< 23 May	25 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) 11:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Du[edit]

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

The verifiability is very low: most sources link to unrelated articles and/or are unreliable. Looks very much like it’s a fake. - Хтосьці (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion in russian wikipedia too (here; author has removed ruwiki link from wikidata and trying to remove this discussion). See also Talk:Selena Du. OneLittleMouse (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comment on each source[edit]

Let me comment on source one-by-one:

In the first source, Selena Du is listed among the top three in ATV Miss Asia Pageant. This was added recently, and it looks reliable.
data.ent.sina.com.cn/star/24469.html Placed as is to support "Du highly values charity causes and engage herself in public social activities", but the article linked is very terse on such activity: 热衷于公益活动 (interested in public benefit). However, the linked article does mention some facts: position of UN Goodwill Ambassador (个人简介：联合国慈善大使), visiting many countries (个人简介：曾访问过世界20多个国家), Russian background (民族: 俄罗斯族), fact that she is an actress, singer, TV host and model (职业：演员歌手主持人模特). I’m not sure about the reliability of the source though, because the site is user-editable (link «我要编辑» allows to edit the data).
Article in Oriental Daily News, but the article says information is taken from Mainland websites so it may be unreliable. It’s very short, so I’ll give my attempt at translation (my Chinese is not very good, so please correct me if I’m mistaken somewhere; however, I believe I’ve understood the overall meaning; parenthesed text are my comments): "Although the 21-year-old Selena Du was disqualified by ATV (? 被亞視取消參選資格), she orignially had good connections: according to mainland news sites, her paternal grandfather was a military strategist in the former Soviet Union, Selena Du grew in family with higher education, and has since childhood took part in public competitions and literary plays (文藝演出), and also once took part in CCTV performance (? 表演). After growing up, she also took part in beauty contests, in 2010 she took part in Miss Globe International" and achieved the title "image ambassador" (形象大使), in the same years also became the United Nations Goodwill Ambassador (? 聯合國慈善大使); in 2011 she participated in "Miss Asia Pageant North America", recieving the title "The most photogenic miss" (? 最上鏡小姐), and also became "Miss Asia" winner in American region. When Selena Du was a TV host, she interviewed (? 訪問) US ex-president Clinton, NBA star Kobe Bryant and the others; [she is] really impressive, ATV aspect (? 方面) also testifies news related to this (? 亦證實相關消息)."
The fourth link, www.svief.org/2012/english/yqjb/dy.htm is located on a site of a Silicon Valley Technology Innovation & Enterpreneurship Forum (高创会), an international Chinese-English Conference. Selena Du is listed in the "SVIEF Organizing committee" list [1]. The wiki article links to a JS-openable window, most likely to hide the fact that the site is about a completely unrelated event so most likely they didn’t take the job of verifying the facts very seriously. It doesn’t look like a reliable source. Also, there are some doubts about the information presented: e.g., Mar del Plata Film Festival doesn’t seem to have a "Best New Actress" nomination.
The fifth link is an internet forum, so it is not a reliable source. Moreover, the post at forum is about a Chinese-American Film festival. The article says that a UN Goodwill ambassador Selena Du took part in the opening ceremony and press conference of Chinese-Amercian film festival and that she attended some charitable event. This forum post says nothing about the facts it is given after: nothing about Selena being born in Milan, nothing about her singing and dancing, nothing about ballet and Ulanova or Beijing Dance Academy. It is completely irrelevant!
The sixth link is a blog post with the same information as the previous forum post. It is also completely irrelevant to the information and is not a reliable source.
The 7th link contains information (again) on Chinese-American Film festival. Selena Du is mentioned only once (again, the translation is mine): "UN Goodwill Ambassador Selena Du said in pressconference that she is very happy to take part in this festival's opening ceremony and get to know more people from film world. As a novice, she hopes to be able to get her products on screens as soon as possible." (联合国慈善大使杜悦在新闻发布会上表示，很高兴参加这次电影节开幕式，并认识更多的电影界人士。作为新人，她希望能够早日让自己的作品登上银幕。中国国家广电总局电影管理局局长童刚率领中国代表团参加此次电影节。). This is completely irrelevant to the sentence in the Wikipedia article it is intended to support (Du has showed interest in performing art at a very young age). Also, the article is written by Selena Du herself.
The eights link is an interview with Selena Du as a host of Mobile Game Conference (移动游戏大会) in Sichuan. It is also mentioned that she is Miss Asia and UN Goodwill Ambassador. In the interview, Selena speaks only about the Conference-related issues, there is no information to support the claims in the article: nothing about China National Swim Team, nothing about Nie Zhongming's commenting Selena's voice.
The ninth link is a complete re-write of the Oriental Daily News I've translated above (source #3). It supports the claims about military strategist, but it is mostly irrelevant and doesn't give any information about Selena's brother or Selena's father's education in Princeton.
The tenth link is an article about Miss Asia contenst. Selena Du is named the winner of the American West Coast contest. Again, this citation is irrelevant and doesn’t prove statements about Selena’s travelling with her parents or visiting different countries.
The eleventh link is an article about Selena's participation in Miss Asia and being awarded "most photogenic" award. It is irrelevant to the statement is is given after, however, it does prove some information from other parts of the article: that she started dance, music and violin training at the age of 7 (something source 7 failed to prove) and that she likes travelling.
The twelfth link tells about Selena Du at Silicon Valley Technology Innovation & Enterpreneurship Forum (高创会). Also completely irrelevant to the text of the article: nothing about visiting children in Africa and Central America, nothing about Time in Aba, nothing about children recieving edication with her support.
The 13th source is a link to Douban, another user-generated site. Funnily enough, it is also irrelevant because doesn’t it says nothing about Selena’s role in Sofia. Also, on Douban the film is named not 假如 Gáyùh, but as 如果 Yùhgwó (both words mean "if"), and the director and years don’t coincede.

What concens me is:

The contributor doesn’t seem neutral. E.g. my [which?] tag requiring to add the list of brands and magazines she modeled for was silently removed.
A contributor Audreylomberg has deleted all my [citation needed], [unreliable source] and [not in citation given tags] and lied on the talk page that "the sources and references are valid and relevant". As can be seen from the information above, this is an obvious lie.
Citations seem to be put at random, their only relation with the text of the article is the fact Selena is mentioned there.

Most sources state that she is UN Goodwill Ambassador, but I can’t find any information in the UN website, so, after seeing so much lies, I'm not sure even this one is true.

Even if this were not a real disinformation but an error or some kind of misunderstanding... Should the article so full of errors exist? Хтосьці (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
1. This most probably self-published and completely unreliable source seems to tell some truth. (More or less, there are many strange unbelievable things like "famous strategist", etc.) It looks like she did become Miss Photogenic in the 2010 Miss Asia North America pageant. She also won the 2012 Miss Asia West Coast contest and was going to represent USA in the final of the notable ATV Miss Asia 2012 Pageant that took place earlier in 2013, but was withdrawn from it. This unrelable forum links all the photos from the official website of ATV. As you can see, the girl number 15 was Selena Du at the time when the forum thread was started, but later the ATV website removed her and switched the picture. The official site of the Miss Asia 2012 contest is here.
2. As Хтосьці noticed, this article seems to be written by Selena Du herself. She simply wrote about the film festival and someone took pictures of her with famous people who participated.
3. But there are other Chinese-language sources that seem to be about her.
4. You can't write the article as it is right now using the sources. As Хтосьці noticed, the sources say something completely different from the sentences they pretend to source. But you can definitely write something short and attempt to prove her notability.
5. As far as I can see, the photos in the article are indeed photos of Selena Du.
6. All the movies in her filmography are linked to some other movies by mistake. She is certainly not in Volver. But her article says it's a 2011 movie directed by Jaime Fisher and not by Almodovar, so it's simply a mistake by whoever wrote the article.
7. At least one movie, "哺乳期的女人" by Yang Yazhou (杨亚洲), exists and is notable. But if she is in it, her role is probably minor cause I can't find it even in the article about the movie in user-generated Baidu Encyclopedia. The article lists only the main characters, though.
8. In short, Selena Du does exist, the article seems to be an amateur attempt to add her to Wikipedia and not a professional disinformation campain. But I don't know whether she is notable by Wikipedia standards. I don't think she "is well-known among the Asian population across the world" as the article claims, but she may be notable.
--Moscow Connection (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She's number 6 in this YouTube video: Tiffany Tin-Miss Asia Pageant 2011 SF-Part I & II 亞洲北美小姐選美. She exists. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify your link, here is the link to precise time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89cw0O9Fib8&feature=youtu.be&t=5m40s However, the problem is not - if she exists or not, the problem whether the information in the article is true, and whether this woman should be included in Wikipedia. So far looks very suspicious. For example, it is written, that "she also holds the 2012 Miss Asia US Division title", but in the link she is just listed as a contestant. And I don't like that a notice about the article deletion already was removed three times by User:Audreylomberg and User:Georgegreat Bor75 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's not just listed as a contestant here. If you move your mouse over her pic, it says "冠軍" (champion), the one on the left is "亞軍" (first runner-up), the one on the right is "季軍" (second runner-up). As Хтосьці said above, she is also named the winner here in this news article (her Chinese name is Du Yue). --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I didn’t notice that mouseover javascript because my internet connection is slow and it just didn’t have time to load. Хтосьці (talk) 13:35, 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 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any chance to reach consensus with the contributors of Selena Du article as they seem to ignore this page... Хтосьці (talk) 07:31, 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, J04n(talk page) 23:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the analysis of the sources doesn't fill me with hope and the article itself contains no real claim that would suggest the subject is notable. The family background is a bit pointless and the charity stuff wouldn't seem to constitute anything that would confer notability. The filmography doesn't seem to include any major or significant roles in notable films. Happy to consider anything of relevance but having done my own search, I couldn't find anything that would be considered significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart111 05:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not indicate a sufficient level of notability. Stormbay (talk) 01:48, 26 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 00:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Torrenté[edit]

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

I can't actually see much here to demonstrate or prove any real notability - the whole page reads like a poorly translated and overly biased fluff piece for a healer, with the only claim to notability that I can tell is the fact he was featured on a tv program Jac16888 ^Talk 22:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak keep~~ maybe TNT - the article itself is a mess. It's full of mistranslation and broken English and has some major manual of style issues. I suspect the subject might pass WP:GNG based on the sources and quotes from others about the subject, but it really is hard to tell. Yes, the original author checked at WP:ANI but the better place would have been WP:AFC where I don't think this would have passed in it's current form. I might spend some time trying to fix it, but it needs a lot of work. Stalwart111 05:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having had another look, I just can't support keeping this. Good-faith approach to creation or not, the equivalent was recently deleted from fr.wp and I can't find much of anything to support keeping it here. On closer inspection, the sourcing is flimsy and there certainly doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. I think we need much better sources before we could consider the subject notable. Stalwart111 05:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most journalistic sources relating to this person – including the article which was published in 24 heures – are not on free access on the Web. Nevertheless, a few of them can be found via this specialized local search engine which compiles most Swiss newspapers: →‎ [2]
TV broadcast by Radio télévision suisse on RTS Un can be watched online (streaming video): →‎ [3]
TV interview of Dr. Bertrand Kiefer – physician, theologian and director of the Revue médicale suisse – can also be watched online: →‎ [4]
The wp administrative team was contacted before publishing this new article: → [5]
Of course, this initial translation needs to be improved. Moreover, this article was just recently published today together with a request asking for additional proofreading, as shown at the beginning of the text and, simultaneously, via this message: →‎ [6]
Regards! — euphonie ^breviary 10:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wanted to keep this and suggest improving it, because people who do web searches on this sort of individual mostly see a mixture of self-serving puff pieces and attacks by competitors. In general, having a balanced and sourced Wikipedia article on someone like this is a Good Thing. Alas, in this particular case, I simply can not find any real evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sufficient level of notability is lacking. Stormbay (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Limited local newsworthiness is far from notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dominus Vobisdu. Clearly not notable enough to warrant an article on wikipedia, no matter how notable is the tv program. mgeo talk 14:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Are there any sources which perform an in-depth analysis? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources can be found via this specialized local search engine which compiles most Swiss newspapers: →‎ [7]. Please write the name with " " and then choose the following option: Sans restriction (which means no time restriction) or, in German, Ohne Einschränkung. Regards! — euphonie ^breviary 20:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources for this outside of Swiss TV coverage, and article has taken a turn for the worse with a huge infusion of WP:OR comparing Torrenté with other occult healers and movie portrayals of occult healers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LuckyLouie! Thank you for your message and your judicious remark! The litigious part has just been erased. Now remain only the different chapters related to the notions of ASC, NDE and OBE, including the diagnoses of several well-known (but controversial) doctors like Dr. Raymond Moody, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, Dr. Jean-Jacques Charbonier, Dr. Francesco Racanelli and so on. Kind regards! — euphonie ^breviary 22:44, 27 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 merge to Eiffel 65. J04n(talk page) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episode II (EP)[edit]

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

Not a notable EP EditorE (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 23:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eiffel 65. Even if all of the detail is not merged there, some details of what is on the EP would benefit that article. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 25 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 merge to Eiffel 65. J04n(talk page) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episode I (EP)[edit]

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

Not a notable EP EditorE (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eiffel 65. Even if all of the detail is not merged there, some details of what is on the EP would benefit that article. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 25 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 a7, no verifiable claim of notability, WP:MUSIC, WP:SNOW)). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cielo Drive[edit]

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

This is yet another poorly written article with no references, which at first glance looks like it was created by the band themselves. I have already nominated the singer of the band for deletion, see here; as his article is without question recalcitrant to WP:MUS. They were created in December 2007 with one large edit from user Special:Contributions/Hollywoodwaster who has done very little since then; furthermore the article has had little attention from any other editors since then. They have no charted albums or singles; there is no coverage of the band at Scottish publications The Skinny or The List or for that matter any web media. There is nothing at Allmusic.com on this band nor is there anything on Google news archive; there are no reviews for their album Goodbye to Yesterday in any web media [8]. The articles manual of style is also rather lacklustre, phrases such as "Cielo Drive have become well known for their energetic live performances and crowd interaction," typify puffery at its best. The whole article could be summed up by what the British colloquially call a piss-take. For example the section, "Non-musical album appearances" features a link to member Michael McMahon who, astonishingly does not exist, however by coincidence he has the same name as a U.S. Democratic politician, which it nicely links to. There has clearly been no attempt to make the article appear legit and just resembles a fan composed promotional message. I therefore propose deletion. Bluidsports (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 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) 21:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this band meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 15:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Promotional advert, nothing found in third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W Collum PhD (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 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) 18:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Sergio[edit]

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

The tag at the top of this page says it all. It is written like an advert. More importantly however is the dearth of any references to support the existence of the page; a Google search yields precious little substance barring some of the customary fan pages, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Soundcloud etc. The article's tone is evidently exaggerated, with several references to 'hits', despite the band having no discography whatsoever. They have rather cunningly inserted a soundcloud citation with a sly note saying "Sergio Sergio release songs to critical acclaim". Of course there is no critical praise from paid critics, just 12 likes spread between their vast repertoire of three songs; most likely they were reciprocal likes by the band members. There is always a correlation between bad articles and classic puffery, the following sentence embodies such exaggerated prose unquestionably. "The chemistry between the five was apparent from the offset. Given was the missing piece in the Sergio Sergio jigsaw, and the band worked on monster hits such as Eucatastrophe, Dangerous Minds and The Vanguard Siren." All joking aside, even without monster hits, the least I expect when i'm looking at a music article for a Scottish band is some relevant media coverage such as The List, The Skinny, Scotsman or even an entry at Allmusic.com. "Sergio Sergio is born" they proclaim, sadly it could be a premature end. I nominate this article for deletion with conviction; but if anyone can search the depths of the world wide web and find anything to counterclaim this nomination, I will happily accept egg on my face. Bluidsports (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who? History2007 (talk) 19:02, 18 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) 20:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in mainstream Scottish press in terms of reviews, but some footprint found in Indyzines: [9]. The band have the launch of their first EP at the Classic Grand in Glasgow tonight; wishing them well, but that in itself demonstrates that they currently fall well short of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This group does not yet appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND; I am unable to find significant coverage for them in independent, reliable sources. Gong show 15:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete. Lack of significant coverage or even an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 28 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 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 5 Hits (ZOEgirl album)[edit]

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

A non-notable compilation album Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable compilation from non-notable budget compilation series. --19:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Williams NYC[edit]

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

A local branch of a national company; we do not normally make an article for such, unless there are really strong reasons, and I do not see them here. The references are insufficient. We normally don't redirect either, or merge, because the place for a company to list its branches is on its own website. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like the Keller Williams Realty has been a battle itself according to the history in order to try to keep that article neutral to little success, and this is an attempt to end-around constant promotional glowing of the New York branch in that article. No redirect with about as much notability as your average ReMAX or Prudential agent in the New York area, and once and for all it might be time for a clean-up and semi-protect the main KWR article (though that's obviously not for this AfD to decide). Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this particular franchise operation meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge - what little useful info in the article there is can be merged into the parent article easily. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No particular notability on its own terms. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:08, 31 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) 18:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niguanta[edit]

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

Article about an author that lacks notability. No reliable sources found to verify notability. Tentinator 19:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Straightforeard non-notable bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly Speedy A7. Non-notable author of a book which appears to be effectively self-published judging from this blog. I am not finding any evidence of attention in WP:RS.AllyD (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Arguably a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 27 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 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Worrall[edit]

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

I was on the fence with this one at first, but after searching there is not enough WP:SIGCOV to justify an article. Subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. There is a brief mention in an art review and everything else that I found was either a listing or a reprint of his Wikipedia page. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom, after checking some of the refs. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 28 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) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niteria[edit]

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

Character doesn't meet WP:FICTION. Tried redirecting page to book's article but was reverted. Tentinator 19:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, Character in non-notable book by non-notable author. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 27 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) 18:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vadaine Oliver[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he appears to be a professional footballer, he's never played in a fully pro league so he fails WP:NFOOTY. I can't see anything other than routine coverage in the media so he doesn't meet the broader criteria of WP:GNG, either. Dricherby (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He shouldnt be deleted he plays for a premier conference team lincoln city unsigned comment added to the talk page by 87.112.137.143 (talk); copied here by Dricherby (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly why he should be deleted - the Conference National is not a fully professional league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think we need a clearer statement in WP:FOOTYN on the application of the criteria in UK: which leagues provide notability for players and which for clubs. This may mean that we get fewer Football AFDs. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines for clubs are a bit vague but I don't see a great number of club articles coming up for AfD. The guidelines for players seem perfectly clear: point 2 of WP:NFOOTY requires playing in a fully professional league and links to Wikiproject:Football's list of qualifying leagues in each country. I would suggest that the reason so many football player articles come to AfD is not because the guidelines are unclear but because people create player articles without reading them. Dricherby (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:56, 28 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 Stagecoach North West#Stagecoach in Lancashire. (non-admin closure) czar · · 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Network Chorley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, Only consists of bus route & See Also to a deleted page, Had requested CSD but seems CSD deletion wasn't to be.–
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have said redirect to the bus company page but the same name seems to be used by a non-notable local self-help group. Given this ambiguity better to delete.--Charles (talk) 21:17, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Stagecoach Group~~. Non-notable partnership between the town council and Stagecoach. The only coverage I could find was a few things in local newspapers. Dricherby (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Better target suggested below. Dricherby (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stagecoach in Lancashire per reasoning given by Dricherby. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a better target than my suggestion (though the link should actually be to Stagecoach_North_West#Stagecoach_in_Lancashire, to avoid the double-redirect). Dricherby (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- However, we have bene deleting bus route articles, so that the target needs to be pruned. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 30 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) czar · · 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1998 St. Cloud explosion[edit]

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS covers this.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...William 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure WP:NOTNEWS applies to something that happened in 1998, and there is sufficent coverage to establish notability. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) ~~Weak~~ keep. The incident received national coverage at the time LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio (unsurprising, but a few days after the event, so it wasn't forgotten about the next day). It has, subsequently, received a number of mentions in the press AP report (2012), Brainerd Dispatch, along with all the hits you get from the gnews link above if you remove the quotes from the search term (which seem to be mostly relevant). Given the fairly wide coverage at the time and the fact that it seems that any article written in the US media about gas explosions and gas safety valves at least mentions this event, I think the article probably ought to be kept. Dricherby (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How does WP:NOTNEWS apply to this? This event happened 15 years ago. If you looked you would find alot of sources JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated above. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 19:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Keep - Bushranger has found sources that range across years of time: evidence that this topic is notable and meeting WP:PERSISTENCE. Further, notability is not temporary. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by sources. Everyking (talk) 17:46, 30 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 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Hose[edit]

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

With only routine sports coverage and one top tier MMA fight he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and the only coverage is the usual sports reporting. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the previous comments. The subject obviously doesn't meet WP:NMMA nor do I see the coverage necessary to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:00, 29 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) czar · · 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reese Andy[edit]

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

This is an unsourced BLP with only a link to his MMA fighting record. The lack of significant coverage means he doesn't meet WP:GNG and only two top tier fights means he fails WP:NMMA. The unsourced claims of being a 3 time All-American, even if true, do not meet WP:NCOLLATH.Mdtemp (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Keep My search didn't find enough WP:SIGCOV to show he meets WP:GNG (the article is of no help with this), and he doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:NCOLLATH. He is in the University of Wyoming Athletics Hall of Fame, but I that doesn't satisfy any notability criteria. It does, however, support the claim of 3 time All-American since the top 8 in each weight class each year are awarded that honor and the site says he achieved that. Papaursa (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said above is still true. However, I added his ADCC record to the article and that, combined with his two UFC fights, is enough to show notability to me. Papaursa (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage and fails to meet any notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a member of the University of Wyoming Athletics Hall of Fame. I'm not sure if that's prestiguous enough to pass the "member of Hall of Fame" catagory of WP:NCOLLATH, but it's worth a discussion. Also some significant media coverage when he was signed by the UFC and was named the 1995 Wrestler of the Year for his state by Wrestling USA Magazine. Also, according to his bio page, he competed in the ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championships in 2003 and 2005. That combined with his two top-tier fights should be enough to meet WP:GNG if the article is improved a bit. Luchuslu (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every college has a sports hall of fame, that's not what WP:NCOLLATH is referring to--it means the HOF for that sport. I added sources independent of the subject (which his team's site is not) about his ADCC record. I don't think he meets WP:GNG yet because the article still needs better sources, but I think his whole record is enough to meet WP:MANOTE. It's not just that he competed at the ADCC, but that he won 3 bouts there. Papaursa (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, I initially misread WP:NCOLLATH. Added more sources for his wrestling and MMA careers. Luchuslu (talk) 02:41, 30 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 merge to UFO sightings in Argentina. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dionisio Llanca abduction[edit]

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

At least one or two of the references are not reliable, and there is little to no indication of importance. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with UFO sightings in Argentina. May not have references to support a separated page, but it's worth mentioning in an article of greater scope. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 16:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's down to one ref and is very sparse I'm inclined to agree with a merge, it already has a section too. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost all the potential sources seem to be in Spanish: could a Spanish-speaker comment on notability? Dricherby (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can speak intermediate Spanish. This source is a detailed study of the case, analyzing the story, the victim and the evidences. It seems legit, but I cannot confirm it. There is this second, English language source, whose relevance I cannot confirm, but it looks satisfactory. Apart from this, the case is mostly only cited in other sources related to bigger topics. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 17:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UFO sightings in Argentina. The incident was used as an example of how UFO myths and anecdotal stories spread, so it's at least notable enough to keep listed at the Argentinian UFO article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the above. Seems reasonable to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 29 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 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of night buses in London[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:IMPORTANCE. None of the routes are notable. Tentinator 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How on earth is a list of night buses in London indiscriminate? Buses in London are regulated by TfL and the night buses are an explicitly defined set. The fact that the routes are not individually notable is not relevant as the subject of night buses in London as a whole is notable. There is much directory information here, but there is also non-directory information such as the histories, so it needs editing not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Night buses in London may well be a valid subject, but a list of routings is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Night buses in London is a redirect to this article, which includes both a list and encyclopaedic discussion of the topic and of (some of) the individual routes. Please comment on the content, not just the title. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be the only article specifically about London's night buses, which are of special interest to Londoners as the rest of public transport shuts down overnight. This is a notable topic as there have been such services for over a century and there is at least one substantial book devoted to the topic — London's Night Buses — plus plenty of coverage in more general works about London's buses, which are numerous. The article currently has a list format but that's a natural consequence of the topic, for which the routes form a natural structure. So, the claims of the nomination are refuted and our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the book actually provide detailed information on individual routes? And is Capital Transport Publishing considered a publisher of reliable books? Can you please also identify the other reliable sources which cover the specific topic of different routes to which you allude? From having seen the extremely specific collection of books on buses on the top floor of the London Transport Museum's shop I suspect that this is a notable list, but I can't establish this. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a content fork of List of bus routes in London, in which there is already a section on night routes. There is no reason to treat the night routes differently from the day routes. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See further comments below about splitting; however is that is not done we should stick to the original list. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's a book published on the subject. The article can be either as re-direct to List of bus routes in London#Night only routes (N-prefixed), or as a sub-list (with more detail, per WP:SUMMARY) of the above article. Perhaps there needs to be a merge discussion on the talk page and a discussion about how much detail we need in the article. Edgepedia (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough material in many of the individual sections to consider this page worthwhile. Useddenim (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the material is original research though, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. WP:ORIGINAL. Tentinator 15:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many London bus routes have their own articles. It really makes no sense to introduce an intermediate level of detail for a limited set of routes. It would make a certain sense to split this out into stubs for each section. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London. I would say that particular article offers enough coverage of the subject, not to mention all of the individual article listings. There's no reason to separate them, especially when the main list has the night bus listing already. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 23:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most London routes are usually kept & As far as I'm aware daytime buses are completely different to night times,

So perhaps putting ALL the info on List of bus routes in London would be better?,

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have voted to cull most bus route articles, but the London ones have some stability over long periods. I guess that applies to the Night Buses too. However we do not need the list twice: ince in a general list and once in a separate one. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most other keeps. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 15:51, 28 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) 19:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Nakamura[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Can find no evidence of this player outside of wikipedia. I'd hate that to be because of the language barrier, but the article doesn't prove notability. Rankersbo (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nakamura definitely fails the main conditions of WP:NFOOTY: "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Nakamura in fact fits the particular case cited: "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." The only way of then saving this is to argue that his youth career received sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. While he seems to have garnered some attention both in high school and in college, I just don't see enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He probably has a bright future ahead of him, but for now, the coverage just isn't there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:55, 28 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) 19:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Goldberg[edit]

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

Contested PROD Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:54, 28 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 00:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jai and Veeru[edit]

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

All information contained here is already present in the main article Sholay. BollyJeff | talk 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability. Sholay covers all info. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article is not needed! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:57, 25 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) 19:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixthsense publications[edit]

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

Delete, lacks secondary sourcing, seems more promotional then anything else. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Haworth said it doesn't even try to pass WP:GNG and in truth, it doesn't. I'm seeing nothing but commercial links. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely promotional and the creating editor has been adding spam citations for this company to other articles. Not notable. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:41, 29 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) 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Wright (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested without any reason. – Michael (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:32, 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) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 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) 07:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Delete per nom Narom (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was created less than a month ago - it needs expansion with additional citations to reinforce notability, not deletion. Here are some articles to improve the article so that it meets WP:GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4. I found these via a Google search based in the US. I'm fairly certain if you did a search in England where the subject is from, you'd find plenty more per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given links above provided by HmLarson for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Passes WP:Notability. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:39, 23 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) 14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist rationale: sources have been found since most participants in this discussion weighed in. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hmlarson. Transcendence (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I'm far from convinced this meets GNG: the Cambridge News source is both a local one, and a very routine one; the Wales Online one seems OK; the North Wales Weekly News/Daily Post one is a routine article about an injured player; and the BBC Sport article listed here is fairly routine as well, talking about a player's transfer. But it is borderline, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still a delete IMO, there are plenty of non league players (especially those in the BSP) who gain reasonable press coverage in one way or another especially if like this player you've played for more than one club in different parts of the country. The welsh press is essential regional coverage, outside of Wales it wouldn't be covered due to small size of the clubs. However we've kept Godfrey Poku due to press coverage in the past and despite having played for the team i support and i've edited the article I don't think it's notable enough. I don't see how a collection of cuttings from regional press plus mentions in the odd BBC article passes WP:GNG and suddenly makes a player notable. Due to the coverage the Conference now receives from national papers doing an odd report, the bbc doing every match and included some news stories copypasta from websites, the new deal with BT Sport for live matches and of course the very enthusiastic local press makes a player deserving of an article. If it does, you could quite easily justify articles for hundreds of more non league players who would fail on the very basic rules of WP:football. Narom (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wrexham have been in the Conference not the League since 2007/8. This is not a fully-pro league. Until WP:FOOTYN identifies the Conference as providing notability, we cannot allow articles on its players. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I've voted delete, this comment is silly. We can allow articles on Wrexham/Conference National players, as long as they meet GNG. Your blanket statement very obviously rejects this, which is daft. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 27 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. The article was speedily deleted by SarahStierch per WP:CSD#G5 (creation of a banned user). Further there is a clear consensus below that the topic is not notable for Wikipedia's purposes and so it would have been deleted regardless of the creator. Thryduulf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, May 30, 2013

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 709[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS also applies

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC) ...William 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor incident, not notable. WWGB (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Too soon to create the article and too soon to judge if it should be deleted – creation and AfD were within a couple of hours of the event. I'm sure things will be clearer by the end of the week's discussion. Dricherby (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable incident. Nothing happened and will be forgotten about in a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable diversion. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. No fatalities, no serious damage. Nothing outstandingly significant. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an actual incident, just the arrest of some unruly passengers upon landing. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Family argument blown up out of proportion Fudpukker (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good example of a serious incident that is newsworthy in the short term but is not notable in the long term for an encyclopedia.Crtew (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most probably a sockpupet of User:Ryan kirkpatrick --Petebutt (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable incident, not worthy of an article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since this article was deleted yesterday under G5, why is it still in AfD? It seemed like a snowball anyway. So for these reasons the discussion should be closed. Crtew (talk) 09:49, 29 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.

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 00:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter F. Kutschera[edit]

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

This article is an orphan and IMHO not notable, he is just another pilot who won the silver star Gbawden (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article being an orphan is not a reason to delete. However, there is no notability here. Fails WP:NPERSON, WP:SOLDIER. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Silver star that he got as a military honor, doesn't that count? As far as WP:NOTMEMORIAL goes, I can delete some info on it, show me which one... O.K. I deleted the time, but left everything else intact, since other information meets Wikipedia standards (at least I think so).--Mishae (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Silver Star does not confer notability. Note that WP:SOLDIER #1 mentions a nation's highest award for valor - in this case, the Medal of Honor - confers notability, while #2 says that multiple awards of the second highest award confer notability. The Silver Star is the third highest award the U.S. gives for valor (second would be the various forms of the Service Cross) - unless he had an entire chestful of the things, it (to use the vernacular of the time) counts for precisely bumpkis when it comes to notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, commanding a squadron in wartime is not an insignificant rank (what's the equivalent to Wing Commander in the USAAF, Colonel?), and the silver star isn't insignificant either. The squadron itself (No. 429 Squadron USAAF) will have had its history written. He's also dead and notability requirements are lower for dead people. There is some potential here at least. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, as the Silver Star is the third-highest award for valor given by the U.S. military, it is of no relevance when it comes to meeting WP:SOLDIER. You could, possibly, be argued with regards to WP:SOLDIER #6, but I'm not sure that rises to the level needed here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, squadrons are typically commanded by Lieutenant Colonels or even Majors in certain circumstances. EricSerge (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not seem to meet the significant coverage part of the General notability guidelines. The WP:ANYBIO guidelines about awards would in this case have to refer to the Medal of Honor or possibly multiple awards of the Distinguished Service Cross. Though his service is commendable, Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but Silver Star is an award, which means he is not Just another aviator... I did removed the Memorial thing, so it should be fine (I mentioned it before your comment). Plus, he flew 35 missions during WWII isn't it significant? An expansion on the article would have been appreciated, but I just can't find proper sources. Maybe someone would do it instead nominating it for deletion? Would be thankful. By the way, this is my first article on soldiers, and it would be a shame to delete it.--Mishae (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus has been that the Silver Star does not constitute a major or significant award. Depending on where you look, something like 50,000 Silver Stars were awarded in World War II with a total of 100,000 to 150,000 being awarded since 1932. He is, in fact, one of many thousands of aviators who served the United States in World War II. Not every squadron or company commander who has served in war is inherently notable. There does not seem to be any major sourced detail that sets him out above those many others. There are a lot of opportunities around the internet to memorialize the dead, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Though his service was, I am sure, honorable he just does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. EricSerge (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about you will improve the article rather than yelling what Wikipedia is not, and throwing your consensus around, (which I personaly don't care about) :) As far as "Not every squadron or company commander who has served in war is inherently notable" comment, maybe John Fraser Drummond is not notable too? Not to mention that it talks about memorials on the page there too, which your stupid consensus is in such hate. Yet, I am shocked to see Funeral and Memorials section in John Fraser Drummond article! Maybe I don't know what is considered to be a memorial and whats not under the consensus double standard?.. Another question, correct me if I am wrong, but there were a lot of soldiers who didn't got a medal of any kind at all, therefore your consensus should rely at least on Silver Star medals...--Mishae (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond was an Ace. That is what sets him up above the rest from the standpoint of notability. If you follow the WP:NOTMEMORIAL link that I keep inserting, the relevant part in this case is: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements (emphasis in the original)." No one is yelling here but you sir. Take a deep breath, if this this is your grandfather or something, I am sorry for your loss as I am sure he meant a lot to you.

Before I weigh in on a deletion discussion, I go look for a reliable source to add to it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to add knowledge. Community consensus, not my consensus, determines what gets included. This consensus is shaped by standards and practices written across thousands of words in rules, guidelines, essays, and discussions like this one and has shaped the idea of what does and does not belong. It can be overwhelming, but I will tell you many of us have been in this discussion before. The only difference is the name of the article, and the result was deletion for failure to show notability through reliable sources. EricSerge (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For fucks sake this guy is not my grandfather or a friend, he is just a person just like everyone else is, though distinguished with a Silver Star which your consensus rejects simply out of stupidity! And this guy is not a flying ace? He flew 35 damned missions in WWII alone! Let me explain so that your head will get it, I was searching Google for a similar guy a physicist named Walter Kutschera, and stumbled on this one, got it? So, in short, he is not my grandfather or a friend, and I never knew of his existence before that day! Question, if he would have died in WWII (like in combat) would he be of any value to Wikipedia?--Mishae (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you remain civil and calm down. The points being made are backed by consensus. If you don't care about that, as you say above, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you want to edit Wikipedia. And the answer to your last question is no, it would make no difference to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing does not meet that required to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a colonel and receiving a Silver Star do not qualify him for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 28 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) 19:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Ann Vickers[edit]

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

Another model trying to be notable. I think that her modeling career isn't notable, but as wrestlr, she isn't. She was ring announcer in a farm territory and co-host a minor tv program for 2 months. After her depature, she doesn't anything. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 17:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not entirely sure what you're saying there, but I do see plenty of hits on Google News for both Vickers and Valence versions of her name, but nothing that looks substantial. (and have added a Find Sources template for Ashley Valence). Although she undisputably passes WP:HOTTIE, I think any sourcing for her would be very slight. There is quite a lot of gossipy coverage of her relationship with Jake Pavelka, judging by a Google search for Vickers and Pavelka. I also came across a video she presented for Maxim recently. I don't feel I can vote one way or the other, as it all seems a bit borderline. Mabalu (talk) 01:26, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again. She worked a lot in different works, but I don't think that she is notable in anyone.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gotta agree with HHH... most of the RS I've found about her seem to be tabloidery about her dating life. If she does get past the GNG bar it's by the skin of her teeth.LM2000 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Richard BB 11:05, 29 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 G11 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Carr (entertainment)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability - this is essentially a puff piece for an unremarkable agent Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a vanity article. --Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Pure spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:17, 26 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 effectively withdrawn by nominator. L Faraone 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of flowers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

dictionary topic. Spammish. Formless. I copied the stats bit to funeral, the rest has nothing to do with facts. was deleted in 2008. trespassers william (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I completed the formatting on this nomination, and logged it to May 24. Please process it according to that date, rather than May 23 (above). Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination explains that material has been copied to another article. We must therefore keep this per WP:MAD. See also alternatives to deletion. Warden (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, redirected. Speaking of editor retention etc., it's one strange bureau-hole you got here on AfD. One example: theoretically I don't see why can't the article's history be discarded with its content, as the inclusion of the same info in another article is an entirely independent act, done by one editor with no prior consent from the community. If only I wrote "the is already on funeral", instead of "I copied", nobody'd have cared about MAD (indeed). trespassers william (talk) 16:55, 25 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 USERFIED to User:WjI-kop/Uplace. Technical 13 (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uplace[edit]

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

This article is about a "planned shopping mall" and violates WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Technical 13 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's view: it is quite a story which is quite important in Belgium. See the newspapers... I'll add it tomorrow. --WjI-kop (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Userfy This mall doesn't exist, and while it is possible that the speculation in 2013 about a future mall would be of interest to readers in 10 years, I think this is not the case here. At the same time, the planning for such a mall is an event, one to which WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER and WP:Notability (events) applies. The WP:BEFORE guideline states at point B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." The Netherlands Wikipedia article shows that this is a big news story, and it has potential to be an encyclopedia article. WP:Notability (events) states, "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'. IMO, this is an event whose story for an encyclopedia is not now timely, and will continue to be a matter of breaking news until it is known that the mall has been or will not be built. WP:Notability (events) states, "Editors are encouraged to write about breaking news events in Wikinews instead of in Wikipedia." Unscintillating (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the mall itself is not notable. What may be notable, are the planning approval processes and any controversy relating to these. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Important: This is just what I wanted to tell, but I didn't have the time yet. I have edited it (and will edit in the future to improve the English). --WjI-kop (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that is all fine and good, the first sentence of the article still reads, "Uplace is a planned shopping mall near Vilvoorde, Belgium, just above Brussels' orbital road." If it is about the controversy, then make the article about the controversy. Right now it still reads in favor of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Unscintillating has also raised a lot of other good arguments and this article may just be WP:TOOSOON in which case you, as the creator of the article may want to request WP:USERFICATION or that the article be bumped to WP:AFC which I likely would not oppose. Technical 13 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hereby request userfication for this article. --WjI-kop (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support userfication. Unscintillating (talk) 12:43, 26 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 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Club Sandwich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I confess this is not my specialist subject and bow to the wisdom of others who may be better informed. I came across this page as a Random article. It was badly written, full of cliche and hype, so I proceded to rewrite and tidy up. At the end, I just could not understand what made this band notable, hence this nomination. The article is completely unreferenced and has been since 2006. On the talk page, one reader in 2007 mentioned the lack of references and said, "I know the guys and can vouch for everything on here, unfortunately that would seem to fall into the "own research" category." He promised to obtain sources, but that has never happened. A Google search reveals plenty of links to Youtube and Facebook, as well as sites listing lyrics and the like, but no independent reliable coverage in the press or elsewhere. The article attempts to give notability by association, for example by mentioning guest vocalists (none of whom is notable enough for a Wikipedia article) and other bands that this one has appeared with (ditto). Nothing in the article suggests that the band is notable in and of itself.

The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2005 and was, at that time, deleted. This is clearly a much longer article, but my reading is that the band was deleted previously for lack of notability and I cannot see how that has changed. Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to point out that the article was recreated by User contributions:MuttleyBCS, who is presumably the band member. Emeraude (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only reference I could find only mentioned the band in passing. Article appears to be entirely original research. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:15, 24 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 575 Commonwealth Avenue and West Campus, merge and redirect Myles Annex and Towers (Boston University), no consensus on Shelton Hall (Boston University). (non-admin closure) czar · · 16:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

575 Commonwealth Avenue[edit]

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

Non-notable university dormitory. Also nominated:

Keep Shelton Hall, West Campus and 575 Commonwealth Avenue. Neutral on the other two. Shelton Hall was one of the first Sheraton Hotels and has had a lot of coverage. [16][17][18] (likely much more). The death of iconic playwright Eugene O'Neill there adds to its notability. Found ample coverage on West Campus too, which by the way isn't just a university dormitory, but a whole portion of Boston University. [19][20]--Oakshade (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC) NOTE: Added Keep 575 Commonwealth Avenue based on Hirolovesswords improvements. --Oakshade (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 575 Commonwealth Avenue. Added information on history as a hotel. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:12, 10 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 05:12, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 575 Commonwealth Avenue and West Campus per their significant and extensive history and coverage. Merge/Redirect Myles Annex, Shelton Hall (Boston University), and Towers (Boston University) to Boston University Housing System They are not that long in length, don't seem to have much coverage outside the school, and can be condensed and added to the main housing article. Note that all five of the articles being nominated have a lot of unsourced, unverifiable, or opinionated information that definitely should be removed (i.e. "Claflin Hall is adjacent to the dining hall, but students must walk to retrieve their mailbox contents and to print in the Resnet computer labs, located in Rich Hall," Myles Annex being referred as "The Mannex," and "The ninth floor [of Shelton Hall] consists of a study lounge that provides an impressive view of Boston and the Charles River as well as Fenway Park/Students like the building for its quiet atmosphere") The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:49, 27 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 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric Order of Art[edit]

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

Absolutely no indication of notability, purely promotional, no proper sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any reliable sources. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found (on Google, Highbeam, or Questia) for this organisation, either under the article title or as "Esoteric Art Movement". AllyD (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 31 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 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jagjit Kaur[edit]

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

I see nothing here that is notable, and the refs are routine listings mere mentions DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see nothing to pass WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 14:16, 18 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references that aren't directory entries are articles about something else that mention the subject only in a trivial way, so there isn't enough evidence of passing WP:GNG, and there also seems to be no sign of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability (people). This seems like another instance of someone really grasping for straws in order to create an article about a non-notable subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also think that notability eludes the subject of this article who fails to meet WP:GNG. Nothing she has done to date makes her stand out in a crowd and the article was created by someone who has made only four edits/contributions, three about her.--Zananiri (talk) 21:35, 27 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 for copyright violation. Rephrasing a few words doesn't change the fact that this article was almost entirely lifted from: http://www.juliaontap.com/BTTF/page7.html. This could have been tagged for speedy deletion a long time ago. Jamie S93 08:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wyatt Jackson

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

Non notable musician. The whole page looks copied from his official website. Koala15 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:COPYVIO from http://www.juliaontap.com/BTTF/page7.html--Nixie9✉ 04:16, 23 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 9. Snotbot t • c » 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 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 03:36, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 24 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. Consesnsus was to keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaaz Multimedia[edit]

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

Asserts notability but provides no references to support the claim - actually has no references at all. Company web-site is apparently a facebook page. Fail;s WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable film production company in Bangladesh per sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 20:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references that have been added do confirm that this firm is actively promoting its proposition in the cinemas of the country, but are they sufficient to demonstrate notability? AllyD (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources, this company is the first one to initiate digitization in Bangladeshi cinema, also one of the most reputed film production companies in Bangladesh. These points surely justify the inclusion of the article. Besides, the references given, also provide significant coverage about the subject.--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wouldn't say the sources are reliable. Even if they are newspaper publications, the newspapers aren't themselves notable enough to prove to be reliable sources, which clearly justifies my vote. smtchahal^(talk) 13:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to keep. Those sources should be enough, as far as WP:CORP is concerned. smtchahal^talk 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how the newspapers are not notable enough??.--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kaler Kantho IS a notable newspapers. Kaler Kontho report says, they have signed a contract with Shree Venkatesh Films and making four films! Now the Venkatesh Films are the best production house of West Bengal at this moment. In addition, the article says— 2 films have released, 2 films post production works are going on etc! Also, I have searched in Google Bengali and found multiple mentions of this company, note the following search uses a variation of the Bengali script, see here. Reading these article, I am sure this is a notable film production house of Bangladesh, so, I am giving a "keep" vote! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:27, 16 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 03:36, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 24 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 Wynter Gordon. If someone wants to merge the content or create a new page for the series I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Condition: Doleo[edit]

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

Also nominating Human Condition: Sanguine.

Had a search but couldn't find anything enough reliable sources to take this article beyond a WP:Stub. Thus, per WP:NALBUMS, it is not notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:23, 11 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge) to Wynter Gordon. There appears to be a bit of coverage for each EP (this for Doleo; this for Sanguine), but the information would be better presented, in my view, within a main Human Condition article in which the entire EP series can be discussed, similar to Skitszo. Gong show 15:58, 25 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 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Electronic[edit]

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

This UK branch of a larger company does not seem to be notable in itself and there is no assertion of notability. The article is also very, very, very boring, but that is incidental. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 11 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's so boring, nobody can even be bothered to comment on whether it should be deleted! Philafrenzy (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main branch seems notable although most of the sources are in German; suggest a rename along the lines of the German Wikipedia article. Praemonitus (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but repurpose inot an article on the whole European group. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 22 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as Peterkingiron suggested. The firm as a whole is probably notable. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 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 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sunset Music[edit]

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

Other than own website, only source cited appears to be a social new sharing site so falls under WP:SPS as unreliable. Attempts to find suitable, independent secondary published sources to establish notability failed. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 22:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into finding the links for charted songs and adding that information. In addition, I'm looking into additional press on the subject. If I am unable to locate these then I will certainly accept the judgment of deletion if that's what is decided. Just taking me a bit of time because I'm on the road at the moment. All additional comments and feedback are appreciated as I usually only edit articles and am just beginning to create them. DynamicUno (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - please take your time. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 01:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:15, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 24 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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak per CSD G11. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Lorenzo[edit]

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

CSD contested by IP. Promotional article about non-notable person. Dewritech (talk) 11:49, 24 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 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Om Swami[edit]

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

No reliable sources, none found via Google (Google News gives a few false positives). No indication of notability. Severely promotional, possible WP:COI problems. Huon (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found. Fails WP:AUTHOR. LK (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really it notable enough even if it did have better sources. --JetBlast (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Allowing a few more days to add sources that may be available

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Mr X 19:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I am helping one of the contributors to this article add proper source citations. There has been non-trivial news coverage in a New Delhi publication called the Speaking Tree, including a feature article. There has also been an interview on a television program called Jhankaar. - Mr X 19:25, 23 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) 11:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we have added sources to the external links section to support Om Swami’s notability. We trust that these sources will be acceptable to establish his notability. We will keep adding additional sources as they become available. Regards,Anjumodgil (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands right now, weak delete. Links to Amazon.com don't seem like a good way of establishing notability. Perhaps we could extend this discussion a little bit to see what else can be brought. I'm not finding anything but I think that could be due to all the false positives in my search. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 26 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 per WP:SNOW. MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 762[edit]

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

Not notable incident. Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC) ...William 10:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete non fatal incidents happen all the time. This is not news. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also, WP:EVENT is not met, either: So far, this is just a breaking news item, without any indication for further, presisting coverage.--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-fatal incident (WP:AIRCRASH) suitable for news sources not encyclopedias (WP:NOTNEWS). Doesn't look likely to develop into anything much, either - would need a WP:CRYSTAL ball to tell anyway. Far too soon, far too small. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:AIRCRASH, the criteria for even mentioning an incident on the aircraft or airport page are fatalities, serious damage to or loss of the aircraft, serious damage on the ground or that the incident resulted in design changes, changes to procedures and so on. So far, this event doesn't seem to have met any of those criteria. If it's not worth mentioning on the aircraft/airport page, it's certainly not worth its own article. Dricherby (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DOGBITESMAN - this kind of thing happens all the time. Precisely zero notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. There were (luckily) no fatalities or serious damage. This type of incident is common, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Consider it a blessing when disasters do not rise up to notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation after discussion - further info may come to light in the future which can then be discussed via the DRV process. Please see discussion at WT:AV re inclusion of this incident in the airline, airport and arcraft type articles. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strongly agree with has been said already. The event will be (luckily) forgotten really soon. --Snow Blizzard 20:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per above and WP:AIRCRASH. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 00:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking rather SNOWy, if anyone wd like to do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable, a minor incident that happens almost every day. Just a case of uninformed general media hysteria over anything to do with aircraft. If a car, truck, train or ship had been trailing smoke and had to stop, with no one hurt as a consequence, it would never have been reported in the media and we certainly wouldn't have a Wikipedia article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article should be deleted but a plane trailing smoke is clearly more serious than a car, truck, train or ship doing so. If a plane has problems in the air, it can't just stop like a car, truck, train or ship. Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason that airliners have a fatal accident record about 20 times better than cars and trucks is that they have certification standards and multiple redundant structures and systems, plus a trained crews, exactly with the concept of making these sorts of incidents non-events. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 25 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. POW! J04n(talk page) 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural infiltration[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:OR screed, like the rest of this sockmaster's creations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. is this a personal essay masking as a Wikipedia article? Regardless, the question of an AfD is "Is the subject of the article notable"? The subject has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, and this might be considered significant coverage. Given that the subject has received coverage, but the content is questionable, I say we should go with WP:TNT. A fresh start might do this subject some good if someone (or a group of people) want to work on this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is badly written, but it seems to be notable. Starting over, as Sarek suggests, is an option. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's basically my thought. Even if the topic is notable, there's nothing worth saving here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is POV as it stands but it's obviously a concept that does exist and Wikipedia deserves to have a good page on it. Scrap everything that fails to mark individual POVs as such. Shii (tock) 04:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as propaganda, the extreme form of promotionalism. We already have an article on this, cultural hegemony. Possibly a redirect should be made from this term--I think it is too closely related to make a separate article. Even if we did, the existing content is too biased to be usable, and should be removed from the history. The alternative would be to save section 1, discarding the introduction and sections 2 & 3. ( note the article link from Gramsci is not to our article, but to an outside p with a much inferior biography. And the ref RCLC found for this term is about the US attempt at cultural infiltration of the Soviet Union, a topic that is nowhere mentioned in the article. If we do have an article under this term, it should be limited to Gramsci's concept & later discussion of it. Communist attempts to affect the culture of the US, possibly based to some extent on Gramsci, US attempt to affect the USSR, possible Islamist attempts to affect the culture of the US, and many other examples throughout history, are all best discussed separately. It's not as if nobody would have thought of the idea without Gramsci. It goes back at least as far as the initial Christian attempts to convert the pagans. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 22 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inappropriate external links from the article, so "Antoni Gramsci" now links to his Wikipedia article. Dricherby (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the problems with the article are essentially content issues, the article contains huge amounts of Islamophobic propaganda and it would be so hard to write an NPOV article starting here that WP:TNT seems to be the best option. Dricherby (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural hegemony, WP:ESSAY on existing topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 24 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 00:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Hills, Los Angeles[edit]

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

Not a Notable neighborhood. No reliable sources for any of the information. I can't even find enough valid info to merge it with any other neighborhood in Los Angeles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a actual neighborhood. It's not mentioned in reliable sources (other than a guide to presbyterian churches in 1917, but it's not clear from that listing where the "Sunset Hills" they're talking about is located; it cannot be here, since this area wasn't developed in 1917). It's not mentioned in the LA Times mapping LA project. It doesn't show up in the find sources template links above except for the odd Wikipedia scraper, and it barely shows up in a straight-up google search except for things that seem based on this Wikipedia article. It seems to have been made up by real estate agents based on the existence of a minuscule road, Sunset Hills Road, that tees off Doheny just above Sunset (map link here).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neighborhoods are usually notable IMO, but they have to verifiably exist and be referred to by Reliable Sources. This one doesn't qualify. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete next to nothing on this out there in internetland. Most likely a real estate invention, as mentioned above. If this place was a legit neighbourhood, there would be at least incidental mentions in news reports, books, etc. The Interior (Talk) 01:00, 28 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 00:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Latvia, Kiev[edit]

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

recent AfDs have shown that embassies are not inherently notable. this embassy and below are simply directory listings:

Embassy of Switzerland, Kiev
Embassy of Lithuania, Kiev
Embassy of Belgium, Kiev
Embassy of India, Kiev
Embassy of Finland, Kiev

those wanting to keep most show evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - the "coverage" of each seems to be routine coverage of vague diplomatic discussions or minor incidents between the two countries, not coverage of the building/embassy function in and of itself. In my mind, these sort of things would only be considered significant in their own right if they had been the subject of multiple major events or an ongoing scandal or if the building itself was of historical significance. Most of these are simply office buildings, though some of them seem fancy or decorative, and the routine ambassadorial function they house does not make them inherently notable, in my view. Stalwart111 07:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111...William 10:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a single List of foreign embassies in Ukraine. Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A worthwhile suggestion, but we already have List of diplomatic missions in Ukraine and each of the above is listed there already. I've redirected your suggested title there for clarity. Stalwart111 01:08, 28 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 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KLIA Awards & Recognitions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KLIA Awards & Recognitions

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

I don't think this topic contains encyclopaedic. coming 5th or 9th in an award is hardly worth mentioning. coming 1st in a major award is worth mentioning but that should appear in the main article. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of these awards notable? They don't have Wikipedia articles yet for the ones I searched for. The magazine mentioned doesn't have an article either. Are these awards/survey results reported in reliable sources? Dream Focus 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be purely promotional, therefore delete.--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional stuff. Finishing 1st would be mentioned in the main article, but 5th or 9th isn't even remarkable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:57, 25 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. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer village in China[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Clusters of cancers appear the world over so there is nothing significant in this. Also the article is too small. Kf8 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing at all notable about the general concept Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Important and notable topic. Article needs substantial further development. This is a big issue, with much discussion and emerging scholarship, not only in China, but globally. Should be ample sources for further development. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several references which can be used for further development of the article, and also cleaned it up a bit, more generally. With even a quick look, there is no shortage of substantial and notable sources. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. Merge with cancer cluster and redirect. Notable enough to be the subject of articles in the BBC (cited in article), the Washington Post [21], Reuters [22], and the Guardian [23]. ~~Should be retitled to "List of cancer villages in China" until there is sufficient prose for a separate article.~~ Does need a lot of work.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that all these articles only vaguely use the term "cancer village" without any specific data or definition. The list in the article right now is not supported by any reliable source. -Zanhe (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about reliable sources. (Wp:recentism and wp:notnews also apply somewhat, but the phenomenon has probably been around for decades and isn't going away soon, even if the terminology is new.) I'll wait a few days to see if someone addresses the sparseness of information in reliable sources before changing my vote to merge per your proposal below.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News reports, references added by Sonnenfeld, and a Google Scholar search [24] establishes notability of term. It is, however a specific case of cancer clusters and should be covered there, with a redirect so that people looking for "cancer villages" can find the info. If its coverage in the cancer clusters article becomes extensive enough for a stand alone article, an article on cancer villages can be re-created. The current list is not from a reliable source and appears to be unusable. Examples of reliably documented cancer clusters in China can be added to List of cancer clusters. It also deserves mention in Pollution in China.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to "List of countries by population", China has more than four times as many inhabitants as the United States has, so "Cancer village in China" is at least as important as "List of Superfund sites in the United States".—Wavelength (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superfund sites are designated by legislation from the US Congress. On the other hand, the Chinese government only "appears to have acknowledged the existence of so-called cancer villages" according to the BBC article cited as a main source. This concept is way too vague to justify its own article. -Zanhe (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It's ludicrous to have an article about such a vague and transient concept. What are we going to have next? Heart attack city? Diabetes town? Autism province? Car crash highway? The possibilities are endless. Even the BBC article cited as a main source says there is no technical definition for the term "cancer village". -Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: summarize the article and merge the information to Pollution in China. -Zanhe (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heart attack city, Diabetes town, etc. - This is a straw man argument. Of course we should not have articles on phrases that Zanhe has just made up.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of cancer clusters seem to go back to 17th Century English chimney sweeps, so the concept is not transient. "Cancer Village" is a term that is still in use, so it's impossible to tell if it's transient, but by the first Further reading reference in the article, it goes back at least 6 years.
Whether a term is vague or has no technical definition is probably not relevant to whether it can be the subject of a Wikipedia article, but is useful for determining what can be included in a list.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with cancer cluster and redirect. A few lines on China should be added there. The full list of villages (Which is sourced to a map in a blog!!!!!) is certainly not notable for inclusion unless a reliable source is found talking about naming those specific villages, and it is not worth keeping. --Garrondo (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term used in epidemiology is "cancer cluster", and we already have an article for that worldwide phenomenon. This article does not contain uniquely useful information, but is rather a list of villages which, if publicized, could harm their reputations. Shrigley (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this page, "[t]he government of [one city, Weifang, in east China] is offering 100,000 yuan (US$16,000) to anyone who blows the whistle on companies illegally discharging waste underground." That government seems to be unconcerned about publicity (about pollution) harming its reputation.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there I thought Wikipedia was about using reliable sources to create an encyclopedia. Now that I know it's about protecting and harming reputations I'll change my editing habits. (end sarcasm).--Wikimedes (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an unnotable concept with no credibility other than a recent coined sensationalism. It does not warrant a standalone article. --Cold Season (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Much of the above discussion is focused on notability. I'd like to try to summarize here what may or may not be notable about this topic, following WP:GNG:

Significant coverage - Do the sources address the subject directly in detail? Yes
Reliability - Do the sources have editorial integrity? Yes: Shanghai Daily (a Chinese government-run publication), BBC News, The Lancet, Journal of Contemporary China...
Sources - Based on secondary sources? Yes
Independent of the subject - Yes
Presumed - Does significant coverage in reliable sources establish a presumption of suitability for inclusion? Yes

Beyond this, statements have been made about this being a passing sensation. News coverage goes back until at least 2007, so that is six years. Not ephemeral in today's sound-byte world... The Wei et al. (2008) study suggests that 7-8% of the population of one of the villages involved has died from cancers. The number of identified villages has more than doubled from 2007-2013. The topic and interest in it, is not going to go away. Much room for development & refinement of the topic, but I can't see deleting it because of insufficient notability. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and perhaps merge) to the cancer cluster article. There's nothing particularly significant about these villages versus other cancer clusters worldwide. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of this particular 'cluster' (actually series of clusters) lies in the facts that i) China is the world's most populous country; ii) in recent years, it has been the most rapidly and consistently growing part of the global economy; iii) the appearance of these 'cancer villages' is a relatively new phenomenon, closely tied in with rapid industrialization; iv) they are geographically dispersed within China; v) the issue has been the focus of substantial media focus in China and around the world; vi) the Chinese government now is acknowledging that, indeed, there is a problem... If Love Canal in the United States has an article, certainly these 'cancer villages' in China deserve their own. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not the way to capture this data. Cancer clusters should be held in lists, very tightly sourced, and probably not by country. The current version of the page does not clarify whether particular kinds of cancer were common in these villages. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "cancer" occurs 49 times on this page, and six types of cancer are mentioned: throat cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, liver cancer, esophagus cancer, and stomach cancer. Also, details about the types of pollutants are mentioned. If the list is converted to a sortable wikitable (and even if not), then those extra details can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the page above appears to be a personal blog and cannot be considered a reliable source. -Zanhe (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These web pages may be of interest.
- China Pollution Map Database
- Home--公众环境研究中心

—Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Beyond general notability of the topic, many of the comments, above, focus on the reliability of the source(s) of the 'Selected list of cancer villages' in the article. The immediate source of that list is a blog, indeed not generally considered a reliable source. The blog entry is based on that author's 'ethnographic' work in China, and refers to the earlier (2007) map published online in China by an environmental activist. That map has been widely circulated online in China and beyond, and was updated and expanded in 2013, catalyzing a second round of press coverage. The latter is reported to have been done by an undergraduate student, again self-published online. I agree that these sources -- though widely covered -- should not be considered reliable as the basis for an encyclopedic article, and that any entries on the 'Selected list...' for which there are not additional, reliable, independent published sources should be removed. The residual question for me is whether, having removed non-verifiable entries on the list, there would be enough left of the article to justify its continuation as a stub... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a concept covered in Cancer cluster, specific instances may warrant coverage (as with Love Canal) based on sourcing (not evident at this point). -- Scray (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.—Unfortunately, deletion appears to be imminent. Interested editors may wish to preserve a copy in user space or off-line in preparation for a time when better sources become available.—Wavelength (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as long as there is no reliable sourcing. A "map that is being widely circulated on the Internet", of unknown authorship, is about the most ridiculous piece of sourcing I've seen on Wikipedia for a while. Take that and the list of villages away and the entire content of the article is reduced to a seven-word sub-stub: "Cancer villages in China: there are some." That's all we know about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with cancer cluster and redirect - Unless, of course, all the sources are unreliable, in which case delete. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:13, 31 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 keep. I am closing this discussion early because this group meets notability requirements more than sufficiently. If you do a bit of research, you'll find plenty of high-end sources validating their importance. See links posted by Michig. Jamie S93 08:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Big + Kid Static[edit]

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

Non notable group Koala15 (talk) 04:44, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to failure to follow WP:BEFORE and typically lacking deletion rationale. The article already links to these: [25],[26],[27], and even a cursory search (e.g. a quick search in Google and the first page of the Google News archive) would find these: XLR8R, Allmusic, Allmusic, Riverfront Times, Chicago Sun Times, TimeOut Chicago, PopMatters, PopMatters, PopMatters, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune. There's more out there on GNews and GBooks. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above. Nom's rationale is contradicted by the sources already present in the article and the many more that exist elsewhere online. Gong show 18:26, 24 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 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mav (rapper)[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:BAND, and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:50, 24 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyn Heffernan[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Enough proof of notability. Koala15 (talk) 02:29, 25 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No meaningful deletion rationale provided. Article already cites substantial coverage from Village Voice, Denver Post, and Huffington Post. --Michig (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it is a meaningful rationale, she does not meet notability guidelines. Just because someone calls themselves a hip hop artist does not make them worthy of wikipedia article. Koala15 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article (and others such as this Spin magazine piece) demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gong show 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable; the articles referenced are reliable sources, and directly feature the subject. I currently have a discussion with Koala trying to figure out how s/he's judging notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 25 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 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dejuan Turrentine[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:55, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article by RapReviews unfortunately not from their review section, and more in the manner of passed-on PR news.[28] Coverage by Vibe [29] and something called Mingle Media TV Network [30]. Other sources are no better. 86.42.94.218 (talk) 20:43, 29 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) czar · · 06:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Rhettmatic[edit]

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

Non noatable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:47, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage exists to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1 - examples include [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. Gong show 18:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NPR coverage, work reviewed in Pitchfork, Stylus, Exclaim!, HipHopDX. 86.42.94.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 29 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 00:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Casey[edit]

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

Non notable musiician. Koala15 (talk) 04:59, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of a hit called "Smooth" with a Kenny Dope remix on Polygram/Mercury is interesting, but I found no trace of it, or anything else. 86.42.94.218 (talk) 20:49, 29 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 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Xiaofeng[edit]

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

A complete, complete mess of an article that appears to be a direct, poorly-done translation from the Chinese Wikipedia article (which itself is a mess, but less so without the linguistic mess). The person may be notable, but I am not finding enough evidence of the person's notability, and the peacock nature of the description (both here and on Chinese Wikipedia) gives me strong belief that this person isn't notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much agree with nom. I suspect we may have Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo to thank for this mess. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he were notable (very dubious proposition), WP:TNT would definitely apply. Ray^Talk 23:00, 28 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) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Bosnar[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and hasn't played in a fully professional football league. Hack (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article creator (a long time ago, in my defence!), non-notable. Could also consider a redirect to Eddy Bosnar#Family. Giant Snowman 08:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:53, 28 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 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelhack[edit]

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

very low level of coverage. A big hackathon, but are hackathons individually notable? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an ambitious but very new undertaking (formed in 2011), and up to now it has not received the required significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Everything I found at Google News [41] is minor or from unreliable sources. There is one significant piece cited in the article, from TechCrunch, but that's not enough for WP:CORP. Maybe this will get more notice later, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources for the subject to be considered notable as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 28 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 a creation by a banned user. --B (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Miriam Slozberg[edit]

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

Non notable author-- the books have no library holdings at all in Worldcat and appear to be self published. The reverences are blogs or press releases and show no notability DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete same article was deleted less than a month ago --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I declined the speedy since it was just different enough to where I can't really rationalize deleting it as a copy of the previous version deleted at AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep She is not only an author but also an astrologer. Please, check her appearances on several radio shows.--Msolzberg (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Msolzberg (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The big problem here is that none of the sources on the article are really usable as reliable sources per Wikipedia. Here's a rundown of the sources:

Sources
[42] BlogTalk Radio isn't usable as a reliable source since it's one of those sites where anyone can open up their own channel for the most part. Even though it's spoken, it falls under the same umbrella as written blogs. [43] This one is borderline, but generally speaking, radio shows in general aren't really considered to be usable unless they're something that is nationally syndicated. The station also has to be one that is considered to be rather reliable, such as NPR. [44] This is another non-notable radio station as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Note that I said per Wikipedia. You can have shows that can be popular and known, yet still not be considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. [45] This is another radio show that could be borderline, but will probably end up being an unusable source once I put it through the RS noticeboard. [46] This isn't really an article as much as it's an advertisement for someone to visit their blog radio station... which is unusable as a reliable source. It barely even mentions the book as anything other than a passing mention, in any case. [47] This looks to be Slozberg's own blog/website and lists a press release. This is seen as a primary source and cannot be used as anything to show notability.

Sources

[42] BlogTalk Radio isn't usable as a reliable source since it's one of those sites where anyone can open up their own channel for the most part. Even though it's spoken, it falls under the same umbrella as written blogs.
[43] This one is borderline, but generally speaking, radio shows in general aren't really considered to be usable unless they're something that is nationally syndicated. The station also has to be one that is considered to be rather reliable, such as NPR.
[44] This is another non-notable radio station as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Note that I said per Wikipedia. You can have shows that can be popular and known, yet still not be considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards.
[45] This is another radio show that could be borderline, but will probably end up being an unusable source once I put it through the RS noticeboard.
[46] This isn't really an article as much as it's an advertisement for someone to visit their blog radio station... which is unusable as a reliable source. It barely even mentions the book as anything other than a passing mention, in any case.
[47] This looks to be Slozberg's own blog/website and lists a press release. This is seen as a primary source and cannot be used as anything to show notability.

In the end all we have are two appearances on radio shows that are of dubious notability at best. That's not enough to show notability. I'll see what I can find, but I wanted to detail these and show why none of the sources are usable as reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to find sources, but there just isn't anything out there that would show that Slozberg passes notability guidelines. In the end all we have are two appearances on radio shows that are pretty unusable as reliable sources. We need something other than just radio show appearances to show notability and that just doesn't exist at this time. Just having published something isn't enough to give notability either. Considering that this was created less than a month after the previous AfD, it might be worth salting to prevent recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI. iUniverse and Dreamsculpt Media, cited as her books publishers, are specialised in self-publication Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per G4, recreation of a page that was previously deleted per a deletion discussion. Added sources do not show notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt WP:COI biography re-created against recently-established community consensus that the subject is non-notable. AllyD (talk) 05:24, 25 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 merge to Era Vulgaris (album). (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Era Vulgaris editions[edit]

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

Content forking of the main article. There's no reason to create a separate page just for listing the editions of an album. Malconfort (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Era Vulgaris (album). (@Malconfort: For future reference, merge suggestions are best made on the relevant talkpages. AfD is generally intended when the nom believes the target article actually needs to be deleted.) –Quiddity (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is new to me. Next time I do it.--Malconfort (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. You're not a real Wikipedian until you've made (and learned from) at least 50 mistakes! (As someone said to me years ago) –Quiddity (talk) 03:25, 26 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 00:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Peridis[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a TV presenter/journalist and WP:BIO. hardly anything in gnews. simply working for a major network does not guarantee notability. text like this does not add to notability:

Peridis has represented NSW as a gymnast and as a cross country runner.[2]
Peridis is an avid runner and was due to compete in the New York Marathon on 1 November 2009. He was also expected to race in the New Zealand Ironman on 6 March 2010.[6][7]
He is a member of the Cronulla Seagulls Football Club and the North Cronulla Surf Lifesaving Club

LibStar (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I haven't found any significant coverage substantially about this person. Having read the article, it's hard to say what, if anything, approaches WP:ANYBIO. Not everyone with a job on TV is at all encyclopedically notable. JFHJr (㊟) 20:50, 16 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 01:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low-profile kind of guy. No sources at all but one trivial mention. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:36, 24 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. There's only one substantial "keep" opinion, and it says: "Keep if cleaned up". Well, it hasn't been, so, goodbye. Sandstein 10:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Igono[edit]

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

Promo piece created by a blocked sockpuppet. Sourced by pr, wikipedia, blogs and a school newspaper. Not good enough for WP:N. Did not make the NFL. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G5. Mdann52 (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technicly this might not meet the letter of G5. This article was created one day before the bloccking of fellow sock Voidz. Based on the serial sockinging and the throwaway accounts used its likely that an account involved in this spamfest has been blocked before. Ignore all rules, denying this puppetshow the fruits of their promotional labour is in the best interests of Wikipedia. G5 delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. I declined the WP:CSD#G5 nomination as invalid. The article was created prior to any block or ban of any of the author's accounts. There was no block evasion going on at the time. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if cleaned up. Okay, it might be an article created by a blocked sockpuppet. It might be self-promotional. And the references in the article are not the kind of reliable sources that we like to see. BUT -- the subject has generated significant news. Information is verifiable. Reliable sources DO exist to validate the notability of the subject. From there, the issue is one of content rather than deletion. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources exist? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:51, 20 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 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete If his record label article is kept, I would redirect to there. But Guys who start record companies are a dime a dozen. The list of what look to be high school sports awards is a strong sign that real notability is lacking. Mangoe (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed without consideration. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with rationale by Paulmcdonald (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

, Agreed this article should say, Heres more Verifiable Information on the subject too. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/funding-wagon-helps-create-star-200800191.html ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.102.241 (talk) 22:04, 22 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 01:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although gnews gives 40-odd hits, all but one of these are WP:ROUTINE coverage of his non-notable high-school and college football, which is far short of WP:NGRIDIRON (not professional) and doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. The one exception is a trivial mention as being CEO of his record company in an article about that company signing a band. Dricherby (talk) 11:08, 24 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) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy Car Rentals[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Vague claims of "resellers" and "cooperators" but nothing to indicate size of company or amount of business. No references outside the company, just two review sites. Sockpuppets suspected, there are at least six users who have only ever edited this article and nothing else. Dmol (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and I'm unable to find sources to show that the subject meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello, I would like to improve the artice with your help, to prevent the deletion if possible. More specifically:

'Vague claims of "resellers" and "cooperators" ': The company should have the right not to reveal its cooperators, but if necessary a list can be included in the article with all resellers and cooperators. 'nothing to indicate size of company or amount of business': Again I don't believe such information should be public knowledge, nor I can think of a way to prove one's amount of business, open to suggestions. 'No references outside the company, just two review sites': Please indicate the information on the site that needs additional references. 'Sockpuppets suspected, there are at least six users who have only ever edited this article and nothing else': Editing only one article is against the rules of Wikipedia?

Overall, I am new to Wikipedia, I would prefer someone more experienced to give me advice on improving the page rather than suggesting the deletion of it. Thank you for your understanding.

Balaviaris (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Balaviaris ~~is one of the suspected sockpuppets. Editors user page is a copy of the article~~. (Stricken by Dmol. See comments below.)--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I only did what wikipedia advises in these cases, to keep a copy in your user's page (quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help,_my_article_got_nominated_for_deletion!#How_to_save_the_article: The best is to duplicate it in a subpage (on your user page), then improve when possible (if and when sources are found), then later convert back to an article). Anyway, I think the AfD was too harsh, Dmol should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations : "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Nothing of the above was done. There wasn't even a warning, neither a recommendation for improvement. I would also recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry before accusing someone of sockpuppeting. I really hope this discussion is something more than random personal attacks. Balaviaris (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment - I had not noticed that the copy of the page was put on Balaviaris user page as a backup copy at the same time the article was listed for AFD, so I have removed my comment. However, I have added a Conflict of Interest tag to the page as Balaviaris is an employee of Economy Car Rentals as shown by his/her comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bonadea#Economy_Car_Rentals_page --Dmol (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since my contribution on the article cannot be considered unbiased and objective, I will stop editing the Economy Car Rentals article. I only ask from a neutral user, like Dmol for example, to try and fix any remaining problems of the article. Deleting it still seems too final and completely unnecessary. Balaviaris (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, this article was written from me, as everyone can edit articles, I would appreciate if you could remove the changes that has been done from other users to this article and leave it as it was before. I have no connection to this company and I am not working for them. I would appreciate if I could have the original version of my article. Thank you crasper —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 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 01:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH spectacularly. 4 sources - two user-generated review sites and two pages from the subject's own website. I couldn't find a single usable source to come even close to meeting WP:GNG. And for the user who posted prior to the relisting, please read WP:OWN. Stalwart111 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be a suitable article for a business directory, but this is an encyclopaedia. Lack of reliable 3rd party sources to demonstrate compliance with the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:CORP. hardly meets the requirements for a notable company. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Half the car rental companies in wikipedia are in the exact same position with Economy Car Rentals, concerning references and notability, but only this one is submitted for deletion. Balaviaris (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you are free to nominate those for deletion too (though I would be careful about doing so just to make a point). But the existence of other comparable articles is no reason for keeping this one. For the article to be kept, you need to substantiate that the subject is notable, per significant coverage in reliable sources. Stalwart111 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interesting in deleting other articles, just keeping this one. I only ask for some time to find a reliable source and link it to the article. If this is the main problem of the article, perhaps replace the AfD with Refimprove. Balaviaris (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of references is a problem, but a lack of notability is a bigger problem. Obviously, you should be encouraged to find and add reliable sources, but the requirement is still for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so I'd be looking for more than one if I were you, because there are none at the moment. AfDs are usually listed for 7 days and then relisted if there is no obvious consensus. There are no requirements for it to remain open for any particular length of time beyond that. But you can always ask for the article to be userfied as an alternative to deletion. Or you can simply wait until significant coverage exists and then ask at WP:DRV for permission to recreate the article. Stalwart111 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I often try to rescue articles like this, but I was unable to find suitable sources for this one. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:24, 28 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) 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Sadler[edit]

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

No particular claim of notability made. There were lots of convicts transported to Australia, and I'm not sure what makes Sadler special. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Sadler is the subject of coverage by independent reliable sources, and is thus notable. Hesperian 12:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is this coverage significant? I don't think it is. Sadler was just one of thousands of convicts transported to Australia, and presumably there is a reliable record of every one of these somewhere. Similarly there are records of births, christenings, marriages and deaths of millions of ordinary people. These records are all independent and reliable, but do not imply any particular notability. Should there be a Wikipedia article for each of these people? I agree that transported convicts are more notable than most people, but as convicts go, Sadler still doesn't seem to be particularly special. Bazonka (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every convict will have an entry in a biographical dictionary somewhere. Only a very few have been researched and written about (at length, in prose) by a historian. Hesperian 00:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is a well research biography of an utterly NN individual. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 22 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 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not much to say, except that I believe it could pass to be deleted as A7. Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Just because a researcher writing a book about criminal transportation writes a few pages on a transportee doesn't make the subject notable. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as I said above) -- a NN criminal, whose biography has (apparently) been researched, perhaps as an example in an academic book. That does nnot make him notable

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

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

The result was Merge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Secretaries of Consumer Affairs of Puerto Rico[edit]

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

Five is too short for a list. Prod declined for no reason. Content already on parent article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Some of the content used to be at Secretary of Consumer Affairs of Puerto Rico (here) until the nominator converted it into a redirect here which leads us to Puerto Rico Department of Consumer Affairs which does not contain the information but instead links us to Secretary of Consumer Affairs of Puerto Rico (a link put in by the nominator here) which is now a circular linkage. Would it not have been far. far, far better to have gone ahead and merged the information and gone nowhere near AfD rather than lead people in a merry dance? The prod was declined for an extremely good reason "5 is more than enough for a list. make articles for the missing ones; add sources from the articles on the individuals. Can optionally be merged to main article". Thincat (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Puerto Rico Department of Consumer Affairs or some other article.Martin451 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Secretary of Consumer Affairs of Puerto Rico as suggested above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:55, 27 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 -- Y not? 14:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

63336[edit]

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

This article contains a lot of refs which lead to its own web site. It's just a lot of Spam. There's even a ref to pilkipedia! Jodosma (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim or evidence of notability. Small company, and looks like a lot of COI evident and discussed on its talk page.--Dmol (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 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 01:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. No coverage beyond its own website or its own press releases. C-Star (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam, per WP:CSD#G11 Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason given for delete. Significant coverage in at least 3 WP:RSs - [48], [49] and [50]. ~KvnG 23:40, 27 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. No real argument that this album meets any of our notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 18:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workmanship (album)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. My first suggestion was redirect to band as possible search term, but as this was rv, I feel it needs full discussion at AfD - non-notable article. Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Electric has 27 different albums, and they've each had their own pages for many years now. It would be very cumbersome and inefficient to try to include all of them in their varying degrees of notability into the body of the band's own page. I also don't understand why this album has been brought forward for deletion a couple of times while none of the other 26 albums have. Proctris (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your 2nd point is just the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not accepted as a reason to keep. Your first point is answered by a separate discography page or just the name/small amount of info on album in band's article, not 'to try to include all of them in their varying degrees of notability into the body of the band's own page'. How does it meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an acceptable answer. The editor's standards aren't coincident with the emotional investment I have in these many album articles that I've created and maintained, which I suppose will also meet similar scrutiny in their own time. I can concede that my chief reason to keep is because it's something that is important to me personally—Joy Electric has notability but certainly not very widespread, so it would be challenging to find any "notable" reference to this album in particular. I submit that I don't have the deep technical expertice of an editor such as yourself, so I just don't understand what is gained by not having the article. Proctris (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I really like how in defense of your OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counterargument, you went ahead and deleted a good number of the other album articles. I'm not going to fight anymore, since I'm clearly outgunned, but I would still love an answer to my question: what is gained by not having the album articles? What benefit to Wikipedia and the world is achieved? Proctris (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proctis, I have not deleted any album articles, I think you must be confused. I seem to be able to see all the articles, undeleted, except one which is now a redirect, until any reliable sources can be found. Please don't take it personally - there is no need for messages like the one you have at User:Proctris. So far no other opinions have been put forward - it may well be that the article is found to be notable, we'll have to wait and see. If it is found to be non-notable, you may want to consider putting the information together into a discography article. As you obviously care about this information, you may also want to consider looking over the other articles and seeing if you can make them more verifiable and with more reliable sources. As to what is gained by deleting non-notable articles - well hopefully an uncluttered encyclopedia, full of articles on topics judged to be notable - otherwise where do you stop - why not have an article on myself, and everybody else? But that's a discussion for the community as a whole, for a wide consensus to be reached, not for the discussion of this article. Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I'm confused, unless you are making a distinction between "deleting" and "blanking-and-redirecting;" I understand that the content is still there in the history but for all intents and purposes, the articles are "gone" (no one's going to find the content unless they really look for it). I'm using "delete" colloquially. Here is what I am referring to:

You wrote the Comment on May 17 at 16:46, then you...
Blanked and redirected Favorites at Play at 16:52
Blanked and redirected The Art and Craft of Popular Music at 16:53
Blanked and redirected The Land of Misfits at 16:55
Blanked and redirected Children of the Lord at 16:57
Blanked and redirected The Tick Tock Companion at 16:59
Blanked and redirected Early Cubism at 17:03
Blanked and redirected Curiosities and Such at 17:05
Blanked and redirected Montgolfier and the Romantic Balloons at 17:07

Proctris (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making that distinction, I checked several on the list and found all but one was still a full article. If you feel those that have been redirected shouldn't have been, then of course you should revert those edits. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the above links for convenience. I find it very peculiar that you say they're still articles but I get redirects on all of them. If you didn't make those edits, then why are they showing up in the edit log at the times I gave? Is there a bot operating under your name? Proctris (talk) 11:35, 23 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 01:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying I checked several on the full list at the album's article. Again, if you disagree with the edits, rv them. Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be notable. Warden (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet NALBUMS, and notability is not inherited. Miniapolis 16:50, 1 June 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Festa[edit]

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

Nothing indicates this person passes either WP:GNG or WP:PROFESSOR. It seems to have never had significant references, and the level of detail indicates the creator simply "knew" it, and perhaps knew the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's get real - the nominator of this article has meticulously gone through the list of articles I have created and nominated numerous ones for deletion, most of which have existed for a long period of time and some of which have PREVIOUSLY been put to a vote. This nomination is gross incompetence and disregard for the process and is motivated by some animus stemming from a separate issue. Roger Festa was the President of the American Institute of Chemists. Criterion #3 for academics is met, and this nomination is frivolous. Adamc714 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question — So you're saying every president of the American Institute of Chemists is automatically notable enough for an encyclopedic biography? JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - No, I'm saying that the criteria for academic notability says that "every president of the American Institute of Chemists is automatically notable". Under criterion #6, the question clearly becomes whether the AIC is a "major academic society". Unless there are some sub-criteria about which I am unaware that establish what counts as "major", then I think the criteria command this outcome. Adamc714 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something strange here: the article says that a "notable series of papers" was published by Festa, but I cannot find any of them in the Web of Science (all I find are three very minor papers, that have been cited just two times - and that was an obituary...) His faculty home page doesn't list any publications either. It is also difficult to gauge the importance of the American Institute of Chemists; the main society for chemistry in the US appears to be the American Chemical Society. Adamc714, as article creator you're perhaps able to give us some sources that would establish notability beyond any doubt? As for the AfD nominations, most of those articles do indeed seem problematic (and it is not at all exceptional to re-nominate an article that already underwent AfD once before - especially if the outcome was delete...). In any case, the other nominations are irrelevant here and this discussion does not seem evidence of "gross incompetence", nor "disregard of the process". A "keep" !vote based on those arguments is bound to have little influence on a closing admin's decision, so a more constructive and policy-based argument of yours would be welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a link establishing the presidency (http://www.theaic.org/about_history.html). The real question, then, is whether the AIC is a major academic institution. It's almost 100 years old, publishes its own academic journal (The Chemist), and hosts national symposia on the profession. The ACS may be better known, but the AIC apparently does the same sort of things. If it looks and acts like a major disciplinary association, chances are that it is. By subjecting its significance to a mere vote, we're just fostering a system whereby we reach arbitrary decisions. By my reading of Criterion #6, the rules governing this type of notability want to avoid such arbitrary votes. Adamc714 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, my problem is that I cannot find anything significant published by Festa. That is highly unlikely if he had been president of a prestigious society as mentioned in PROF#6. So either there are publications somewhere that for some reason I do not find, or the society isn't all that notable. Kind of a chicken and the egg problem... --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But Festa is a professor at a liberal arts college, so he is not a researcher. PROF#6 has nothing to do with publications, it only relates to the leadership position. For all we know, they purposely elected someone from a LAS college because of his focus on on teaching as opposed to researching. But we can't get wrapped up in mere speculation - either he satisfies #6 or he doesn't. Adamc714 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 6 only comes into play, of course, if it is clear beyond any doubt that the organization in question is significant, as it is highly unlikely that a prestigious society would elect as president someone who has not a significant reputation in the field. At this point, however, it is not clear to me that the AIoC is a significant organization, so I cannot in good conscience !vote "keep" based on his presidency of that group. The fact that nothing can be found about Festa apart from this presidency actually suggests that he's only a minor player in the field at best and that, in consequence, the AIoC is not really the kind of organization intended in criterion 6. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seems to fail WP:PROF. I would be hesitant to apply Criterion 6 to the presidency of an organization with only 5000 members, which is decidedly not the primary trade organization for chemists (that would be the American Chemical Society). Similarly, where there is some coverage under the Gnews link, it seems to be throughly routine and does not discuss the subject in depth. That said, he does appear to be the sort of local personality who will continue to garner coverage and may eventually cross the bar for GNG, being awfully close already. Ray^Talk 14:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If that society indeed has 5000 members, then that crosses the bar for me. I only go for "weak", though, because I still find it weird that I cannot find any significant publications. I also note that the article creator has not reacted to my query above abnout the "series of notable papers". Where does that remark come from? --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not make the series of notable papers claim, so I'm not in a position to comment on the possible source for that. It may very well not be accurate. I'm primarily defending the article on the AIoC grounds. Adamc714 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you created the article, you mentioned a "series of papers". Where are those? (The word "notable" was indeed inserted by another editor). --Randykitty (talk) 05:10, 19 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 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ray's comment seems most compelling after searching for possible notability through news. I cannot find any notable publications either. The decision here stems on his role with the organization he headed. There does not appear to be any indication that the AiC is a major institution, as it results in only a few results through news searches or Google, none of which establish significance. I would lean toward deletion. C-Star (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While obviously not at the level of the ACS, the AIC presidency is enough for me. It has enough coverage (e.g. regular stories in the NYT about its awards) to convince me that it's sufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 24 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) 23:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christ jyoti convent school[edit]

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

Article about a nursery school containing only an infobox BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speedy, except for the fact it is a school. Uberaccount (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No content, per nom. C-Star (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be a K–10 school. Hits found with Google call it a high school. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indian high school. Has content and is obviously still a work in progress. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have made some copyedits, tried to add 1—2 sources, added some categories, I can see multiple mentions of their students in Indian newspapers. The article should be moved to Christ Jyoti Convent School, in my opinion (cap)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple schools named Christ Jyoti Convent School. Christ Jyoti Convent School, Sultanpur Lodhi may be a better move target. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very rarely see you commenting at AFD. It is a privilege to talk to an AFD legend. I am honoured. Can you tell me in which other cities schools with same name exist? In Wikipedia the title is redlink! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a huge list in Google. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, one in Madhya Pradesh! Missed that! The proposed title looks fine! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Would WP:NONPROFIT be the appropriate guideline by which to measure a school? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Although a guideline, it has almost as much weight as a policy. Non-profits are no more exempt from complying with notability standards than any other organisations, although we do, historically, and by well established precedent, allow some leeway for bona fide K12 (or in the case of some countries, K10) secondary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what would the appropriate guideline be for a school like this? Would it only be WP:GNG? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - per the long established precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS for bona fide high schools as stated above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well since I have your attention here, one more question...is my understanding correct that general precedent in previous AfDs as shown in that "outcomes" page also form a basis for whether articles are kept or not? Because that would be a very clear indicator in this case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'm only a specialist on school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This school does include the grades of secondary education, so by longstanding consensus and precedent, we should probably keep it. For a move target, I would support Christ Jyoti Convent School, Sultanpur Lodhi. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well established credentials, with 2000 pupils and 70 staff. This is not a fly by night operation. However, the title could be improved.--Zananiri (talk) 10:13, 31 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.