< 27 May	29 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 10:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wuthering Heights (band)[edit]

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

article deleted via expired prod but now restored. Taking to afd to for larger consensus. Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Six reliable sources were added post-restoration so i am baffled by this make-work. 86.42.94.218 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability, and album releases on labels that appear to pass criterion 5 of WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Gong show 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt (Wuthering Heights album) still pending. postdlf (talk) 04:47, 4 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 speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Stainer Primary School[edit]

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

There seems to be consensus that generally primary schools are not notable. This has no indication of notability that would make it an exception. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy delete/redirect school article candidate if ever I've seen one. --Bob Re-born (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if a target can be found, per longstanding consensus for all but the most extraordinary primary schools. Delete without redirect if no suitable target can be found. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The school is in Brockley, but that article doesn't contain an "Education" section, so it appears that the best solution is to add an entry for the school to List of schools in Lewisham and redirect there. Deor (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary into list article, but I soubt there is useful content other than the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 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 speedily deleted by User:Drmies under criterion G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Echoes[edit]

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

The article is essentially copied from the Dixie Echoes' website (http://www.dixieechoes.com/dixieechoesgrouphistory.html), but even if it were completely rewritten, there is no evidence of notability in independent, reliable, third-party sources. I am One of Many (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to play it safe and delete it as a copyvio. There's no date on the website, but there is no reason to presume they would have copied their history from our article. That leaves the redirects to it, BTW. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cuando quiero llorar no lloro (TV series)[edit]

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

Contested PROD (followed by a personal attack on my talk page). Original concern was: unremarkable TV series. Was on TV for only four months. Article does not establish notability. — Richard BB 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a telenovela, which normally meet WP:N with ease, and a 4 month run is also normal. A sample of online coverage found looking for the article's title [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], they basically confirm the claims that the show is regarded as significant, and this profile mentions a couple of awards that could be looked into. More results should come up from "Los Victorinos", just make sure they're from the 90's or they'll most likely refer to the 2009 remake — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Im agree. I must use the references of the spanish article and I try complete the article. Please don't delete it.--ChenteChaculdifornio (talk) 03:16, 26 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) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Telenovelas run four months; the industry standard in many Latin and South American countries. Sources are good for being a program in the non-Internet year of 1991. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frankie. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:20, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five steps in the evolution of terrorism[edit]

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

WP:Syn seems to apply here. Suggestion of merging into Terrorism seems well supported. TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just one point of view analysis. Looks like someone's high school essay.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I strongly oppose merging any content because alot of sources aren't even cited correctly JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the text is appropriate, that is just a clean-up matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see a number of these "copy-paste my college freshman essay onto WP" articles, and this appears to be of that ilk. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:48, 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. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help Scout[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This firm has the level of coverage that a start-up would be expected to get, but not sufficient reliable 3rd party coverage to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- agree with Ally -- Y not? 19:29, 4 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style Me Celeb[edit]

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

Unable to find multiple reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this web-based fashion retailer. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came across some blogs discussing the company like this one. Other than instances of their clothing, and name being shown in a number of magazines (e.g. Cosmopolitan, Sunday Express, Daily Mirror) per the website's own Press page, I wasn't able to find any reliable sources discussing the company in-depth. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only significant mentions in reliable sources seem to be incidental - they aren't really about the company. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage that I can see is only in passing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trashware[edit]

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

If Trashware was a term in regular use, fine, but it doesn't seem to be. Nice photos. The only references are to a different word and to a dead link. Elvey (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 21:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Repeated attempts to find anything NOTEable fail, (well with one possible exception linux.com). Also has obvious overlap with the software term. Turn into Disambig? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a dictionary anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 15:50, 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 -- Y not? 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid7[edit]

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

I was thinking of tagging this for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, but noticed that that has previously been declined, to my mind inexplicably. Even disregarding the blatancy of the promotion here I can't see any notability. The sources in the article, and others that I have found by following the searches linked above, are all press releases or advertorial content, with none of them being independent. This article came to my attention because I just received a spam email from this company inviting me to register for a web seminar, but I have tried not to let my personal annoyance about that cloud my judgement in nominating this for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is indeed very promotional, perhaps not enough to be speedy deleted but more than enough to be worrying. Also appears to lack notability, per our usual guidelines. I see that the Metasploit Project article is related and, at first glance, also appears to have notability issues. I'll look over it in more detail and might AfD it as well. Them From Space 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 21:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect to Metasploit Project. There are many press releases out there, but aside from a few software product reviews, I was unable to find independent articles about the company itself. The article contains a good bit of advertising and would need a major cleaning. Unless I have missed something in the sea of PR, this topic falls below notability thresholds for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Rapid7 is often mentioned in the context of Metasploit, hence a redirect to Metasploit Project may be useful. But I think Metasploit is likely highly notable--it garners more than 1400 GScholar hits and entire books [6],[7] have been written about it. Agreed that the Metasploit Project article needs work. --Mark viking (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting your company quoted a lot as security experts isn't enough to have solid reliable sourcing - few reliable sources are actually discussing the company itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Businessweek and Xconomy links would appear to satisfy NOTE, especially the later. What is the argument for dismissing this one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, having an employee quoted on a topic doesn't constitute notable coverage for the company itself - Business week is not talking about Rapid7 at all - they're discussing security issues. Classic incidental mentions, which don't constitute reliable source coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Businessweek overview is pretty obviously provided by the company itself—only inept marketing people write rubbish like "...which empower organizations to proactively obtain.."—and take a look at how the paragraphs in the Xconomy link start: "According to Rapid7...", "According to a company announcement...", "Rapid7 said...". This is not independent coverage of anything except that Rapid7's marketing department works hard to get its name mentioned. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 2 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 keep. L Faraone 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rishikul Vidyapeeth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Unremarkable school that has little if any coverage, none of which could be considered significant or independent. Would not be opposed to redirecting to List of schools in India until such time as it becomes notable (assuming that it does). FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 21:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 21:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a high school. High schools almost always survive AfD. Does the nominator really want to consume editor time and attention with this? • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the condescending comment. If it is a waste of your time, please feel free to move on. I am sure that other editors can speak for themselves. Moving on to the AfD discussion - "Most" is not all. Also, common outcomes do NOT determine all outcomes. They are not policy nor are they guidelines, only precedent which is always subject to change. Schools are judged by WP:ORG and if HS are being kept contrary to that guidelines, then there needs to be a change in precedent, hopefully starting with this AfD. I have read the common outcomes for high schools and unfortunately, I disagree with the ones being kept simply because it can be verified that they exist. If the HS articles are being kept simply to show they exist, that is what LISTS are for (which is also a recommendation here to redirect). Wikipedia is not a simple list or collection of information, and I would cite WP:IINFO as a guideline over previous outcomes of high school deletion discussions. For organizations, there is no inherent or inherited notability. As stated above, I cannot find anything to establish notability. I have been wrong in the past and will be the first to admit it. So, if you can find how this article meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG, I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Gene93k: While it may meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I don't think any of the independent sources I've found are reliable enough to satisfy WP:RS - most of the sources out there are directories; if even this is sufficient to keep the article, then so be it. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider directories unreliable? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a notable School. it seems that the page is created for marketing of the school. There are many schools in almost all the streets of India. Wikipedia is not the stage for self-publicity. I did not find any significant coverage about this school. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this even open? Even though I don't agree with the rule, high schools are always notable. The argument is that high schools form a fundamentally important part of local communities. Most of them receive press, but the majority of that press is in local newspapers/television programs, and thus not likely to be easily accessible to those of us trying to web-search it, especially since the school is located in India (an area where not everything is online, like the US). Now, I've tried to argue against this rule before, but it's really rock solid, and there is no reason to believe that this school is somehow so obviously less notable than every other high school. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified secondary school, invariably kept for reasons already much elaborated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just in case someone's actually "counting", I realized I didn't bold a !vote. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Lavoie[edit]

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

No sources verifying that this individual meets the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 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, J04n(talk page) 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines. Very little sourcces can be found on google, and nothing that evidences notability Them From Space 19:44, 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) 14:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Tham[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer. Still an amateur, who has won only awards at the amateur level. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE at this time. Gong show 22:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Amateur photographer Fails WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 19:08, 3 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 delete. The consensus here is that there is only one reliable source supporting this page, if someone wants the page userfied until more is available please let me know. J04n(talk page) 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Nouraei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. The previous AfD was very controversial and the result was keep. The only RS of the article is a paper of Rolling Stone Middle East. One year later, I've found nothing else. Farhikht (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This case is very very borderline and I can see why previous discussions have been controversial. That said, I'm having difficulty seeing which criteria under WP:MUSIC this guy meets. As Farhikht points out, additional coverage doesn't seem to have occurred. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 15:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 15:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This rapper exists, but lacks sufficient substantial RS coverage, and fails to meet GNG. Also fails to meet our music notability guideline. Article created by an apparent single-purpose account.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - so he fails to meets these guidelines... Or so we thought. There could be sources about him in Persian, which we neglect to research and translate. The fact that his albums exist indicate that he could make an impact on others. Also, Hong Kong singers target primarily at Chinese music listeners, and bios about them still exist, even if small. In this case about Iranian rapper, why should failing those guidelines prevent readers from learning about this person? --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD 101. Foreign language RSs are perfectly good support. I read the first dozen ... those are non-RS blogs, and wikis, and other non-RSs. Nothing in Persian in Gnews that we can use either. We don't say -- nothing is discoverable, even in a foreign language search, but he exists so let's cover him. We have something called a notability guideline, and we make decisions by applying it. Otherwise, we might as well just accept everything that "exists" or where there is an editor who says "why should our guidelines prevent readers from learning about a non-notable person who exists?" Thats a longer discussion, and not a guideline-based !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News... there might be something wrong with it. I typed 'Wii Playstation xbox' and found Chinese archives in Google News Archives. I'm sure they have English, but somehow Google must have manipulated the search engine with some code... whatever it is. --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the article in Persian Wikipedia before nominating this one for deletion. The sources of the article are 2 Facebook page (1, 2) of Bahram, an interview with Hichkas that I can't open, and 2 articles by Nassir Mashkouri, one of them has been published in his own blog and other one on beshkan.co.uk a non-notable website. The VOA report is in fact an interview with a singer (Shahin Najafi) and Nassir Mashkouri about Iranian hip hop. Other sources of the Persian article are collection of videos of Bahram, his manifesto, etc.Farhikht (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No slamdunk, but the essay at WP:BIAS is relevant. There is the RS ME source. Bahram's address to Ahmadinejad, "Letter to the President", is cited in Laudan Nooshin scholarly overview of Persian hip hop ("Hip Hop Tehran", Migrating Music, ed. Toynbee, Dueck, Routledge, 2011)—where Nooshin links the track to Tupac's track of the same name and uses it to suggest the influence of the Western gangsta rap paradigm. Nassir Mashkouri, an expert in the field as per the previous ~~car-wreck~~ AFD, has a piece on the subject both on his own site, and published in zirzamin.se, itself a probable RS. Bahram features in a VOA report, seen by we who attended the last afd closely. He was the subject of this report, probably from TV 2 & there are resources which no editor has yet been equipped to access (e.g. Sholeh Johnston. "Persian Rap", Journal of Persianate Studies, Volume 1, Number 1, 2008 (pp. 102-119), Mohammed Mehdi Mowlaei. "Classifications of Meaning in Persian Rap Music", Haft Sang, 1 February 2008, R.C. Elling. ""Zirzamin: Hip-Hop i den Islamiske Republik"", in Mellemøstens Ansigter ed. Jorgen Baek Simenson, historie-nu.dk, 2006, E. Bilan, M. Gholami & N. Monavvary. "The Sociology of Rap Music", anthropology.ir.) 86.42.94.218 (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.42.94.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <- Clicking contribs will show this note to be untrue.

The !vote here by Irish IP 86.42.94.218 at this AfD was the 5th page the IP edited ever, on the 3rd day the IP edited ever. Furthermore, though quite possibly unrelated, as one can see by looking at the last AfD, a preponderance of keep !votes were by a sockmaster and its puppets at the last AfD, which heightens my concern that the !votes considered at this AfD be those of wp editors in good standing. There, Jigsawnovich was identified as a sockmaster of BacheMosbat, and posted at iranian.com vis-a-vis that AfD, and Jigsawnovich was blocked indef, BacheMosbat was blocked indef as a sockpuppet of Jigsawnovich, Persian Clique was blocked indef as a sockpuppet, and a fourth editor who was a sockpuppet (BacheMosbat) was used to extend the term of the AfD, and a fifth editor Godsnewphew was blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions/86.42.93.209 Contributions/86.42.74.117 Contributions/86.42.88.41 Contributions/86.42.74.65 here are some other contribs going back about a month. strange that you do not recall our numerous interactions, such that you called me "Mr. Music IP" and such. 86.42.90.239 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, the only RS is Rolling Stone ME, asserts some notability but not enough for an article, there is always more RS for notable musicians. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cuts a very thin line on notability and GNG, but searching for the arabic name "هرام نورایی" yields some more bits including another review and background on sites like this. (Google Translate used)[8] Zirzamin seems little more than a blog, but it is a registered company and represents the underground music scene, so at the risk of being laughed at, I'll point to this as a secondary RS which can be included. Other numerous ones exist, but are not currently cited. It will take some work, but the BBC ONE interview seems to have 404ed. Someone will need to dig around, but it seems to meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Zirzamin has an editorial oversight. I know that the main editor of the website is Nassir Mashkouri and the above source is in fact the same article which has been previously published in beshkan.co.uk and the author of the article is Nassir Mashkouri.Farhikht (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, until more RS are found (second ref is now a dead link). Subject does not (yet) meet WP:MUSICBIO. Miniapolis 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since it does not as you point out (yet) meet our notability guidelines, is that a suggestion to delete -- but, as we do whenever we delete at AfD (almost whenever), leave open the opportunity of any editor continuing to work on it so that if sufficient appropriate RSs appear in the future the editor can try to write an article with this as the skeleton?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 6 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isshiki Yoshikiyo[edit]

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

See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A review of Nihon jinmei daijiten here is unhelpful. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Ansei (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 14:35, 28 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 28. Snotbot t • c » 14:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should be noted that Ansei's link to Nihon jinmei daijiten is for Isshiki Yoshisada, not for Isshiki Yoshikiyo, whose deletion is under review here. Isshiki Yoshikiyo does not have an entry in Nihon jinmei daijiten and the Japanese Wikipedia entry for Isshiki Yoshikiyo (一色義清) lists two historical figures with this name, neither one of which has any references. In other words, there are no immediately available secondary sources that establish Isshiki Yoshikiyo as being a significant historical figure. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Bueller 007 entirely. Jun Kayama 13:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the library, I was able to find an entry on him (and this one, not the other one) in a reputable "Sengoku jidai" dictionary. As I have argued in other AfD's, I think entries in such dictionaries/encyclopedias can prove notability because the editors themselves had to pick and chose who was notable and verifiable. But I do think entries in multiple dictionaries are necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. I was not able to find other entries in other reference books, so I don't think he satisfies notability criteria. Michitaro (talk) 20:55, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solfeggio frequencies[edit]

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

General notability not established, self-published sources __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another new-age pseudo-mysticism topic. This one would make the snake-oil vendors blush. Even if we can find someone who writes objectively about it, the topic is uninteresting. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm somewhat mixed in my view as to whether this is a notable fringe idea. That it is fringe, however, is indubitable. Anyone who knows much about medieval music, for instance, knows that claims made about Gregorian chant are utterly false. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems notable only within the fringe bubble, lacks any mainstream coverage. Supposedly this guy coined the term, but no verifiable sources to cite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Yes, this is a fringe topic... but it seems to be notable enough as a fringe topic to merit an article. A quick glance at Google books shows numerous independent sources that discuss it in some depth. I think the topic passes the minimum threshold for Wikipedia to have an article about it. However, the current article's text would need a rewrite, so that it accurately presents the topic without giving it's adherents undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article's current state was reached after drastic rewriting. This is more representative of how it has stood in its recent history. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Complete lack of any mention whatsoever in reliable independent sources. The only mention I could find was in the originator's self-published book and extreme fringe books, none of which even come remotely close to being reliable for any purpose here on WP. The concept has attracted exactly zero interest outside of the new age community, and has been entirely ignored by real-world scholars of music. Nor has it generated any interest within the mainstream popular press. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy WP:Notable topics ~~that fail~~ where the article fails WP:V are suitable for the incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense article.Stenen Bijl (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fringe nonsense. — Scott • talk 13:01, 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) 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms Fall[edit]

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

Non Notable book series by author with no page. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 20:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 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, J04n(talk page) 13:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to show that this recently self-published series is notable. There is just no real coverage for this series at all, let alone in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Fantr (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 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. J04n(talk page) 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Pain (wrestler)[edit]

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

Article on a professional wrestler who fails WP:GNG. I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources; only routine coverage of matches and a Facebook page or two. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only one user, Djames101, has made constructive edits to the article and this is the only article that that account has ever edited.LM2000 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks promotional--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 27 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) 13:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, reads more as fanpage than anything. None of the three sources (from two websites) establish notability. — Richard BB 11:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A perfect example of self promotion. Finnegas (talk) 13:42, 3 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legolas by Laura[edit]

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

Only source is a TV Tropes article, which isn't reliable. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sometimes fanfics can become notable. The now infamous "My Immortal" is notable enough to warrant a mention in one of the Harry Potter articles and heck, Fifty Shades of Grey started its existence as a fanfic. Legolas by Laura fits within neither of those categories, as it hasn't received any true reliable sourcing to show that it's even notable enough to merit an entry on the LotR article. It might get that coverage one day, but I doubt it. Most fanfics fly solidly under the radar when it comes to notability standards as far as Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements go. Online popularity doesn't give notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. On a side note, would this be speedyable under WP:A7 since it's sort of an online thing? Fanfics kind of fall within a strange category, as this was posted online but isn't exactly a website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fanfic. As Tokyogirl79 said well, it's very rare when one gets more attention than from outside its fandom circle or is re-adapted into a more common story, and this isn't one of them. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79. This fanfiction is nowhere near notable, and I do not see future chances of it being notable. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79, on the merits. I'm inclined not to speedy this, because it seems to claim importance due to its, um, quality. I can't imagine we'd keep such an article, of course, but it fails A7 by claiming to be important. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:44, 4 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 merge to Vashistha. L Faraone 01:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasishta Gotra[edit]

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

This appears to be a dictionary type definition, or at the very least a minor feature that should be mentioned in another article. I haven't suggested such an article as the obvious redirect (Vashistha), is written such that it is not clear what the article is about. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vashistha was the Rishi, this is a notable clan or gotra of India. I can see some mentions in Google Books too. User:Sitush may give a better insight! --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seen this via Echo but am engrossed in other things. Can someone ping me about it in a couple of days, please? We have a lot of rishi/gotra articles that simply should not exist due to sourcing issues but, hey, this may be an exception. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, will do. This may be valid, but as I say, with articles on Vashistha and Gotra I suspected this one was unnecessary. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 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 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It does indeed seem basically to be a dicdef and I'm not seeing any sources here that really advance our capability to make more of it. Although Black Kite is correct to say that the logical redirect (Vashistha) is unclear, I see no reason why the content of this article cannot be merged there. The gotra comprises people claiming a direct line of descent and a note in that article recording that the gotra exists seems entirely reasonable. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 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, J04n(talk page) 11:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Vashistha, per Sitush. Miniapolis 15:08, 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 merge to Nike Sports Research Lab. There is no consensus as to the target of this merge, so if whoever carries it out believes one or more of the alternatives are more appropriate feel free to merge as you see fit. J04n(talk page) 20:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spark Suit[edit]

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

Seems quite irrelevant and forgotten about, and possibly theoretical. AppleJack-7 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be merged into Nike Sports Research Lab or even Nike, Inc.? Lesion (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the only two sources in this article are from sites related to automobiles, connecting this to the even more out-there Nike ONE AppleJack-7 12:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge and Redirect Just based on the article alone I would say to delete it since it doesn't really have sources I consider significant. The Nike Lab article has no references at all so I would not merge this article with that one. I think it might be okay just to make a new section in Nike, Inc about the Spark Suit. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Delete Certainly worth a mention in another article, as noted, but this object does not exist and it appears it never will. However, I will note that the proper merge target is likely wearable generator, which doesn't exist… YET! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to wearable generator; which would be the generic name for this type of technology when it does exist someday. GVnayR (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Unquestionable merge on my end, belongs in Nike Sports Research Lab. Does not meet standalone requirements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 6 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 keep. L Faraone 01:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Knilans[edit]

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

Not sure this person is notable enough. Although he won the DFC from 2 countries, this wasn't unusual in WW2 Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you've apparently missed, (or decided to conveniently ignore) his DSO, which is not an insignificant award by any means (it was awarded to only 870 RAF officers during the war). 20,354 DFCs were awarded, so by my reckoning that makes a DSO worth 23 DFCs, or 1/40th of a Victoria Cross (awarded 22 times). He also flew with an elite squadron (617 Squadron) that was tasked with specialised precision bombing, including two pretty important operations (Operation Taxable and the attacks on Tirpitz, and has been the subject to much research (starting with Paul Brickhill's seminal The Dam Busters. In terms of coverage, he also had a full length obituary in the Daily Telegraph [9], plus he has a page on the RAF Museum website [10] - all this was included in the article. My understanding is that obituary in a national newspaper = Snow keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC) plus another book [11] Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete, ~~subject has received significant coverage and thus meets GNG, as shown by BTBB above~~, however the subject of this AfD is not considered automatically notable based on the medal he received as they are not considered sufficient per WP:SOLDIER. Also, as the Telegraph article is an obit, the reasoning behind the coverage is the subject's death, and thus WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. As GNG appears to be meet, more stringent notability guidelines do not consider the subject notable within their field, I will support deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm with Barney t.b.b. -- an obituary in a major national newspaper looks like a keep right away. Coverage by the RAF Museum to boot. As far as I recall, subject-specific notability criteria can never override WP:GNG, so if RightCowLeftCoast agrees the article meets GNG, I don't see how s/he can still propose delete. I also suggest that RCLC has misinterpreted WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Bondegezou (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- DSO is a significant award. It is noit an award that comes with the rations. We only have 1600 articles in the category, which again suggests that the award was not all that common. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A DSO isn't that notable of an award as per WP:SOLDIER, and thus the award alone isn't sufficient by itself to be considered notable. The reasoning for NOTMEMORIAL, is that the subject only received passing mention in reliable sources before the subject's death. It was with the subject's death that the subject received significant coverage, and thus the significant coverage is of the subject's death, and thus BIO1E and NOTMEMORIAL is relevant. If the subject is notable then significant coverage should have been created while the subject was alive, and not only when the subject has died. If I am wrong about this, I am happy to admit that, and change my opinion; but based on what is known to me at this time, I have formed the opinion that I currently hold.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is simply not true. An obituary in a major paper is not covered by BIO1E or NOTMEMORIAL because such an obituary is only granted to those who are already notable. It's not their deaths that are being commemorated but their lives. Obituaries in local papers may fall under these headings, but not major nationals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear disparity between WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER, this suggests that WP:SOLDIER is set too high, not the other way round. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's claim for notability is that the subject is notable for their military service, including the medals and decorations awarded to the subject. The medals and decorations awarded to the subject are not, by consensus of those whom edit within the field of Military History, considered sufficiently notable by themselves for the subject to be considered notable based on medals and decorations alone. The subject did not receive significant coverage while the subject was alive, but mentions (none in-depth that I am presently aware of) in regards to events that did receive significant coverage. Those events are notable, the subject's role in those events are not, otherwise the subject would have received significant coverage about their role in those events while the subject was alive. From what I know of the subject (whose honorable service should be lauded (but that doesn't mean that the subject is notable or should have an article on Wikipedia)), the subject only received significant coverage when the subject died. Therefore, the death is what was given significant coverage, and BIO1E and NOTMEMORIAL apply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the deduction in your argument is patent gibberish, but so is the premise: The Dam Busters (book) contains plenty of information about his wartime service. It was written when he was still alive. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary subject of the book is the event, not about the subject of this AfD. If the subject received significant coverage for the event, then WP:BIO1E applies, and the subject's article should be redirected to the event. As far as I can tell, there was no significant in-depth coverage of the individual until the subject died, and then the obits were then about the event. Also, please see reasonings given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter F. Kutschera; medals alone especially medals that are not the highest or second highest medals for valor are not considered automatically notable.

Now the question is, did the subject have a significant role in the operations, as stated in SOLDIER. In all the articles about Operation Chastise, Operation Taxable, or attacks on the Tirpitz there is no mention of the subject of this AfD. Therfore, the individual doesn't appear to have played a significant role, and thus is not notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're switching again. Why when I point out one hole in your premise do you go ahead and invent another hole? He wasn't involved in Operation Chastise - as that article lists the aircraft and their commanders. In the case of the other operations, the "significant role" involves flying one of the aircraft involved. That there is no list of aircraft involved in the articles - in other words, that they are not complete, in that they do not list everything that is known about those operations, is clearly not a criterion for deletion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reasoning for the subject not being notable. Thanks. Let me point out that a couple of months ago there were a string of articles regarding pilots and airmen whom had recently died who were involved in the Doolittle Raid. In those AfDs the end outcome was for those who have received obits, with the primary claim to fame being the raid, were all redirected to the raid article. This appears to be a similar case with this subject. The subject has not received significant coverage, but has received brief mentions (outside of the obit(s)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas C. Griffin & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean E. Hallmark. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Talk about destroying the good work especially [12] but to a lesser extent [13] . You would have thought that people at the Military history project would be interested in military history instead of destroying all record of it. No wonder user:Doolittlefan is apparently annoyed. Again, WP:SOLDIER is higher than WP:GNG, it is WP:SOLDIER that is wrong, not the other way round. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the DSO alone would not qualify someone for an article (it's a second-level decoration), in combination with a British and an American DFC we have borderline notability through his decorations alone (if two second-level decorations equate to notability I have always believed that three decorations in total also do, although the US DFC is lower in status than the British DFC). Added to an obituary in a major national newspaper this reaches reaches the notability bar in my opinion. I agree that WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been misinterpreted above - major national newspapers only contain obituaries of people who have achieved something in their lives. These people have an obituary because they are notable not because they have died (although the latter is obviously a vital prerequisite!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A DFC is not a second-level decoration, it is a fourth or fifth level medal for valorous acts (fifth if a LoM has a Valor device).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a second-level decoration. But a DSO certainly is and a British DFC is a third-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third level decorations for valor do not make a subject of an article to be presumed notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've said, but as has been said to you, more than once, the DSO is a second level award and it is for leadership rather than bravery. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the medal isn't for valor, it actually has no standing at all regarding the subject's notability. Let me explain, WP:SOLDIER came partially about due to the notable award statement in WP:ANYBIO. As military organizations have many awards, and most are notable in and of themselves, for instance the Purple Heart is notable, but it was the consensus of editors who specialize in the field of Military history, that the medal itself does not confer presumed notability upon a potential biography article subject. So the consensus was formed that individuals who were/are the recipient of their nation's highest level medal for valor would be presumed to have received significant coverage, and thus notable, or those who have received multiple second level medal for valor. Those whom received awards for non-valor service would not be judged to be notable on their medals and decorations alone, and would need to meet the other requirements of SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that's another thing that's wrong with WP:SOLDIER - the idea that you can only win medals for "valour", and only the top one (i.e. Victoria Cross) is notable -- when leadership (both at field and staff levels) is very important. Again, clearly when WP:SOLDIER is much greater than WP:GNG, it's the former that needs changing, not the latter. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the case, as BBB proposes, this would mean that every recipient of the Purple Heart would be considered notable. Would BBB really support that stance?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the purple hearts is a peculiar US award that is given out for being injured, which is very common (in certain period this would be most of the infantry), literally thousands of men, whereas, as has been attempted to explained to you very patiently and at quite some length which is starting to get a somewhat tiresome, the DSO is an award for leadership that is relatively rare. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If the medal isn't for valor, it actually has no standing at all regarding the subject's notability." Sorry, but this is rubbish. The DSO has as much standing as any other second-level decoration and in any case until the introduction of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross was awarded for valour as often as it was awarded for leadership. In fact, it was often considered that the award of a DSO to a junior officer indicated that he had only just missed out on the Victoria Cross. All the surviving Dambusters commissioned pilots were awarded the DSO, even the most junior officers, as it was considered to be the officers' equivalent to the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (which was awarded to all the surviving NCO pilots). -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that isn't the consensus that was formed when SOLDIER was created, non-valor medals are not considered when determining notability for those whose primary notability is due to military service. I have suggested a redirect compromise to deletion, but again, the subject IMHO is not individually notable, but is part of a notable group but did not play a significant role as stated in SOLDIER in that groups' operations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An army of brave men without competent leaders will be soundly beaten by an army of self-preservationists with good leadership. Otherwise, what else is the point in officer training colleges? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The point of our notability guidelines is that we base our decisions on what reliable sources such as The Daily Telegraph decide is notable rather than on our own opinions of what should be notable. It's very tiresome when people who don't even understand what an obituary in such a publication signifies consider themselves competent to decide what should be covered in an encyclopedia, but I suppose that's an unavoidable by-product of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 4 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military[edit]

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

Although the subject appears to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and thus could arguably pass WP:GNG, the subject of the article falls within the scope of the article Prostitution in South Korea, and thus IMHO opinion falls under the guideline WP:CFORK which states

Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.

As of the creation of this AfD the size of the Prostitution in South Korea article is 19,813 bytes, far smaller than the size described in WP:LIMIT. Therefore, per CFORK I am proposing that the article be deleted and the content merged into the Prostitution in South Korea article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is a notable topic, but the article is POV-pushing train wreck. As some examples from a single paragraph, it states that "Former South Korean prostitutes remark that they have been the biggest sacrifice of the South Korea-United States alliance" - the source specifically attributes this remark to a single woman. "The women also see themselves as war victims" - the source is clearly referring only to the views of a group of 60 women. "They are seeking compensation and apologies" - the source is also clearly talking about the views of a group, and not all as this implies. Earlier in the article it's stated that "Second Republic viewed prostitution as something of a necessity" - the source states only that "Transcripts of parliamentary hearings also suggest that at least some South Korean leaders viewed prostitution as something of a necessity", and so does not support such an unequivocal statement. The article also contains the difficult to believe statement that "During the 1960s, camp town prostitution and related businesses generated nearly 25 percent of the South Korean GNP" - the source carefully attributes this to the view of a single academic, but that's been left out here. A fair amount of material is about prostitution in South Korea in general, so it's unclear why it's here. I'd note that the author of this article has also been engaging in similar POV-pushing in the Recreation and Amusement Association article. Much of the text in this article is only slightly changed from the sources, so I suspect that this should also be deleted on copyright grounds. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you find a typo error, you can correct the typo. According to ~~RightCowLeftCoast~~Nick-D, we have to ask all of one million over women, it's nonsense, New York Times have done their good work as professional. We trust New York Times than ~~RightCowLeftCoast~~Nick-D argument.--Syngmung (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)--Syngmung (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I am not POV pushing in the Recreation and Amusement Association article, now I'm busy in the article Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military and related issues like this page. I will reply on the article soon.--Syngmung (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ** This seems to be a case for cleanup and not deletion. Shii (tock) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article is deleted, all the contents will need to be merged with comfort women.--Syngmung (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is presently an RfC regarding the article Comfort Women, which the majority of individuals who have stated that the article should be limited to that of forced prostitution for the use of the servicemembers of the Japanese Empire.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of them tell what they think on the premise that there have already been the article Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. They seem not want to merged with comfort women. Your doing seems cheap trick to hidde the undeniable facts.--Syngmung (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the above editor saying I want the content deleted entirely from Wikipedia? That is entirely false.

My reasoning for merger and article deletion is rather clear in the beginning of the AfD. The content will be kept but in the article about the wider subject, which the subject of this AfD falls within. Or are we saying that this article does not fall within the scope of the proposed target article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the prostitutes, delete the article. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, nice one JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article until and unless a satisfactory merge has been done. If no one wants to help Syngmung and me do the merge, they can help by reading WP:Summary style, which says that very long article should be split. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome is merge, the normal course of action is that the article is kept live, until there content is merged, and then the article is deleted; with what content is well references continues on in the target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clear significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that the content in reliable sources could be seen that way, but it still falls under WP:CFORK as stated above, and since the overall article about Prostitution in South Korea has not reached WP:LIMIT, it would be inappropriate for content which falls within its scope to be in a separate article. It has the possibility of duplicating efforts and content, whereas one more complete and higher quality article is preferential to two lesser quality articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only a couple of sentences need to be fixed. Only a little of it is POV pushing.Markewilliams (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:NOTCLEANUP, but that doesn't override WP:REDUNDANTFORK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

It is common to have an article specific to a military prostitution in addition to an article for a general prostitution in that country. See Prostitution in colonial India / Prostitution in India, Recreation and Amusement Association / Prostitution in Japan, German military brothels in World War II / Prostitution in Germany
The size of this article is about 50 KB / 6,000 words while the size of Prostitution in South Korea is about 20 KB / 2,300 words. If the articles were merged, a simple size would be 70 KB / 8,300 words. This clearly exceeds the size of split (50 KB) per WP:SIZESPLIT. Moreover, the merged article's section balance would be extremely lost. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TOOBIG, normally sub-articles are not spun out until the parent article reaches greater than 100k, merging the content which is in the subject of this AfD into the Prostitution in South Korea article would create an article that is at 70k, which is entirely reasonable. Also, if the content brought up by Nick-D the content would definitely be under that 70k.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Prostitution in colonial India is about prostitution in a historical period of that country, whereas prostitution in India is about its modern status; the article about the Recreation of Amusement Association is about an organization (who happened to have prostitution as one of its forms of "Amusement"), where as prostitution in Japan is about its modern status; German military brothels were not only in Germany, and thus the subject of that article is far greater than the article about prostitution in modern day Germany. So the current article is not about prostitution during a well defined period of history, it is not about an organization that sponsored prostitution, it is not about the running of brothels by a specific organization in a geographically defined area larger than the home country of the organization, it is about concurrent prostitution within the Republic of Korea, and thus clearly falls within the scope of the article Prostitution in South Korea.

Now there are statements of certain historical RoK governments' policies regarding prostitution, and that content can go within a policy section of those governments. Other such content about modern day prostitution in South Korea can be merged into the article that is already created with that as its primary scope.

Information about Women and offspring can go into the article about Amerasians, possibly with a new section that focuses on Amerasians from RoK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My first thought was that (per the deletion nom) it should be a section in the main Prostitution in South Korea article. However, that would be ridiculous, as the article proposed for deletion is much longer than the target article, and merging it would result in a badly unbalanced article with undue weight given to a subtopic. It's unfortunate but not at all unusual to have a better or more-developed article for a narrow topic than for an overview topic. A section that threatens to overwhelm a main article is precisely when a content fork may be legitimately created, per WP:SPINOFF. Even the nominator says the subject appears to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Unless an article represents a topic duplication (not just an overlap that can be accounted for with a summary section), an AfD has to be evaluated on its own merits, and I'm not seeing any criterion for deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for deletion is WP:CFORK, as the subject of this AfD's scope clearly falls within the scope of an already existing article whose size is not so great that it meets WP:TOOBIG, then the article should be merged into the existing article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what CFORK says or intends. There is no policy that requires a narrowly defined topic to remain part of a broader topic until the broader topic exceeds the recommended length. Again, see what WP:SPINOFF says about undue weight: if a detailed examination of something would cause it to have undue weight in the article, it's better to place the material in a separate article, and to represent the subtopic in a summary section. That seems to have been done here. It doesn't result in an article that is redundant (unless of course there have never been prostitutes in South Korea other than those who serviced the U.S. military), and if usual standards of POV and neutrality are applied it isn't inherently in conflict with the main article. It's simply a more detailed examination of a subtopic. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phoenix7777. Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was waiting for a good defense of this "redundant fork" claim but I'm not seeing it, so I will come firmly down on keep. Shii (tock) 12:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. this is an obvious keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently different from Prostitution in South Korea to warrant its own page Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has potential to provide complete and accurate coverage on a topic that deserves coverage. However, the original author appears to be focused on a one sided personal attack on an organization that cannot be responsible for the actions of every individual acting on their own. While the allogations maybe true, the complete story is not being told. The portion of who is actually initiating the human trafficking portion and whether or not the human trafficers forced them into this. After reviewing several of the postings by this contributor, it doesn't take much to see a trend. With all that said, my preference is the tell the entire store and under these conditions keep the article. jackson1950korea (User talk:jackson1950korea) 15:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Completely, personal attack by the SPA account jackson1950korea. Need your apology. You are trying to introduce wikipedia censorship from the view point of personality who jackson1950korea think undesirable users. Sea the article I made great deal with emphasizing general American soldies are just ignorant in good faith, and emphasizing their help for women to evacuate from their predicament. I want public and medias to know from the article, what only their voice could turn the bureaucrats cold hearts.--Syngmung (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BITE. Although the new editor (jackson1950korea) should assume good faith of the above editor, I must also inform the above editor of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The statement "I want public and medias to know from the article, what only their voice could turn the bureaucrats cold hearts." This is not what Wikipedia is for, and thus why Nick-D appears to support WP:TNT.

The subject needs to be presented neutrally, and if the above editor is advocating, then this may not be the case. This is why IMHO the subject would be treated more neutrally as a section of Prostitution in South Korea; it would require neutral summarization of the reliable sources out there. Now if that article expands to the point where it gets above 100k as stated in WP:TOOBIG then a sub-article would be more than reasonable, and likely more neutral through such a growth process.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues are not grounds for deletion if the topic is notable in its own right: only if the article is purely a duplicate content fork in order to push a POV. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of CFORK is that there are two types of unacceptable types of forking:

Now I am not say that it is not a POVFORK, but it most definitely falls under REDUNDANTFORK, and thus per guideline, "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article". And the subject of the AfD is the more recent article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't find the argument that this is a redundant fork very convincing. What is being proposed by the nominator is that the article be merged into the main article on prostitution in South Korea and then deleted. Even if this were a good course of action, proposing an AFD is simply misguided. First, do the merge. Then we can talk about whether this article is a redundant fork or not. But deleting an article based on the idea of some idealized (and as yet unsubstantiated) future merge is silly.

As the article currently stands, it has a wealth of information and resources, some of which have been cobbled together to support a POV, but others which are fairly authoritative academic texts on the topic or related topics. There's obviously a lot to write about, and I think it's fair to say the amount of controversy around this topic is probably several orders of magnitude greater than the general topic of "prostitution in South Korea". It'd be like saying the article on Vietnam war is a redundant fork of military history of the United_States; this wouldn't make sense because most people just aren't as interested in the overall military history of the US as much as particular notable wars, like the Vietnam War, and when someone writes an article about such an often-discussed topic like the Vietnam war, the appropriate thing to do is write a summary to put in thet parent article, not delete the child article and try to put its contents in the smaller confines of the parent article. --C S (talk) 22:40, 3 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Patton[edit]

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

At the moment this is a puff piece- the one reference is a self published website. Not sure if his participation in Ready for Love will make him notable in the future Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnoticeable person. No official references has been added.

---C h i n n Z ^{(talk | Contrib)} 09:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as such or the business guidelines. Ready for Love has been pulled, so this will not create notability for him.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources aside from entertainment articles directly related to his appears on Ready for Love which has been cancelled after two low performing episodes. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rampant[edit]

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

PROD template was deleted by IP user without reason. This person fails WP:SOLDIER. Non notable Military person Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 08:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 08:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mid-ranking officer with no significant decorations. No particular notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC and WP:SOLDIER. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP but no prejudice against recreation if he gets a full obituary somewhere important if he dies, i.e. WP:TOOSOON applies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's clear assertion of notability in the article. The best coverage is this item which is some sort of community newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 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 speedy deleted by admin Tom Morris. (Non-admin closure) Stalwart111 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solera Networks[edit]

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

Blatant advertising non-notable private company. This company has been sold to Bluecoat Systems and no longer exists as a separate entity. Has been deleted twice before for the same reasons. Now since the company will no longer exist, certainly non-notable. Recommend locking this page to prevent recreation after AFD concludes. Article created by banned pay for hire editor User:MooshiePorkFace Bluecoatadvocate (talk) 07:22, 28 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 28. Snotbot t • c » 08:29, 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 01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philemon Namwiha[edit]

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

Don't believe this person is notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything useful on Google, in which all sources found make no sufficient coverage of the subject (if any), pretty much fails WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Namibia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 09:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer notable only for his death. The Most Distinguished Order of Namibia appears to be that country's fifth highest honour, so doesn't qualify him for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the interests of fighting our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS a little, citing WP:IAR. We have virtually *nothing* on NAmibian operations in the DRC, and this would fill things out a very little. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not about when he became famous or the amount of references sources available(may it be known that no Namibian newspaper had a website in 1999 ) ,it is about the pivotal role he played in war - sacrificed his life to save others that earned him the award. Elianamwiha (talk) Elianamwiha 15:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there printed references that one would be able to find in Namibia regarding the subject?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As did many millions of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the reasoning of Necrothesp, and being unable to find any mentions of the subject in reliable sources I have to presently support deletion, and therefore, the subject fails GNG, and cannot really be verified. This might be systematic bias in that scanning of documents from sub-Saharan Africa is not as prevalent in the Northern Hemisphere and developed nations, but if we cannot verify that the subject has received the award, or even did what he is claimed to have done from reliable sources, then we cannot not yet have an article about the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Necrothesp Finnegas (talk) 21:52, 3 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 soft delete. L Faraone 01:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Light Enterprises[edit]

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

Nominated on WP:N and WP:V. Couldn't find independent sources for company within first two Google pages of results. Most results seemed to be either connected to this company or unrelated. Creating user now blocked for spam/WP:COI; see User_talk:Godtechmovie for more on the blocked user. All other edits to article appear to be routine maintenance. Mount Flatten (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC) (Edited by Mount Flatten (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 08:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 08:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 08:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as a failure of WP:COMPANY. It appears this 3-year-old orgnanization exists, and we can allow back when it itself becomes the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (currently lacking). And, as many new users do not understand the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I am less concerned with the nominator's WP:ADHOM argument, a situation which will be addressed when this new user agrees to avoid creating WP:COI or WP:SPAMMY articles, and becomes involved in making positive contributions to topics with which he has no personal interest. I suggest also that the author read WP:PRODNAME and seek the changing of his username. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 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. J04n(talk page) 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Day after a journey[edit]

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

However noble their intentions, this hasn't been picked up by the media as a counterprotest to Innocence of Muslims. It really shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 08:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 08:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for now per WP:NFF. While apparently completed, its not having a set release date and, in lacking significant pre-release coverage, fails WP:NFF. And with respects to the nominator, no matter its subject matter or its production's reasons for making this film, once this thing has the requisite coverage it could indeed "be on Wikipedia". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 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 Speedily userfy per author's request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: Equestria[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the sources utilized in the article are actually reliable sources. Most are editorials or derisive passing mentions of this work of fiction. Also of note is that the article was deleted last year for these exact same issues.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 08:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I wholeheartedly disagree with the nominator, but I believe that this is a notable work and I would like to have it moved back into my userspace for me to work on it more so that it may eventually meet notability standards. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:56, 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 keep. Bagumba's remark concerning WP:CRYSTAL is appropriate for this situation. The discussion of a more appropriate title should continue on the appropriate talk page. J04n(talk page) 20:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Chargers Stadium[edit]

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

No new stadium for the Chargers has never broke ground in San Diego, except that is very outdated, and no moves to Los Angeles. JJ98 (Talk) 06:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 08:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 08:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although the subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, and thus could be said to meet the notability requirements set forth by WP:GNG the subject clearly appears to meet WP:NOTCRYSTAL. As such until something solidifies and shovels meet dirt, this article appears to be premature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes the shovels haven't broken ground, but the significant coverage has been provided. Clearly passes WP:GNG. "Breaking ground" is not a requirement for notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point a "new Chargers stadium" is nothing but speculation. There hasn't even been a location chosen, much less any kind of commitment from any responsible party. Way too vague and undefined a concept for an article at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to New Chargers stadium proposals or San Diego Chargers stadium proposals or similar. As noted above, significant news coverage exists for the topic, but as the other editors noted, the new stadium does not itself exist. What does exist are the various proposals over the years. Dohn joe (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Dohn joe. AutomaticStrikeout ? 18:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to rename--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acknowledge that there is nothing concrete as far building the new stadium, but all the significant sources regarding the planning meets WP:GNG. Also, WP:CRYSTAL allows articles that discuss proposals when they are sourced: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Renaming the article, if no consensus on the specific name here, can be done on the article talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:48, 5 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Rhythm and Jews[edit]

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

This article appears to fail the notability requirements prescribed in WP:MUSBIO. Most Google results point to non-independent sources, and the sources that are independent appear to provide trivial coverage. See [14] and [15] for examples. This group's connection to the Latke–Hamantash Debate could be mentioned in that article. Edge3 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 08:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 08:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find more.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSBIO dismally Finnegas (talk) 20:17, 4 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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gillespie[edit]

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

He's not notable. Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 08:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 08:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 08:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to meet WP:GNG. His book got at least one long review[16]; he's been involved in campaigns over media freedom; he's been caught up in a row over anti-semitism; he's a distinguished figure in Canadian journalism; there was wide press reporting over the death of his son. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above nomination is horrible as the nominator gives us no reasoning behind his mention of policy. The subject looks notable to me and has satisfies WP:GNG. The article could use sourcing better, especially in citing his awards and long career. And it needs updating. Crtew (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG as cited sources are adequate to show notability, but I agree with Crtew that the article could be better sourced. No reason given by nom. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Jennings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

She's not notable. Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 08:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The prior AfD in 2004 decided to keep and I can't see what has changed since then that the article should now be deleted. She fails WP:POLITICIAN having narrowly lost election, but the coverage of events then and her other activities seems to me sufficient under WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources in the article appear to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or relink. So big deal if some reliable articles mention her? Let's use some common sense here: not everyone can have a wikipedia page. This woman lost three elections by a landslide. She is not a notable person by any means.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no limit on how many articles we can make on people. If there is significant coverage about any topic, then we should have an article about that topic. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are the nominator. You shouldn't make bolded 'delete' !votes. By nominating we automatically assume you want the article deleted. Doing so may make the consensus confusing. I have unbolded your delete !vote for that reason. v/r, Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as I discussed elsewhere recently, candidates who lose an election, but are otherwise notable can be kept; see Elizabeth Colbert Busch, Sharron Angle and Harry Wilson (businessman), for other examples. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIANS is clear on what the outcome of non-elected politicians for national office should be, redirect unless the subject is notable outside of the realm of politics. Busch and Wilson should have been redirected per POLOUTCOMES as the individuals have not received significant coverage outside of the election, Angle passes POLITICIANS as a member of a sub-national assembly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:POLITICIANS is not clear on what the outcome of non-elected politicians for national office should be -- it only says that losing candidates for a national office are "are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged". In this case, she was a major party candidate nominee for Congress twice, and once in a disputed election that took the US House to resolve (sparking articles nationwide, see, e.g., www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/opinion/26sun2.html; As for a comment above ("This woman lost three elections by a landslide.") that's just untrue (unless you count getting 49.92% of the vote "losing by a landslide") Sholom (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida's 13th congressional district#Election Results. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, however all the coverage has been due to the subject being a non-elected candidate in political campaigns. The subject passes WP:GNG, but fails WP:POLITICIANS; per WP:POLOUTCOMES non-elected candidates (unless notable outside of the realm of politics), who have not held an elected position outlined in POLITICIANS, are redirected to the article regarding the election(s). As the subject of this AfD has ran for only Florida's 13th congressional district, a redirect to the election results would be appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay only. WP:POLITICIAN says, "Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Does that not apply here? Bondegezou (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My sense is that unelected candidates are able to overcome WP:BLP1E if they are notable for reasons unrelated to their candidacy. However, while I generally agree with a redirect as proposed by RightCowLeftCoast for candidates to a national office, or for subnational offices elected by the entire jurisdiction (e.g. Governors), redirects do not work well when candidates run (and lose) for multiple offices or multiple times. Since we can only redirect to one page, or one election, these losing candidates fall into this grey area, where WP:POLOUTCOMES recommends a redirect, not outright deletion, yet the subject would not ordinarily be kept under WP:POLITICIANS and there is not one perfect page for a redirect. None of the three options are exactly appropriate. Circling back to my first statement, political campaigns are one event and the candidates are participants of that event, thus bringing WP:BLP1E into consideration. Enos733 (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm unclear. Are you suggesting a Keep in part based on the fact that Jennings' is notable for (at least) three events (three different campaigns) rather than one event? Sholom (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enos, I agree with you here. Shalom, yes, a reason to keep is because there are three different events, in different districts. She's run several times, and has gotten media attention between campaigns. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bondegezou and Bearian. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:23, 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 nomination withdrawn. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Arnold[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like he's notable. Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 09:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 09:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 09:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CLEARLY Notable. He wrote the curses programming library for Dobbs' sake! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - not sure how this can be a good-faith nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It look like this issue is being resolved: User talk:Jerzeykydd#Mass blanking of articles --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzeykydd (talk • contribs) 02:34, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baroda-Lake Township Police Department[edit]

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

A department with only three officers. I do not see how it can possibly be considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. police departments are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and LibStar--good catch. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:12, 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

& 7[edit]

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

Is this really the name of the seventh film of the series? A Google search says nothing about this being the name. —Chris!_c/t 01:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an educated guess, as I said the movie will most likely be marketed as Fast & Furious 7, but when the opening credits roll. It will be billed as & 7.--Cube b3 (talk) 02:40, 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 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Licious" Franchise[edit]

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

The article receives minor views, there is no actual "Licious" franchise acknowledged by the Style Network and is outdated. Information on page can be merged to proper series articles. – Recollected • 02:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone's imagination run wild here; the shows don't attract enough viewers to be called a franchise and read as the same kind of cruft apparent with the Bad Girls Club with Oxygen. No sources to be found. Nate • (chatter) 02:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! This one definitely smells like a franchise to me. Poor sourcing is not a good reason to delete an article is it?TeeVeeed (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are kind of needed to create an article, as in absolutely required. Google is giving me nothing but mirrors of this article on other sites (which aren't even on top, but three-four pages deep) and opportunities to invest in restaurant concepts ending in 'licious'. Note I have also adjusted your rationale to be readable. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 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 00:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultimately this is all original research. We can only call something a franchise if two conditions are met: that the people who own the shows calls it as such or if the series are very commonly referred to as such by a TON of reliable sources. Neither of these qualifications are met in this instance. Would I personally call it the 'Licious franchise or 'Licious series if I were to talk about it to others? Probably, but the thing is, I'm not a reliable source and something being somewhat used by a small portion of fans of the shows doesn't count towards notability. This makes the titling of any of the series out there original research on behalf of the article creator. We can't give a series of shows a title that nobody other than a very small handful of people (and the show channel is not one of them) is using. Wikipedia is not here to popularize a title or give something a franchise name. No matter how much sense it might make to someone to call these shows a certain name, there aren't any reliable sources to show that this is anything other than something that one fan is calling a series. In this instance we absolutely need reliable sources to show that this is something other than a title that the article creator came up with one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl. The only reference given does not refer to a franchise. --BDD (talk) 23:50, 4 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 redirect per WP:BLP1E. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhan Qixiong[edit]

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

Content fork of 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incidents of Endowing and Forfeiting the Titles of Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama. RashersTierney (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the translator of the article Zhan Qixiong, I strongly objects to the idea of deletion. Firstly, Mr. Zhan Qixiong is a public figure. His notability makes him deserve an entry on Wikipedia. Now he has entries in Chinese, Cantonese Chinese, and Japanese. I am disappointed by some editor's constant requests for deletion of an entire article without providing any evidence of violating WP:NPOV under my solicitation. Secondly, I faithfully translated the Chinese article into English, in a word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence manner. I hope the opinions of people who have sufficient Chinese proficiency have a more weighted say in this issue than those who don't. The original Chinese article were heavily tagged with references. Almost every sentence has a reliable source. Thirdly, I am very disappointed by some editor's handling of this issue. No evidence is provided. Trying to suspect my credibility by linking this discussion to another discussion of an article written by me, instead of assuming good faith (though I have sufficient solid evidence to support my other article. We'll see). To my astonishment, he even suspects the credibility of Xinhua News Agency. You cannot provide too many news scandals form Associate Press or Reuters and the like. Possibly under the pride and prejudice from the Western world, people in some places don't know almost all the Chinese news caring people's everyday lives and their developments are originally provided by Xinhua. This also urges me to do the translation. He requests for a complete deletion instead of modification of the places he think is inappropriate, this harms Wikipedia's open mind. A new English article of Mr. Zhan Qixong surely enriches the English Wikipedia. People shall know the whole story.SummerRat (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have focused above on the putative notability of this individual. Even by that criterion this article fails WP:N#TEMP, specifically if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. However, the article is nom'd as a POV fork. This is clear from the fact that the vast bulk of the article deals with a controversial issue about which we already have an article. The failure to link to that article and instead use a redlink phrase 2010 Diaoyu Islands boat collision incident rather than the consensus article name 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident speaks volumes. I have included a link to the other article nominated for deletion as this demonstrates a clear pattern on the part of their common creator. RashersTierney (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N#TEMP is the least enforced policy on Wiki. Lots of entries of persons would have been deleted. For example, Jian Li, Jessica Lynch, just to name a few. If Zhan Qixiong is deleted, please also delete the other articles that satisfy WP:N#TEMP. You pathetic persistence of requesting complete deletion of a well-sourced, faithfully translated article speaks volumes for your hidden intention: you just want to prevent calling Diaoyu. What the article means to Wiki weighs much more than just a redlink. You behavior of linking to another article I created just shows your biased view. As I mentioned before, I have solid evidence to support my article and will add them. People can judge my contributions quality by looking at my contribution history. It's the people in general, not you, who make the judgement. SummerRat (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a fairly obvious case of WP:BLP1E. What else is he notable for, other than his involvement in the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident? I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a merge/redirect to that article but there's no way this person is individually notable, in my view. Stalwart111 05:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E indeed. As it were, part of the article are wildly off topic (dead mother...?). The article also suffers from serious WP:NPOV, and is a bit of a disgrace to the Chinese WP, but that's another matter. Zhan Qixiong is not notable in a WP:GNG sense, other than by having been involved in the incident.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident. I agree with the WP:BLP1E case but I think the captain would still be a viable redirect to the event. The rest of the information is already covered in the aformentioned article, although it could do with a few more mainland Chinese sources. Funny ^Pika! 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Oda Mari (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve As stated as an exception in WP:BLP1E: It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.SummerRat (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and Redirect to 2010... per only one event ... WP:BLP1E. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF - the consensus at Talk:John_Hinckley,_Jr.#BLP1E.3F is not a precedent for this article, which must be justified here. Widefox; talk 10:40, 3 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 delete. L Faraone 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metaforic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

previously deleted this year, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaforic. I dont think anything has changed since then. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Lots of references are listed, but they are not from independent or reliable sources. They are things like press releases, routine profiles in trade magazines, and non-notable trade awards. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still new to Wikipedia. Tried to mirror page after Arxan Technologies Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arxan_Technologies. Will continue to work on and improve with reliable sources. Jillianlj87 (talk) 13:54, 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, L Faraone 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has received passing mention from multiple non-primary reliable sources, and as I stated before in the previous AfD, the subject has received significant coverage from one reliable source (the BBC), but one significant coverage article does not notability make. As mentioned above by MelanieN the vast majority of the passing mentions could be considered routine coverage or press releases. Therefore, IMHO the subject has not yet received sufficient in-depth coverage to be considered notable as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:01, 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 merge to String (computer science). (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

String Buffer[edit]

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

Fail WP:N and WP:NOTHOWTO. The article discusses a very specific technical detail in Java and C#, specifically a workaround for the fact that strings are immutable in those languages. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a plausible search term so, at minimum, should be a redirect rather than a redlink. I'll go with SMERGE to string (computer science).—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Given that there's a section in string that covers just these sorts of implementation details, a slightly cut down version of this article would seem to slot in very nicely. Might want to add Cocoa's NSMutableString while we're at it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:54, 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 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to String (computer science). The concept of a string buffer is a notable one; there are many peer-reviewed papers and news articles on buffer overflows and string format attacks. But this article is just about a particular data type in languages with immutable strings. I don't see many sources that treat these in more depth than, for instance, routine mentions in the context of API documentation. The material is verifiable, however, and could become notable at some point, so a merge to String (computer science) is warranted per WP:PRESERVE. I agree that this could be a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I agree with the above statements. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

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