous man. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear, easy, and obvious pass of GNG. Just look at the footnotes... Carrite (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is still not inherited. While there are plenty of references listed some are duplicates, and the only things he's done that approach notability are existence on his father's campaign staff and a quote about wanting to hit the President. Also, CSD G4 may apply, as the previous deletion discussion resulted in deletion. The subject's notability hasn't increased since the last AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has probably declined since then, hasn't it? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I urge you to review the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as the "notability is not inherited" rule per WP:NOTINHERITED. NOTINHERITED apparently does not state what you think it does; it simply states that subjects related to a notable subject are not necessarily notable themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, once GNG is satisfied, NOTINHERITED is irrelevant. The subject is notable, and stands on its own, without reference to any related subject. Under WP:N, a subject is not necessarily notable for having done something; Paris Hilton is the classic example of "famous for being famous," and, yes, she is notable because she has received in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG. I have never seen anyone in an AfD successfully argue that multiple feature articles about a subject person in major national publications (The New Republic, New York Daily News, The New York Times, The Washington Post), as well as other regional publications, are insufficient to establish the subject's notability per GNG.

One last point: Someone raised the issue of this subject having been previously determined to be non-notable in an AfD and the article deleted. Well, what's happened since the last AfD? Only the 2012 presidential election and the reams of in-depth coverage the subject received during and after the campaign. Please review the linked footnotes; they clearly establish the subject's notability per GNG. To clear your thoughts, ask yourself this question: If Tagg Romney's last name were Smith, and he had received the same amount of in-depth coverage as "Tagg Smith, campaign spokesman," would he not be notable? My answer is "clearly, yes." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Since I'm being asked to explain my self: It is my opinion that the subject's notability has not increased since the last AFD. Losing candidates for any office who are not already notable do not meet the notability guidelines, in spite of the great number of journalists covering their campaigns. Their campaign staff have even less of a chance. The multiple sources are either talking about the same incident where he jokingly threatened to hit the President, or they are speculating about his possible run for office. Neither of these meet any threshold of notability. Also, this AFD is exactly where WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I have reviewed it. He has done nothing of note to warrant having a WP article. Perhaps one day, but not yet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Has received significant coverage in ABC News, Politico, The New Republic, The Washington Post, New York Daily News, The Weekly Standard, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, CBS News, MSNBC, among other reliable media sources. He has received such coverage for a span of over five years, and not soley for his work on his father's campaigns but for his business ventures and potential political aspirations as well. He is notable in his own right.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of those links, all but two of them mention Mitt Romney in either the headline, the sub-headline, or the first two sentences of the article. This is a classic case of where WP:NOTINHERITED applies. This is not "significant coverage" of Tagg Romney. It is minor coverage of a famous politician's son. I've seen the phrase "passes WP:GNG" several times, but that assertion is not actually supported. Can you point to what Tagg Romney is actually known for? (He does not even begin to approach Paris Hilton's famous-for-being-famous status.) Frank | talk 21:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of Wikipedia's notability standards is incorrect. Per WP:N, Tagg Romney is not required to be "known for anything"; he is only required to be have received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to establish his notability per the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. For the benefit of anyone who has not read WP:N recently, I quote the basic standard in full:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

"'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"'Sources', for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.

"'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

"A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."

For the record, WP:N and WP:GNG are guidelines; WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, one editor's opinion. Even if I believed that NOINHERITED actually applied in this instance, which I don't, it is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Essays do not trump policies or guidelines. The coverage that you characterize as "minor" includes full-length feature articles in The New Republic and The Washington Post wherein Tagg Romney is the primary subject; such articles clearly satisfy GNG. The fact that Tagg would not have received this coverage if he was not his father's son is irrelevant; he received the coverage, the coverage is significant, the coverage appeared in multiple sources, and the sources are reliable. It would be helpful if you would quote any portion of WP:N above that you believe the subject does not satisfy so that other editors can understand where you are coming from. Likewise, it would be helpful if you would quote the exact language (and/or examples) from the NOTINHERITED essay that you think cover this subject. Frankly, I'm having a difficult time accepting your perspective as grounded in anything resembling the Wikipedia notability guidelines, which ultimately are the only things that matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they are, and the relevant point in the guideline (go ahead and ignore the essay) is this portion: 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. It is my opinion that Tagg Romney has done not a single thing to establish that he is actually notable, save for the appearance of such created by being the son of a clearly notable individual. Indeed, the article continues to be completely devoid of even a shred of a claim of notability; it is merely a collection of trivia about the son of a famous politician. Were he not Mitt Romney's son, this article would be an unremarkable A7 deletion. On the apparently correct suspicion that there would be objection to such a deletion because of his famous father, I did not choose that route out of long-standing respect for (read: "grounding in") the community process of consensus. Frank | talk 15:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, per the CSD A7 criteria, "An article about a real person . . . that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Arguably, the first sentence of the existing article is more than sufficient to satisfy the A7 criteria: "Taggart "Tagg" Romney (born March 21, 1970) is an American businessman, venture capitalist, political advisor, and the oldest son of businessman and politician Mitt Romney." Furthermore, once an AfD is pending, CSD is no longer appropriate. And then there's that pesky problem of WP:N, where significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources leads to a presumption of notability (the higher standard in comparison to the CSD A7 criteria). CSD A7 was not designed to handle situations such as this one; whether this article is kept, redirected, merged or deleted, AfD is the appropriate venue and method for determining this article's fate, not CSD. Remember: any CSD tag can be removed by any editor who is not the article creator; thus a proposed speedy deletion can be disputed by almost anyone. When half or more of !votes in this AfD support keeping the stand-alone article, I think we can safely assume that any CSD A7 tag would be disputed and removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you are "safely assuming," perhaps you should assume that, having deleted more than 5000 articles using those same CSD criteria, I am quite familiar with them. I was referring to my choice to start this AfD discussion in the first place rather than simply deleting the article under CSD A7 (or G4, which was another option) outright. Frank | talk 19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Romney family, the subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, I don't believe that is in debate. What appears to be in debate is whether there is significant coverage of the subject independent of the activities of his father. There is significant coverage articles of other things where the subject is mentioned, but not where the subject is the primary subject of the source itself. That being said, it could be argued that if all those mentions are added up that they would add up to significant coverage of the subject of this AfD himself. Yet at the same time the vast majority of this coverage occurred during the period of the subject's father's presidential election attempts, and thus why NOTINHERITED is argued by others above. Therefore, as a compromise, I am of the opinion that the subject falls within the scope of an existing article, the article about the Romney family and thus a redirect is in order.

Verified content of the subject can be summarized and merged into an appropriate section, and if that article becomes too large per WP:LIMIT an article of the subject of this AfD can be spunout. Alternately, if the subject receives significant coverage independent of his father's activities, the article can be recreated at that time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for coverage to be separate from anything, as long as there are multiple, independently published sources dealing with the subject at length. It goes without saying that most of the coverage of Mitt Romney's campaign surrogate Tagg Romney is going to be in connection with the Romney campaign. To rehash a line I used in a different political context at a previous AfD, this is no time for neener neener triumphalism in the wake of a political defeat, this is a time for common sense (spelled I-A-R). In the last month there have been more than 6,200 people visiting this page... This is not an obscure figure, this is a significant political entity in his own right. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What political defeat? Tagg Romney has never run for or held any public office. That politics even enters into the conversation is more evidence that this article rests upon inherited notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the rationales of Dirtlawyer1 & Carrite, I see nothing in WP:GNG or WP:N which specifically disqualifies subjects that have received significant-coverage-in-reliable-sources if the coverage is primarily or initially generated by the subject's connection to a famous person. As pointed out prior, WP:NOTINHERITED simply states that such a connection does not in and of itself confer inherent notability. As also previously noted, once WP:GNG has been met, WP:NOTINHERITED becomes irrelevant. The question "would he have received all this coverage if he were not the son of a famous person?" is hardly pertinent. We could ask a similar question about Michelle Obama. Does anyone think she would have received any of the voluminous media coverage that has been bestowed upon her if she were the wife of say, a small town banker rather than of Barack Obama? But I doubt seriously there will be an afd nomination of her page anytime soon, or if there is, it will almost certainly be nipped in the bud promptly. Yes, I know WP:OSE is not a effective argument, and that's not the point in citing this example. The point is to show that the reason the subject has received significant coverage to begin with is largely beside the point. The point is that they have received it. (Per Dirtlawyer, subjects are not required to be known for anything) Also, it is worth noting that Wikipedia has entire categories for American political activists and American political consultants, both of which Tagg Romney could be reasonably identified as. Again, I mention this not to argue "other stuff exists" but to demonstrate that WP clearly recognizes that the kind of work/activism Tagg is best known is notable subject matter (when significantly covered in multiple RS's, of course). In light of this, a question asked earlier by Dirtlawyer1 (and which does not appear to have yet been answered) seems worthy of revisiting: "If Tagg Romney's last name were Smith, and he had received the same amount of in-depth coverage as 'Tagg Smith, campaign spokesman,' would he not be notable?" IMO, the answer is a resounding "yes". And if such is the case, why would the same amount of in-depth coverage "not count" because he happens to be the son of the candidate he campaigned for? Can anyone cite a WP policy or guideline that clearly supports such a position?--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question that still is pertinent is, is there significant coverage about the subject of this AfD? There are tons of mentions of the subject of this AfD that are significant coverage of something other than subject of this AfD, but that doesn't make it significant coverage which we are to determine notability of the subject of this AfD. So then the question is, do those individual mentions add up to something that can be considered significant coverage? That is what is debatable, and thus why I provided a compromise. I would not support outright deletion, given my review of the sources available, nor would I support a strong keep either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It does not matter why reliable sources independent of the subject might cover the subject in depth and at length, only that they do. Ray^Talk 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sufficient good references about him in particular. RayAYang, above, says it perfectly. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly there is significant coverage about him in various reliable sources. As previous commenters have said, it's not important why the coverage exists, all that matters is that it does.--Cjv110ma (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should have never been recreated without going to DRV first. Nothing has changed at all since I nominated this for deletion (successfully) almost 2 years ago; then, as now, the source coverage stems from the connections to his father. The person's bio needs to be looked at in the context of WP:NOTINHERITED; any other person in the world who had been VP of online marketing for a shoe company, a presidential campaign aide, etc...would not get within spitting distance of being covered in the media. The coverage here comes solely by who he is related to. The keep votes must be weighted as next-to-nothing, as they do not address the "notability is not inherited" issue, nor do they demonstrate what has changed in the 2 years since AfD #1. What has Tagg Romney done independently of his father to earn coverage in reliable sources? Nothing in 2011, which is why it was deleted, and nothing new since then. RayAYang's "vote" is particularly odious and at complete odds with Wikipedia guidelines. The "why" of a source is of great importance to deciding WP:BLP1E; sources that only cover a subject in the context of one event do not make a 1Event person into a worthwhile article subject. So all in all, if there was ever a time for a closing admin to demonstrate that an AfD is not a straight-up vote, but rather a measure of arguments that are correctly backed by policy or guideline, this is it. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I cannot understand the emotions that this article generates from some otherwise experienced editors who should know better. What has changed since the last AfD in 2011? Well, only multiple major feature articles in national and major regional publications, where the principal subject was the son, not the father. Furthermore, WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy, and not a notability guideline. It is one editor's opinion, although a generally well expressed one. In this instance, those who cite NOTINHERITED are citing the link name, not what the essay actually says: no person or other topic is notable merely by virtue of its relationship to another notable subject. In all events, once sufficient in-depth coverage is shown in multiple, independent, reliable sources and notability is established per WP:GNG, then whatever the NOTINHERITED essay might have to say is moot. Essays, not matter how well written, do not trump the notability guidelines. Anyone who disputes GNG has been satisfied needs to explain why the coverage in the following feature articles is not sufficient:

[26]

[27]

[28]

As I and others have said above, under the general notability guidelines, it does not matter why a subject received coverage, only that the subject received sufficient coverage. Period. I recognize that there is a separate argument to be made, apart from notability, whether the subject would be better covered as part of another article. If that's your argument, make it, but disputing the subject's notability is an uphill climb, especially in light of the Wikipedia coverage of every other presidential offspring in the last 40 years.

Personally, I don't give a rat's backside about Tagg Romney, and I have zero emotional investment in this article, its subject, or the subject's father, but I do expect that experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedia editors will do their best to uniformly apply the notability guidelines fairly and without obvious bias. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot express enough how much of a blatant lie the statement "it does not matter why a subject received coverage" is; it does matter, quite critically so. This is just either rank ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of how we deal with biographies and notability in this project. Several years ago there as significant coverage of a woman who walked into a mall pool while texting; no article. Several years ago there was significant coverage of a girl who couldn't stop hiccuping; no article. Why? Because a consensus of editors who based their deletion argument on policy, on guideline, and yes, on essays, made the better arguments that sourcing alone isn't enough. A more relevant example to this article would be Al Gore III; again, lots of coverage in sources, all of it due to a famous connection. Same with Tagg here, none of this would be here if it wasn't for his dad. The kid has done NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G independent of his father. Hell, even the cited articles reflect that, e.g. "Tagg Romney has a Heightened Role in Fathers\ Presidential Campaign" and "Dedicated to Dads Hopes Tagg Romney Storms the Campaign Trail Again". Tagg's riding the coattails here, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, calling a difference of opinion "a blatant lie" is uncivil and I urge you to expunge and rephrase. I happen to agree with Dirtlawyer (no lie!), GNG calls for multiple, independently published, substantial pieces of coverage. It does not speak to the context in which those pieces of coverage. Tagg Romney could be Mitt Romney's personal mole-shaver, known only for the grooming of skin blemishes; if he's covered by multiple, independently published sources so that a verifiable and reliable biography may be written, he is in under GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a demonstrably false assertion. I will rehash the earlier example of the walk-into-pool-while-texting woman; there are ample coverage in solid reliable sources to be found right now, I google and see CBS News, the Telegraph, and the Boston Globe. Yet there is no article, as a correctly-argued and suppoered WP:BLP1E argument trumps sourcing. That is the point that is eluding you; you say "he is in under GNG", I correctly point out that that isn't the definitive say in the matter. You and some others may do the "it's only an essay" to your heart's content, but WP:ATA is a widely-cited and accepted norm of deletion discussions. As the essay tag says "consider it with discretion", as it is indeed neither policy nor guideline. But there is an expectation on an editor who wishes to completely disregard the "not inherited" ideal to justify that. I see no justification thus far. Only the son of a politician who has received mention in sources because of his relations, not for a single thing in and of itself that he has done. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only an essay, an opinion piece, something created from thin air without community approval as a governing guideline or policy of this site. I've got my own opinions about whether the 25 mph speed limit down the road is appropriate. You might have your own opinion that differs. Ultimately, it's the law, not your or my or anyone else's opinion, that determines whether a ticket for driving 40 mph will stand. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although Dirtlawyer1 quoted WP:GNG above, I'll quote an important part of it here again:

"'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article."

Just meeting WP:GNG isn't enough reason to keep an article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot this part: "For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." — So what aspect of of the Guideline What Wikipedia Is Not does a biography of Tagg Romney violate? Where is the big consensus to delete? Carrite (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the essence of GNG, since there seems to be a tendency to call blue "green" here... "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.... A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." BLP-1E is a very specific case, generally related to a single, sensational event. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the word 'presumed' in that sentence, and note the section of GNG that I quoted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, note the section you (partially) quoted. It does not apply, in my opinion. Presumed means presumed, it does not mean "well, maybe probably." There needs to be a substantial demonstration of why WP:IAR should be imposed in this case. I am far from seeing it. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is broad precedent that "not inherited" can (it's not automatic obviously, just as John Hinckley is an exception to BLP1E) trumps the GNG in the way that BLP1E does. I can think of many examples, from the already-noted Al Gore III to Sasha and Malia Obama. Without Al the 2nd, Al the 3rd is just another rich kid getting into trouble with the law. Without Barack, Sasha and Malia are just two tween-to-teenage kids. Famous people are scrutinized right down to the roots of their hair, and in these days of 24/7 media, the same goes for their relations. There's also what I still consider to be my crowning deletion achievement, and I invite the closing admin to have a read; the very hard-fought for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann, Michele's notorious "pray-the-gay-away" husband. The media had a mini ragefest over him at the height of election season, but it only game because of who he was married to, not because his actions were independently notable. That is the litmus test here. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Bachmann AfD is rather enlightening now that I am re-reading it. The keep arguments are the same there as here, many "keep it's reliably sourced", "keep it meets the GNG". The same magic hand-waving at "source + source == article" stuff. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Marcus Bachmann and the walk-into-the-pool-while-texting lady are examles of WP:1E or "15 minutes of fame", whereas the coverage of Tagg Romney has persisted over a period of several years (at least as far back as 2007). So it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison.--Cjv110ma (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a demonstrably incorrect claim. Read through the Bachmann discussion again, there were only a few invocations of 1E as an actual deletion rationale. Most of the mentions were done either in arguments of larger issues or when 1E was invoked along with several other reasons to delete. The important part of the closing statement was "Speaking broadly again, the delete arguments focused much more specifically on the sources provided, and in doing so demonstrated that significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist." That's where we're at here; I'm not even remotely arguing deletion on 1Event platform, this is solely a "notability is not inherited" position. Again; every piece of coverage of Tagg Romney in reliable source is due to his last name. He is an otherwise unremarkable person filling unremarkable middle management and campaign aide positions. Tarc (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as copyright violation, promotional content, repeated recreation of previously deleted content, use of Wikipedia as a web host etc etc etc. Nick (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SCAD College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Look at the edit summary. I, a recent changes patroller, saw the article and this is what the Creator wrote 'I have Created this page for the purpose of College students use only, so if any thing is worng just Inform me.' I've imformed him and this seems to be an advertising thing.

Zince34' 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point.4 of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Zince34' 09:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the G12 criterion, as a copyvio of [29]. Somewhat confusingly, I note that the creator initially tagged the article for G12 himself, before removing the template; this might have something to do with the fact that it was already deleted as G12 once today. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentNot the creator, somebody else nominated it for Speedy deletion. The the creator, blanked the tag, and someone put it back. But I did not find any other speedy deltion nomination anywhere.Zince34' 10:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? According to the page history, Nadarsatishkumar (talk · contribs) added a G12 template and then removed it within one minute. As for previous speedy deletion requests, see the page's logs. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I still don't understand what is going on in that page. There is still a speedy delete nomination, and the user is doing strange things. I know it was deleted once (or more than once) Anyway, it is still advertising(G11) and Copyright violation(G12). Did you see what was going on in the Talkpage of the article? Zince34' 10:32, 14 May 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. L Faraone 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Star Orphans[edit]

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

Non-notable local band. Fails WP:BAND on all counts. No references given in the article meet criterion 1, most are SPS. All external links are either SPS, dead, or non-notable. Google search yields no independent references in the first two pages, then two lone non-notable ones on the third page. Neither the band nor their recordings are reviewed on allmusic. Additionally, article was created and primarily edited by a lone anonymous IP account. Editorial: I hate to do this, since I had a monster crush on their (probably notable) founder Zach Bennett when I was 10 and he was on Avonlea, but his band just isn't encyclopedic. Drasil (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, namely Now magazine here and here, in Vue Weekly here, Toro magazine here, Exclaim! magazine here, and in Chart here and here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm new to AFD and significantly less experienced here than are you, maybe you can shed some light on this for me: is that really all it takes to qualify as notable? 100-word articles in local music newspapers seem to me to be profoundly slight media coverage. The way I read them, the music notability guidelines seem to be establishing the inclusion bar at bands that have at least reached the national level (particularly as per C2, C3, C4, C7). This band seems to be local to Toronto nearly exclusively, as demonstrated by your own evidence, and at least one of those articles seems to fail the first sub-criterion of C1 of WP:BAND. If this band is notable, at least three bands of which I've been a member would qualify for articles, not to mention hundreds of bands here in NYC who have managed blink-and-you'll-miss-it blurbs in The Village Voice, L Magazine, etc... is that right? --Drasil (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the most notable of bands we document on Wikipedia; that's for sure. They don't have multiple chart hits and a lengthy article in Billboard describing the details of their history and so on. If there had been only a couple of brief blurbs in reliable sources, it would be dubious as to whether they would pass the notability bar for an article, but I think taken together there's enough here for what's typically acceptable at AfD. Of the sources I mentioned, I would say only Now is local to Toronto, though others might be published there. Vue Weekly is an Alberta publication writing about a Toronto band. Chart, Exclaim! and Toro are national in scope. (I haven't seen Toro previously discussed in AfD debates, but in the past Chart and Exclaim! have definitely been accepted as "national"-level.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree almost precisely with p. erik's evaluation. 86.42.74.117 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 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. L Faraone 23:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion-pop[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, et al. Can't quite G11 it, but close. Author removed PROD. Dea db eef 07:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding any evidence that any notable performers refer to themselves as this genre. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 May 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) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Maruf[edit]

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

Description is rubbish, no reliable sources, lacks in suitable links and references Md31sabbir (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 29. Snotbot t • c » 04:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those appear to be content issues. Please give a policy-based reason why the article should be deleted, rather than a list of ways in which the article needs to be improved. I note that this editor seems to be nominating quite a lot of articles related to film in Bangladesh for deletion at the moment, mostly on what seem to be content grounds. Dricherby (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Yes, another Bangladesh-related AFD from this nominator using improvable content issues as a deletion rationale. Perhaps he might visit WP:DEL#REASON and rethink his "justifications" to make them seem less that he simply dislikes Bangladeshi topics. And a hint to him, even if a source is non-English that does not mean they are unsuitable. Notability need not be world-wide. Notable even if only to Bangldesh through Bangladeshi sources is perfectly fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to meet WP:NACTOR. there's not even a Bangladeshi version of this article. would happily reconsider if indepth coverage is found in Bangladeshi. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no language called "Bangladeshi", so that comment is obviously based on ignorance rather than any proper attempt to evaluate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not ignorance, you know I am referring to the local language. your comment is rather condescending. I looked at the article, and didn't think the sources supplied (in Bengali) looked in depth. they merely confirm this person appeared in certain roles. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references with significant coverage about the subject already added, passes WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in what way are the sources indepth? WP:INDEPTH LibStar (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A moment ago, you thought the sources were in "Bangladeshi" but now you can read them well enough to determine whether they're in-depth? Dricherby (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i used Google translate. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that myself but I couldn't even figure out what the pages were about because Google translate renders Bengali into total nonsense. Dricherby (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say it meets WP:GNG, when you say yourself the sources are nonsense? Kind if renders your keep !vote null! Cant have it both ways... Keep because it has nonsense sources?! LibStar (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article meets WP:GNG. I didn't say the sources are nonsense. I didn't !vote, precisely because I can't understand the sources. Dricherby (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies got mixed up, but as the sources are nonsense, it demonstrates this article's notability is questionable. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in a language that neither you nor I can read and which Google translate handles very badly: that doesn't make them nonsense. See also WP:NONENG. Dricherby (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source covers the actor quite significantly, along with some other actors (each actor having their own section). While this source, not an indepth one, but says that Kazi Maruf is a popular actor of recent times in Bangladesh (with many other sources saying the same). This one talks about the recent successes of Kazi Maruf. This is another source with an in-depth coverage. Hence, the article passes WP:GNG and quite easily WP:NACTOR. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:23, 7 May 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, Dea db eef 07:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not trusting google Translate for this, I find at least one English-language source referring to her in a starring role: Dakar Tribune . and one in a clearly significant role Financial Express. I found them by a method which apparently did not occur to the nominator, searching Google News. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The validity of the sources provided and added to the page have not been refuted. J04n(talk page) 12:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Iyengar[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline and has been tagged as such since March 2012. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family, being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Stephane34 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to B. K. S. Iyengar -- It's clear that Geeta is not as famous as her father, but she has a degree of notability in her own right, having published some (well-regarded) books on yoga, and being director of the RIMYI (Yoga Institute). She is also interviewed as a leading light in the Yoga Journal, not just as her father's daughter. There may be sufficient news items about her from India to justify her own article. If not, I suggest a redirect and merge to B. K. S. Iyengar to mention these facts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While she does seem to be a published author, WP:GNG does require a certain level of significant coverage and I'm not seeing it here. Unless I see a strong argument otherwise, I'm leaning toward deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references and will continue to work on this article. She is one of the most notable women in yoga worldwide and Wikipedia absolutely needs an entry about her. She has been written about by every major Yoga Publication. (I am new here so I hope I have done this correctly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogininan (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Yogininan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep User:Yogininan has located sufficient sources to prove notability. It is clear that Geeta Iyengar is continuing her father's tradition in her own way with a strong emphasis on women's health, and is appreciated as such in different countries and yoga journals. Good work. I've tidied up the article a little. We can add more about other countries in slower time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Chiswick Chap. I have just added an excellent LA Times article as a reference. It refers to her as "the world's leading female yoga teacher" which is an accurate assessment. When and how is the decision made about whether an article will no longer be considered for deletion? Yogininan —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)— Yogininan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Normally after a week, or when discussion quietens down. Occasionally if there is a "snowstorm" all of the same opinion, a discussion is closed early. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 8 May 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, Dea db eef 07:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. She is not a notable person. Her article can not be accepted on the basis of her father`s notability. Notability is not a heritable character. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing for keeping her on her father's behalf (nor is that grounds for CSD). She's notable in her own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Chiswick Chap - her career began under her father's wing but she has since taken flight as an independent teacher with a notable career apart from her father. It would be a huge oversight for wikipedia not to have an article on the most recognized woman in the yoga tradition worldwide.Yogininan (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is well established and cited. the Los Angeles Times calls "the world's leading female yoga teacher."

This nominating user has suspicious behavior. This user has never contributed to a single article, and has nominated five different pages for AfD (all yoga teachers) Geeta Iyengar, Tim Miller (yoga teacher), Rod Stryker, and Norman Sjoman. It is possible this is a single purpose account, and the purpose is to delete articles in the Yoga industry. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may be right, but that is a serious charge which should not be made here at AfD. More to the point would be to bring more evidence of Geeta Iyengar's notability, and we won't have to worry about who has nominated the article or why. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account is less than a month old, and has actually made 7 AfD nominations (two were already deleted), and not a single other edit. WP:SPA is relevant here. The purpose is to delete notable yoga accounts, for whatever reason. Los Angeles Times calling this teacher the leader in the industry is enough for I would imagine anyone except the most extreme of the deletes. It is important to note Single-purpose account accounts so people can understand this discussion in an accurate light, and also hopefully review the other discussion that this user has also created. If this user wants to try to identify themselves as a non Single-purpose account, then that is their choice and right to do. The edits of this user are Wikipedia:Vandalism hiding behind AfD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The forum for that sort of charge is not AfD but ANI, where you should lodge a complaint if you wish. Considerations of user conduct are not part of AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chriswick, let me clarify. I am only stating that it is relevant to note that this user is a SPA, and the purpose appears to be to delete BLP yoga entries. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single person is notable i.e. Geeta Iyengar, Tim Miller (yoga teacher), Rod Stryker, and Norman Sjoman. I do not know that why Single Account User is trying to protect their page by using different different single user account. I searched many sources, but i did not find it suitable for wikipedia. Jussychoulex (talk) 17:55, 19 May 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 under G4 by User:Legoktm. (non-admin closure) Funny ^Pika! 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele_Corno[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Entire article looks like advertising. Sources are all first person, personal site, linked in etc. Many sources listed don't even have the subjects name anywhere on the page. Suggested deletion. Article and creator have already had other items (for the same account) Speedy deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriele_Corno_(author)

Comment: It looks like this was a recreation of the article by the same editor that created the previous version. The two articles are very, very close in how they're written, but this new version seems like it might have a few more sources that might not have been in the previous version. It has a paragraph of new material as well. I'm going to compare the sources- it might be close enough that it could be speedyable as a copy of an already deleted page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be speedyable as sheer promotion as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are pretty much the same as in the previous edition. I'll tag it as a speedy. I also endorse a block of the original editor. Apparently this is the third time he's created this, the previous attempts being Gabriele Corno (author) and Corno Gabriele. I think that at this point, given that he's had these articles deleted multiple times and has only used Wikipedia as a place for self promotion, he's had more than enough warnings and should be blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We might also want to salt these name entries to avoid him trying to reuse them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: This is actually the fourth time he's had pages deleted. There was a prior version of the current article under this specific title that was deleted on April 1st by DGG. It wasn't the same as this version, but it further hammers home that the editor is just here to spam for himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 14 May 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) 12:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Zo[edit]

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:Spam/WP:Promo - Article was created by a WP:SOCK of Voidz PeterWesco (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG). 114.150.71.122 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References do not back up the claim of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSBIO. We're not a crystal ball regarding the artist being popular in the future, and at this point not seeing enough content to qualify this article from a reprieve on the choping block. Hasteur (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing coverage only; does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 May 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 Ángel Custodio Quintana. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Quintana[edit]

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

Hopelessly promotional and borderline notable at best . Would need total rewriting & there isn't enough fundamentally there to be worth it. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This shouldn't be outright deleted -- there is a Ángel Custodio Quintana that this used to be redirected to. The redirect should be restored if this is deleted. At first glance, I'd say the sourcing looks very thin, but I haven't had time to look thoroughly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is self-promotion. More importantly, no media notability, except for self promotion and some appearances at local conferences (of the pay-for-play variety?).Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Article is a creation of blocked sockpuppet Ifotograpy (a sockpuppet of Thesoundkillers). It makes sense to leave a unaccented version of a name of a minor Chilean public servant who shares a similar name (and restore to the status quo ante) instead of blowing the name reservation away. Since there was a definite call of sockpuppetry, I think a semi-protect on the redirect would be appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ángel Custodio Quintana per Calliopejen and Hasteur. I looked at the press section on her website and there's not much there. If 1 and 2, and page 132 of this PDF of a magazine represent the coverage out there, then she absolutely fails notability for a Wikipedia page at this point in time. Mabalu (talk) 00:59, 21 May 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. If someone wants to try and improve and work on meeting inclusion requirements for the page I would be happy to userfy it to them or send it to the incubator. J04n(talk page) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taka (film)[edit]

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

weak description, no reliable sources, links and references are not enough to be an encyclopedic article Md31sabbir (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 29. Snotbot t • c » 04:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 05:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: The filmmaker himself has suitable notability, that his works may be considered for inlcusion somewhere... possibly in an as-yet-uncreated Shahidul Islam Khokon article. What we have here is yet, another Bangladesh-related AFD from this nominator using possibly improvable content issues as a deletion rationale. Perhaps he might visit WP:DEL#REASON and rethink his "justifications" to make them seem less that he might simply dislike Bangladeshi topics. And a hint to him, even if a source is non-English that does not mean they are unsuitable. Notability need not be world-wide. Notable even if only to Bangldesh through Bangladeshi sources is perfectly fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently the most popular film in a major festival. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What festival? In what way was it "popular"? 66.108.176.187 (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting to hear what film festival DGG is talking about. 66.108.176.187 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 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. L Faraone 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unable Records[edit]

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

Non-notable independent record label, very little third-party coverage -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: When I first posted this article I didn't include enough sources and third party information about Unable Records. I have since gone back and added several more third party sources, including newspapers and a notable genre-specific music website. It was also my intention to include this article under the WikiProject: Record Labels as a stub. I mistakenly did not do that when I first posted the article. I believe I have corrected that now.Mdransom1627 (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two good independent sources with significant information about the label. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It could be WP:TOOSOON for this label. There are independent sources as pointed out above, but only 1 I would consider WP:RS and they ALL fail WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. Maybe in the near future when they sign a few more groups and get some more coverage other than regional press from New Jersey. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another newspaper source to the list of sources. Keep in mind that press attention for record labels is often hard to come by. If a label is doing its job, the focus should be on the bands that are signed to the label and not on the label itself. A label's work is done behind the scenes, but is no less important.Mdransom1627 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several more references have since been added.Mdransom1627 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 21:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Labels of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 21:36, 7 May 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) 03:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Systems Integrators, Inc.[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill IT consultancy. Claims to fame include being fast-growing (if a small company grows rapidly to a not-so-small company, is that really noteworthy?), and having achieved Microsoft certifications (is there an IT company that hasn't achieved these certifications?). All citations are either company-published press releases or advertorials. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 May 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) 03:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in RS is nonsubstantial. L Faraone 05:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg test[edit]

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

Non-notable psychometric test. Not reviewed or cited by any PubMed indexed source Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:50, 7 May 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) 03:31, 14 May 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. L Faraone 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Azar[edit]

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

I earlier deleted an AfC of this as copyvio of his web site and promotional. This is less so, but I think the key question is whether the 2007 award is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:44, 23 April 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) 01:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable musician, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of coverage here, although it has a promotional feel to it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:25, 7 May 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) 03:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A lack evidence award is major. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. The award is notable enough (barely, I think) to have an article at Murex d'Or, but does not appear to be a huge deal outside of Lebanon. That said, the subject is still active in the industry, and (as per WP:USUAL) may end up with a notable role in a notable project. If that ends up being the case, an article might be appropriate. I just don't think we're there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:25, 20 May 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. L Faraone 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walkers Heath Park[edit]

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

This looks unsalvageably promotional, as well as non-notable. I have cleaned it up to the best of my ability, but I still do not think it is notable, and there are still neutrality issues that can only be fixed by stubification. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 14. Snotbot t • c » 01:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a public park, not a commercial enterprise. Ergo, it's not really promotional - at least, not of any profit-making entity. Telling people where they can go to bicycle or otherwise recreate isn't disallowed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We commonly have articles on public parks: see the footer template. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. J04n(talk page) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teroy de Guzmán[edit]

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

This article, about an actor from the Philippines, is sourced only to IMDb, and internet searches turn up very little in reliable sources. I moved this to AfD from proposed deletion because the article was previously prodded and deprodded back in 2006, and also because the long list of credits at IMDb, extending from 1951 to 1989, as well as the desire to reduce cultural bias, weigh in favor of giving this the more extensive attention of a formal AfD. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:44, 14 May 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) 00:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NACTOR. Even the Tagalog article is unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South African law of sale and lease[edit]

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

Unlikely search term, two different laws Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 01:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless page. It looks like a disambiguation page but doesn't really disambiguate anything. JIP | Talk 04:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:01, 14 May 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. Adding the sources found by Tucoxn to the external links section. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji[edit]

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

This article on an international NGO is very unorganized and has no references, I also persume that there is another article with the same name. PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)z[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although none of the nominator's complaints are valid reasons to delete an article, lack of notability is, and I can't find any sources to support the notability of this charity. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article sounds overly-promotional but what search did you do that returned no sources for this NGO? - tucoxn\^talk 05:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources means no article. Looks overly promotional too. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are lots of sources on this NGO. A quick search for FENC "Fiji Times" (using the NGO's acronym) gives the following independently produced news articles: 1, 2, 3, and 4 (all on one page). More news articles are available in the Fiji Sun. I agree that the article is poorly written and un-sourced but those are not valid arguments for deletion. Despite my keep opinion, I don't think I'm interested in re-writing this article. - tucoxn\^talk 05:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The four specific references given are all broken. The general search reference returns any occurrence of the combination 'fenc',whine mostly refer to fences and fencing. Good sources may be available, but I don't believe they have yet been provided. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why my links broke. It could be something weird about the Fiji Times web site — although it is the newspaper of record in Fiji, it's by no means a superlative journal. Here's another try with the same links (plus one more) from the only first page of a google search:

- FENC Fiji assists 970 kids

- Bags and paint gift

- FENC Fiji appoints national co-ordinator

- FENC Fiji calls for support

- FENC Fiji receives donation

And some from the Fiji Sun (only from the first page of another google search):

- BSP donates $10,000 to FENC FIJI

- Westpac gives to needy children

- Westpac, FENC help children in Rakiraki

- Dulux Paints donates to schools

Again, I didn't put much effort into this search and I imagine some of the articles above are duplicate stories about the same event written by the two different newspapers. With a little more effort, plenty of coverage should be available. I hope this research can help someone improve the article. - tucoxn\^talk 09:58, 20 May 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. Technically, we have an unsourced BLP. The website indeed says he is a candidate, and Ohrid is indeed a cool place (not sure for three months though). Can only be recreated if reliable sources are found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Bakračeski[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and probably WP:GNG. The only source is his own website, which, based on a machine translation, says he's a candidate for mayor, not even the mayor. I haven't done a search on coverage in reliable sources because I won't be able to evaluate the sources, assuming there are any, because of the local nature of the subject, my unfamiliarity with Macedonia (and sources), and my inability to read it. Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No time to explore this at the moment but I did learn two things today. Macedonian has a letter "њ" and Okhrid looks like a really swell place to spend a three month vacation. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 14 May 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. L Faraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bailar Contigo[edit]

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

No indications that this single passes WP:NSONG and since an editor keeps reverting my redirect I'll being it up for discussion. Eeekster (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song has now charted in Colombia, so it now satisfies WP:NSONGS. Erick (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song has made it to number 7. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per above. — Diva Knockouts 05:38, 19 May 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 Jatt & Juliet#Sequel. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt & Juliet 2[edit]

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

PROD tag removed. Unreleased future film. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:MOVIE. Assertions like "all time blockbuster". Might be in the future. As yet unreleased per the article itself. Alexf^(talk) 00:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article calls the the film's predecessor "all-time blockbuster", not this film. The film is to be released next month (i.e. production is basically complete), so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Coverage in reliable sources exists, e.g. Times of India. Pburka (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jatt_&_Juliet#Sequel. Given the amount of coverage the first film received, it's likely that this film will gain coverage enough to merit its own article at some point in time. Likely, but not guaranteed. I think that for right now it's enough to just redirect to the main article for the first film, where there's a section for any sequel news. The biggie here is that until we have that coverage, we can't justify it having a separate article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 14 May 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. L Faraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance game[edit]

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

nonnotable category of games and not discussed in literature. WP:COATRACK for a misguided idea that resistance to alcohol intoxication is a factor of winning games, when it is a unrelated concept of physiology thus conflating unrelated concepts. Curb Chain (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The eskimo contests like ear-pulling are well documented and it seems sensible to cover the topic with a global perspective as these things are a staple of reality shows now. The worst case would be merger into a similar topic like endurance sport and so WP:PRESERVE applies. Warden (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance sport was never an article; it was a redirect to triathlon and is currently a redirect to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Endurance sports. Pain contests or contests to see who can endure the most pain is not a staple of reality shows ~~now~~ nor have they ever been; the contests cover a wide range of skills and endurance to pain is almost never one of them, nor would it be possible to identify such a case in a reality show "elimination" game as discussed before , since the minigames/contests/game tests a wide range of skills concurrently.

ear pulling is has its own article, and is the only "game"/instance where reliably sourced endurance of pain is tested.Curb Chain (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance is not just about pain, as the article explains. In the reality shows, fear or disgust are more commonly the stress, as for example, when someone is buried alive in coffin full of worms. Anyway, it's not difficult to find more sources for pain too, e.g. Games of Pain. I'm quite good at these myself; perhaps this accounts for my stamina at AFD :). Warden (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding it hard to understand the rationale for deletion here, as the nominator has concentrated on minor aspects of the topic as if they were the whole topic. Firstly we are told that the article exists only as a coatrack for a "miguided idea" about alcohol, and then that it is only about endurance of pain. These can't both be true simultaneously, and neither describes our article, which is about games based on any kind of endurance, including endurance of intoxication, endurance of pain and endurance of many other things. The genre of TV show described first received widespread publicity in the UK when Clive James used to show clips of Za Gaman on his programmme, and there have been many other examples since, such as I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. J04n(talk page) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uinvest[edit]

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

Zero secondary sources, just a Yelp page that confirms its address in California. No source for the bold claim that Uinvest was the "first online company to become a crowd funding platform". McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no article. Pretty simple. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On The Verge (show)[edit]

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

Ten webcasts from Nov 11 - Nov 12; already covered in The Verge#On The Verge apart from the episode list; not notable enough per WP:GNG or WP:WEB for a separate article; created by WP:SPA that has only ever written about Vox Media; promotional tone; barely referenced by WP:Primary sources; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Corn cheese (talk) 01:26, 14 May 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. L Faraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lee Graham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability. Promotional piece sourced by a bunch of primary sources, blogs and passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a biography of a well-known extreme travel writer. I seem to be in a Catch-22 here. If I list all the things that make him notable, I'm accused of writing a promotional piece...if I don't include enough things, he's dismissed as not being notable. Do a search on Graham on the web and you find that he's been active and has a reputation for over ten years. Surely that is notable. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have been discussed in this book:

Päivi Kannisto & Santeri Kannisto. Free as a Global Nomad: An Old Tradition with a Modern Twist (PDF). Drifting Sands Press. ISBN 978-0-9850096-1-8.

The author Santeri Kannisto is not totally un-notable, as he has an article in both Finnish and Spanish. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources regarding the subject; the NYT links included don't mention the subject but their website "HoboTraveler", and only in passing. I can't read the interview mentioned above, but even assuming that it does provide significant coverage of the subject, there just aren't any other sources that do. A better case could be made for the website, and there are actually some results about it, but not enough to meet WP:N or WP:WEB yet — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Graham and his website were referenced in Yahoo Finance's recent article on 6 Cheap Places to Retire Abroad. Here's the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/6-cheap-places-to-retire-abroad-160709561.html The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The web site may have had some interesting content 5 years ago, but now it is just flooded with spammy ads. No one will miss this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:27, 17 May 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. L Faraone 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Morales[edit]

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

Porly sourced BLP about a actor/musician that seems to lack notability. Has a lot of acting roles but maybe only one appears it might be substantial The Perfect Game, falling short of WP:NACTOR. The highpoint of his music career appears to be being a member of a redlinked band, falling short of WP:MUSIC. A search for sources found nothing satisfying WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails both WP:NACTOR for the single minor film role and WP:BAND for the membership in a non-notable band. Also, the large number of related anonymous edits to the article suggest vanity/PR to me. --Drasil (talk) 05:10, 14 May 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) 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Historical and Artistic Heritage of the Diocese of Beja[edit]

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

I cannot see why a minor department of the government of diocese of Portugal is notable. I do not know Portugese, but most search results seem to be dictionary listings.

(This article was created by an editor who created and edited only one other article, that of the Department's head, a José António Falcão. I am uncertain about the latter's notability, though he may be notable as an academic.)

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the director, who is apparently notable as an academic and author.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If redirecting to the director's article is to be considered, that article needs to be scrutinized as well. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate local government page, where we might mention the director, instead? I think DGG's suggestion is good, but I'm worried about what happens when the director moves on. Ray^Talk 21:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Portuguese article on the topic cites a number of references: two or three of them seem to be primary, but the rest don't. However, I don't read Portuguese, so I can only assume that enough of them are reliable to let this pass WP:GNG. (By the way, I'm not criticising the nominator for not looking at the Portuguese article: Wikidata had failed to connect them). PWilkinson (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:25, 14 May 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. L Faraone 00:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katō Tadaaki[edit]

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Ansei (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--There is an entry on Katō in Kōdansha's Nihon jinmei daijiten. I have added it to the article. I suspect more can be found in other sources, especially Japanese ones. Michitaro (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Unlikely to expand much beyond the current article, but has an entry in a major Japanese biographical source (日本人名大辞典). Bueller 007 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The development of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Motozane (2nd nomination) may be a helpful guide, especially the descriptive overview of Nihon jinmei daijiten here by Michitaro and the summary analysis here by DGG. In this way, we learn from working together and we avoid reinventing the wheel. --Ansei (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We consistently keep people with equivalent careers and similar documentation in european historuy. Undoubtedly expandable, when someone gets around to it, but appropriate in the meanwhile. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 19 May 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.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OVPsim[edit]

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

no assertion of notability - no indi 2ndary source fails WP:GNG and quick check didn't find any. SPAM / COI / SPA editor(s) Widefox; talk 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some further references and external links to illustrate the use of OVPsim away from OVP/Imperas contributors. Please provide feedback on further changes that should be made to allow this contribution to remain. Thanks Duncgrah (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's 3 non-independent external links (the ARM link by partners i.e. OVP/Imperas), and a wiki. None of those count as WP:RS for notability. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In an effort to prevent this from being open for all eternity. - I fail to see how this meets WP:GNG, I have looked around a search engine and sources certainly are not substantial and it's debatable whether any thing that could meet WP:RS has been provided, I certainly couldn't find anything obviously so via an internet search. However there is some usage of the term in the Google Scholar results, but this seems to be more about inclusion of the concept in the work rather than the work being about the concept which in it's seemingly early stage in life has yet to progress beyond an acronym of convenience to a term in common usage in it's own right much as those such as LAMP or PHP have done. --wintonian ^talk 02:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator suggest userify to aid closing this: as compromise so that 2ndary sources can be added satisfying WP:GNG (and submitted to new article creation). Duncgrah - would you want this moved to your page, and Wintonian does that sounds good with you? If so we can close. Widefox; talk 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea should have thought of that myself. The other option of course is to merge into and create a section in an appropriate article but I would like some issues like the seas-of-blue worked out before or during the process.The 3rd default option seem to be to keep in article space as no consensus, which in my opinion is a very poor 'we don't know what to do' one. It's not really my subject area so unfortunately there is no hope of me tidying it up. Even if we stretch things to their limits 1 weak delete is hardly consensus. --wintonian ^talk 21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 1 weak delete + Duncgrah hasn't !voted or commented against GNG criteria of several substantial secondary independent sources. A third relisting may bring another opinion in, especially with the less drastic userify option. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 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) 13:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prathap Suthan[edit]

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

I do not see anything her that indicates notability for him as an individual DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't know, dude. Some of the sources don't seem reliable and some of them are his own work, but the Financial Express and Economic Times pieces do seem to scrape by WP:Notability (people), don't they? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not need the resumés of advertising executives, nor does it need to trail ads for their brand new enterprises. Spinning Spark 07:33, 23 May 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. L Faraone 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable fanfiction. Google search brings up lots of blogs and Deviant Art but no significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. Proposed deletion tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 00:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I got this quote from a user on deviantArt. I thought it as very interesting to share it to you all:

"Okay guys, down here I list my opinion. I don't have nothing against those who love the [movies] but I need to say this.

To be honest I think they have every right to remove this page. It doesn't provide any useful information aside of the four movies, since it seems like the creators simply copied and wrote down the descriptions of the films directly from the individual pages of the movies, which it's pretty pointless.

And people are gonna kill me for this but I completely agree with those who want to remove it: it's a minor crossover (no really, it's not as big as you fans think it is) and even if it would have a massive fan base, it wouldn't have the right to be in wikipedia anyway (like the homestuck and hetalia crossover, or Superwholockmervenger) because it's FAN FICTION. The relationships between the main characters, their adventures and AUs are purely fan made and fictitious, and trying to make this crossover known because apparently it's very popular among tumblr or deviant art it just makes this fandom look very pretentious. Now I didn't say the fandom IS pretentious, I mean some things they do (like canvassing votes like you're doing now) MAKE the fandom LOOK pretentious, which I know for a fact the fans aren't.

I know for some people it's very important to get this page but why? To be more acknowledged? For, as an administrator commented, to boost the fandom's confidence and make this crossover more real and official?

I think it's time to stop and think: as long as you wish your stories and headcanons real, to watch those adventures you created in your mind become reality, you must understand that the original stories of those four movies aren't yours and you have no right of pushing them to please your own needs. BUT that doesn't mean your fan works don't matter: you can create your own stories by mixing these movies' universes, and then sharing and comment them with others; that doesn't mean your enthusiasm and love don't exist. I've seen wonderful things this fandom has done (and not-so-wonderful like the flanderization some fans put the characters through but that's another story), fan-made songs, videos, fan fics and art- do you really need a film petition or a wiki page to make yourselves sure what you have been doing all this time it's real?"

-- InestheWindbender

Keep - This has become severely popular, and doesn't take away from the characters main points of origin in the slightest. It allows you to follow the characters that we've all been charmed by in new and exciting stories, and gives us all a new fandom to participate in, one that WE have created ourselves. This alone makes it deserving of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.189.49 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This crossover has spawned hundreds of pictures, videos, fanfictions, etc. It's gained a considerable fandom, and has made itself known to people all over. That alone makes it noteworthy--it's so widely known that it deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.60.185 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only are the four movies completely unrelated to one another, but there are next to no reliable sources for this fan crossover. This may have a huge fanbase, yes, and although I do not hate the RotBTD, I really don't see any meaningful reason as to why it should have a wiki page. In addition, each movie was created by rival companies. I doubt the possibility of them ever cooperating and making a movie just to satisfy the fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.240.125 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unintelligible mishmash of copy-pasted material from other Wikipedia articles, contains zero sources about the alleged "fanfiction crossover." Google search of the title phrase reveals absolutely nothing meaningful that could be used to source an article about this topic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - per WP:ONEDAY. No coverage from reliable sources that indicates any kind of notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there to show that this isn't just something someone recently WP:MADEUP. The four films (How to Train Your Dragon, Tangled, Brave and Rise of the Guardians) that constitute this supposed film series are produced by different animation studios and voiced by different actors. Apart from the fact that these are recent CGI animation releases, there's nothing to suggest that the the films are otherwise related. Funny ^Pika! 01:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no indication of notability, appears to be WP:FANCRUFT. Under WP:List of bad article ideas, numbers 2, 13 and 14. Reatlas (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sometimes, very very rarely, fanfictions can become notable. Fifty Shades of Grey is a good example, since it started as a fanfiction. However the norm is that the fanfictions that do become notable enough to merit their own article are the ones that take on FSoG proportions. Not even My Immortal is considered to be notable enough to merit its own article and that's perhaps one of more known, if not the best known, non-pulled-to-print fanfics out there. I'm not exactly quoting this as a way of saying that this doesn't have an article so this shouldn't either, but I'm just saying that My Immortal has had several times more coverage and still doesn't merit an article. In comparison, this fanfic, which has received very little coverage in RS, doesn't even begin to pass notability guidelines. The guidelines are very strict when it comes to stuff like this, so that's why I want to stress that even the big name fanfics end up not meriting articles or even mentions on Wikipedia 99.9% of the time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's about time for a snow close in this case. I doubt fairly seriously that this would survive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Avenflight (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Four unrelated films that have little connection to each other.
Keep - So what if these films aren't unrelated!? DreamWorks, Disney, and Pixar could find a way to make them work! They's always something, plus this crossover is amazing and fantastic.

Delete - Fan fiction is a notable subject on Wikipedia, but this does not seem as important as the ones listed on this page. Freshh (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page is basically a copy and paste of the original movies' pages, with the slight difference of the mention that it is a fan fiction crossover. Even if it has a fan base and some people have been drawing and writing fan art and fan fics, those movies are still unrelated to each other. If this page has to be done, then it would be fair doing the same to all the other fan-made crossovers roaming through the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.31.254.44 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently non-notable fan project; the references appear completely irrelevant, since they are about the individual shows and not the fan project itself. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is understandable that this page has information on each of the individual movies, and therefore it's rather unnecessary, however it should still be kept up. I would suggest adding more information on the crossover aspect of this page, like why a crossover exists, and its popularity.

Keep - I feel that if we were to just flesh out the article a little more with more info about the crossover itself, this could be a keepable wiki. I really do hope this stays. This crossover has brought many people together and has grown such a large fanbase! So what if the movies have nothing to do with eachother? That's the point of a crossover. Let's keep this wiki strong!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.55.82 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Various accounts on Deviant Art are canvassing for "keep" !votes; see for example http://feliipsun.deviantart.com/art/Rise-of-the-Brave-Tangled-Dragons-wiki-page-help-372535621. ... discospinster _talk 19:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oy... Freshh (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Vast majority of keep votes appear to be variations of several arguments to avoid, specifically, I like it, It's harmless and It might be big one day. Reatlas (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides little to no actual useful information, containing mostly facts from the actual movies' articles that this fandom uses. Wikipedia is after all about actual facts, not acts of fancy. Having their own article here serves mainly as a boost to these fans, making the fandom seem more "real" and "official" this way. Wikipedia normally contains only larger fandoms that have become a true cultural phenomena, such as fandoms of Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, Jane Austen and "Bronies" (the adult segment enjoying My Little Pony Friendship is Magic). Having an entire article dedicated to a small, minor (compared to the fandoms listed in Wikipedia already) fandom seems a bit too much. Fans are very welcome to have their own, less official info pages. Wikipedia should be regarded with higher dignity, many see it as the great, reliable information bank of the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmyll (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a feeling that the "keep" comments are becoming too similar. I wouldn't be surprised that it's the DeviantArt users creating more votes under different aliases. Freshh (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote canvassing
Keep - This fandom keep the mind of the characters and make a new story. It is recognize by a lot of people and there is A LOT of fanart or vieos about this. This article would be a good help to show this fandom and to make somethings officials. Keep - Its like a great idea and it might call the attention of the producers. It has been so many things related to this 4 and many people love the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.228.5 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep - This fandom is really well-known: just look how many people recognize it, how much pictures, videos and fanfictions there are! Maybe it isn't official, but we can't deny it exist and rise with every week. This article would be really helpful with keeping basic informations in one place for successive interested people. Keep - This is a dream come true for all fans of the four movies, and it has gained a considerable amount of fans of this mash-up itself. This crossover exists and is widely known, and just because it doesn't have a copyright doesn't mean it isn't real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliipsun (talk • contribs) 17:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep - The Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons has a large fan base, not only on Fanfiction.net but throughout the internet including one of the biggest and most visited art sites, deviantArt. I believe that this article provides much needed info for the community. Keep - The fanbase that composes it is huge, people like it, maybe it doesnt has so much relevance between each other and also they might not have complete information, however this helps to get an idea and continue progressing in it, also if the fanbase get lucky probably just maybe a producer see how far the idea has gone and dicide to help, but this is what the crossover is about, how to gather all the stories , people like, It's a fanbase it doesn´t seem the reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.128.184.125 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep - In addition to fanfiction.net and deviantart, there is a huge community on tumblr. Once I saw a RotBTD post reach 100,000 notes in under 24 hours. This is a huge fandom, and if you delete if you might as well delete all other fandom pages, including Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Star Trek, MLP... shall I go on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.128.60 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep - A lot of people really want Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons to be real; this page might help with that. Trust me, this page WILL help. Keep - This fandom is really popular, on tumblr, fanfiction.net, deviantart, even Facebook! People have made pages about them, role plays, fan pages just to post pictures and fanart. It would disappoint many if this page was taken down, because like the previous writer, it could help with making ROtBTD real. Please keep this page. Keep - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.132.143 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep - People really like this Fandom, and that's just that, a fandom. Let people enjoy it. If some people don't like it they can go look up something else. I for one think that this fandom is pretty interesting and, even though the moves aren't related to each other, it's still a fun fandom that I think I could really get into ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.4.20 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Keep - It would be amazing to keep this article for information concerning rotbtd. Keeping it would show how big this fandom has grown and the support that it has backing it. I really believe in this fadom and the amazing things that it provides: art, stories, gifs, role plays, and friendship. By keeping this page up would show a statement that needs to be displayed for the world, and hopefully for Dreamworks and Disney to see as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.59.20 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] keep**- i say keep because this is such a wonderful i dea for a movie and i believe that if the disney producers see it they will make it into a movie, this i such pure beauty! i love all of these movies and for people to put them together and have them meet and date its omg i love it please keep it up!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.206.72 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] "keep" - this is a quite large and passionate fandom who has big hopes on seeing this as a movie. the more this gets known the more our hopes and dreams come true. this page isnt hurting anyone. we just want to see this as the real deal. Please keep it up. the people who want to see this, really, i mean really want to see this as a thing. so let us have our dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.197.80 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote canvassing

Keep - This fandom keep the mind of the characters and make a new story. It is recognize by a lot of people and there is A LOT of fanart or vieos about this. This article would be a good help to show this fandom and to make somethings officials.

Keep - Its like a great idea and it might call the attention of the producers. It has been so many things related to this 4 and many people love the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.228.5 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This fandom is really well-known: just look how many people recognize it, how much pictures, videos and fanfictions there are! Maybe it isn't official, but we can't deny it exist and rise with every week. This article would be really helpful with keeping basic informations in one place for successive interested people.

Keep - This is a dream come true for all fans of the four movies, and it has gained a considerable amount of fans of this mash-up itself. This crossover exists and is widely known, and just because it doesn't have a copyright doesn't mean it isn't real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliipsun (talk • contribs) 17:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons has a large fan base, not only on Fanfiction.net but throughout the internet including one of the biggest and most visited art sites, deviantArt. I believe that this article provides much needed info for the community.

Keep - The fanbase that composes it is huge, people like it, maybe it doesnt has so much relevance between each other and also they might not have complete information, however this helps to get an idea and continue progressing in it, also if the fanbase get lucky probably just maybe a producer see how far the idea has gone and dicide to help, but this is what the crossover is about, how to gather all the stories , people like, It's a fanbase it doesn´t seem the reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.128.184.125 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to fanfiction.net and deviantart, there is a huge community on tumblr. Once I saw a RotBTD post reach 100,000 notes in under 24 hours. This is a huge fandom, and if you delete if you might as well delete all other fandom pages, including Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Star Trek, MLP... shall I go on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.128.60 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lot of people really want Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons to be real; this page might help with that. Trust me, this page WILL help.

Keep - This fandom is really popular, on tumblr, fanfiction.net, deviantart, even Facebook! People have made pages about them, role plays, fan pages just to post pictures and fanart. It would disappoint many if this page was taken down, because like the previous writer, it could help with making ROtBTD real. Please keep this page.

Keep - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.132.143 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - People really like this Fandom, and that's just that, a fandom. Let people enjoy it. If some people don't like it they can go look up something else. I for one think that this fandom is pretty interesting and, even though the moves aren't related to each other, it's still a fun fandom that I think I could really get into ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.4.20 (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It would be amazing to keep this article for information concerning rotbtd. Keeping it would show how big this fandom has grown and the support that it has backing it. I really believe in this fadom and the amazing things that it provides: art, stories, gifs, role plays, and friendship. By keeping this page up would show a statement that needs to be displayed for the world, and hopefully for Dreamworks and Disney to see as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.59.20 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - keep***- i say keep because this is such a wonderful i dea for a movie and i believe that if the disney producers see it they will make it into a movie, this i such pure beauty! i love all of these movies and for people to put them together and have them meet and date its omg i love it please keep it up!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.206.72 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"keep"* - this is a quite large and passionate fandom who has big hopes on seeing this as a movie. the more this gets known the more our hopes and dreams come true. this page isnt hurting anyone. we just want to see this as the real deal. Please keep it up. the people who want to see this, really, i mean really want to see this as a thing. so let us have our dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.197.80 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the deletion debate; see the explanation on the talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:05, 20 May 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.