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

The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh[edit]

List of schools in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails WP:GNG Faizan -Let's talk! 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; apart from the nomination, it's an unsourced list with perennially poor quality. bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• One need only look at Category:Schools in Hyderabad, India to see that there are apparently plenty of notable schools that could fill a proper list of this scope. Whether it's worth it to rework this list or just blow it up and start over (i.e., delete without prejudice) is another question, but it's unquestionably a valid potential list subject. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided: I agree, this list is horribly poor quality; as many such lists tend to degrade to such a state. I'm not much of a fan of lists anyway. Categories can provide lists in a more proper state. This is not well sourced nor watched over, it seems. I'm perhaps saying 'begin again' but with little hope of improvement down the proverbial road. Fylbecatulous talk 13:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: nomination rationale have two points 1) Wikipedia is not directory — please see hundreds of similar articles and 2) notability — it is a list of school, so, notability is not valid point. As postdlf has referred the category, from web too, we can collect sources for individual schools. --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a case of OTHER CRAP. Faizan -Let's talk! 06:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the first point of the nominator was Wikipedia is not a directory, the search link above shows that hundreds of such article exists. So, if WPDIR is applicable, it should be applicable to all, not just a list of Hyderabad, India! If that's so, they should gain consensus from TFC. This single AFD will take nowhere. The second point dealt with notability etc. Frankly, a large number of Indian cities have such lists, I don't understand why this articles has been AFDed! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the accepted to for handling this. Since it is accepted that all secondary schools are notable, and all primary schools should be redirected to the town or district. given the variety here, this will normally be the best place to redirect to. It's an except to the fact that all the entires must be notable , becuase list articles like this are how we handle the unnotable ones. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Garcia[edit]

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

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

This is a person who has served in some extremely minor political roles such as staff member to a state senator and state governor, as well as a temporary member (not leader or chair, just a member) of the Texas Railroad Commission for a half-year. He was also one of 3 heads of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental agency for several years. None of these are elected positions, and to my knowledge appointees to state commissions are not inherently noble, this this is a failure of WP:POLITICIAN. What little sourcing there is is routine and local, the simple reporting of a "so-and-so was appointed to such-and-such" variety, thus a failure of the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN as I said when declining prod. He was not just "one of three heads", but the head as he served as chairman of the TCEQ and previously was the deputy secretary of state. Garcia was not some low-profile bureaucrat and the sourcing is anything but routine or local. Clearly, Tarc has not honored WP:BEFORE if thinks the coverage is all local and routine, though "local" coverage across a state more populous than most countries is nothing to sneeze at either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:POLITICIAN is primarily intended to cover elected officials, as noted by part 3, "Just being an elected local official..." which does not even cover all elected positions 100%. If it doesn't 100% cover those elected to a position , then it most certainly does not extend automatically to non-elected officials. As for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Garcia held the chair of a 3-man committee. Again, not in itself a notable position. As for WP:BEFORE, it is not policy or even guideline, merely an essay-like suggestion. I always do brief searches for sources before nominating an article though, so the suggestion that this was nominated without checking is, bluntly, bullshit. There are press releases and scant coverage of jobs this man has taken and jobs this man has left. Nothing more of substance, though TDA is invited to try to find these mythical sources rather than browbeat the deletion discussion. The suggestion that the size of Texas makes its local coverage more notable than local coverage in an other state..or another country for that matter...is almost too laughable to address. "Everything is bigger in Texas" is a product of regional ego, not terribly applicable to the English Wikipedia and how it decides notability. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POLTICIAN also explicitly applies to judges, who are often not elected, so your suggestion that him being appointed means that it doesn't apply is mistaken. Indeed, if it applied to only popularly-elected officials this would mean countries where the highest-ranking official in a major subdivision is appointed would be excluded. Still if you want some sources that will make his notability seem more compelling to you then here you go.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator is incorrect: the Texas Railroad Commission is a statewide elected body, and a powerful one, "historically one of the most important regulatory bodies in the nation" and "an important actor on the national energy stage".[1]. WP:POLITICIAN does not exclude someone who is appointed to fill a vacancy for this elective position, any more than would be someone appointed to a vacancy for any other elected statewide office. Such an exclusion rule would leave pointless gaps in our coverage, gaps that don't yield any benefit for those who may come here for information about this important elected body. Contrary to the nominator's intemperate edit summary comment when nominating this for AfD[2], the deprodding editor was hardly "obstinate" in exercising xis right to move a questionable prod to full consideration and taking the time to examine the question more carefully is not a "waste [of] 7 days".--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say the Railroad COmmission wasn't an elected bosdy, so kindly take your strawman construction elsewhere. This person was appointed to it on an interim basis. The rest of your comment is quite easily dismissed as an WP:ITSUSEFUL hand-wave. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This fulfills each part of the genereal notability guidelines. The refs are specifically about him, they are RS. It is an important position. Don't see a reason to delete.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Held multiple statewide offices of some prominence, and thus clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Has a marginal claim to GNG on the basis of sources quoted in the article as well. Ray^Talk 15:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Texas Railroad Commission is an important, state-wide, elected postion. It meets the requirments for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Foundation Centre[edit]

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

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

Non-notable foundation, with wording leaning towards promotional. Only sources referenced are primary. Couldn't find any third party sources. Vacation9 23:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant coverage found via Google, and the article looks like either a severe WP:COI problem or an outright copyright violation, using phrases such as "our membership". Huon (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete — I agree with the comments regarding the promotional/COI nature of the edit history. These problems can theoretically be remedied, and should not be factors in this discussion, but they do explain why the article exists at all. That said, it fails WP:GNG as to substantial coverage by unrelated parties, and WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. JFHJr (㊟) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advert pbp 23:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas Academica[edit]

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

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

Non-notable journal, fails GNG; whether or not it belongs on the list of "predatory" OA publishers, it doesn't meet our standards of notability. Note also that the PROD a few months ago was removed by a sockpuppet of Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're at it -- what to do about all the separate articles on all the individual journals, articles created by the same creator? Perhaps there's no alternative to separate AfDs for all of them (some have previously been prodded), but what a pain... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nom probably means "non-notable publisher", not journal :-) I'm hesitating about this one. At least one of their journals is legitimate enough to be included in the Journal Citation Reports with a sizeable impact factor: Evolutionary Bioinformatics. While that article needs some cleanup, it is not even overtly promotional. Analytical Chemistry Insights is in Scopus and we generally take that as meeting WP:NJournals. So are Cancer Informatics, Clinical Medicine: Oncology (that title is incorrect, BTW), and Biomarker Insights. So some journals seem to fail our notability guidelines, whereas others meet it. In general, when a publisher produces several notable journals, we tend to keep the article on the publisher, too. The article on this publisher needs some re-writing to remove some promotional stuff, but there is at least one good source (Poynders blog -a reliable source- listed in the EL section). --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep If they publish even one journal with an impact factor, they're a notable enough publisher. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Mention in Journal Citation reports is enough to show that they have some notability on the academic scene. Ray^Talk 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've had the list of journals related to this on my to-do list for a while. Other than EB, I don't believe the other journals for which there are pages are notable, and are probably better deleted or redirected somewhere. DGG, is there a particular policy that you base this on? If there's a publisher who's only claim to notability is a single journal, I'm not sure it should have a separate article. a13ean (talk) 22:28, 2 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, Deadbeef 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Response What else does a publisher do but publish journals? If they publish notable ones, they are notable. The question is if there is only one--and here my argument is the same as with authors of a single notable book, that if they succeed, they are likely to have others become notable also. I see 13 of their journals are now in Scopus, so although I am reluctant to use Scopus alone for the notability of a journal, I think it's an indication of at least partial notability for them. Getting in JCR for a new publisher not linked with a major society is quite an accomplishment. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Randykitty's and DGG's JCR and Scopus finds. --Mark viking (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm satisfied that deletion is not appropriate here. (In fact, I've already used it as an example of how 1 admin can make a mistake in areas where they are unfamiliar) DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Bicycles[edit]

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

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

Extremely small and non-notable bicycle manufacturer. Even the ref from "Mountain Bike Hall of Fame" gives him only two sentences. Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ADVERTISING, More like a "second website" then an article. -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the subject of multiple instances of independent published coverage. For instance, HERE is an outstanding, history-driven piece on the website CycleEXIF entitled, "Brodie Bikes: The True Story." And while THIS piece on the site Vancouver Is Awesome may or may not count towards GNG, it is indicative that there is solid source material available for expansion and improvement of the piece. And THIS on the website of Mountain Life Magazine is all about the 2013 Brody product line and includes another short interview that could be mined for content by a serious Wikipedian. This is just scraping the very top of a simple Google search (see WP:BEFORE). Any problems with commercial tone (which I really am not seeing) are easily fixable through the normal editing process. Clearly a flying pass of GNG for this small Canadian bike manufacturing company. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a Vancouverite, Brodie has quite a history with North Shore mountain biking, as well as notable manufacturers and athletes at the helm. I was surprised at such a small article, not to mention the lack of an article about Paul Brodie, considering his recent induction into the MTB hall of fame. I agree with Carrite that expansion rather than deletion is the answer for this article. Meat monster (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 23:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• question Carrite, would it be more appropriate to have an article on the person than the company? DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the company is the far more likely search term. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I worked on the article and improved it some. Needs expansion, but, per Carrite's points, it passes GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:18, 13 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. Courcelles 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlackMask[edit]

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

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

non notable rapper, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sourcing is a mix of pr non reliable sources and claims of notability by association. maybe a redirect may work here but TNT is best to get rid of spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with you, it shouuld be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Aviation Agency of the Republic of Macedonia[edit]

Civil Aviation Agency of the Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible advertising or NPOV/COI. I do not think that without a complete rewrite with new citations, that anything of encyclopedic value can be retained. Rarkenin (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Note that as per this URL, anyone can register, for example, wikipedia.gov.mk.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete  I can't find the template that compares two pages, but this is likely to be a copyvio of www.caa.gov.mk/50/About_Us.html.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Francesco Rulli.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film Annex[edit]

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

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

With reference to User talk:GB fan, added this page for deletion discussion based on WP:CSD#A7 WP:CSD#G11.

Page was initially listed for speedy, based on A7 and G11, but denied; as to stop a speedy deletion all it takes is a claim of significance. Claim of significance made by User:WestEndKat remains questionable - if sock or not, TBD by wiki security, refer to log: (Film Annex: Revision history) - appears to be inactive user now.

Be that as it may, the point here is that the article in question, is in essence, promotional, and as such a violation of guidelines, rules and policy. The Initial Claim is unsubstantiated, it is promotional and self-promotional by proxy (using notability circumvention)

Here is why:

Quote: "page should not be speedily deleted because... the Women's Annex Channel is very important..."

1) the Women's Annex Channel IS NOT Film Annex. Thus, question remains, why Film Annex should remain as article entry?

2) Notability (or the lack thereof) is verifiable. Looking at the references (1. through 19.) none of them are actual news coverage from economist, bloomberg, or any other independent, or verifiable source. References 20 through 22 are blatantly self-promotional.

3) Section "Notable Channels" refers to an individual, Roya Mahboob, who has a channel on Filmannex, as do others have channels on Youtube, Vimeo, or anywhere else. Section "Philantropy" is not referenced, and thus NOT verified by any other outside independent source. This is questionable practice, at the very least.

4) Fact is: Here is a private entity, i.e. filmannex.com, allowed having an article on WP, which violates basic WP guidelines, rules and WP credibility.

Based on 1)-4) the question arises: is this attempting to circumvent WP:N Notability? If so, the article should be deleted. Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom completed on behalf of author. I have no input (just yet). czar · · 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of notability per WP:WEB. In Google Books and Google News, I did not find mention of Film Annex combined with the founder's name except for a MarketWatch article in which he was apparently quoted. Please note that the article uses solely primary sources. Even the Yahoo! News link is just a press release. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with MQS below that a redirect is proper. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Lacking independent notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORP, this topic does not merit a separate article. But as it's existence is verifiable, we can serve the readers by a REDIRECT to its founder Francesco Rulli. Any verifiable content can then be included therein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A search at Bing clearly brings up recent news from 10,000 Balloons - http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=film+annex&go=&qs=bs&form=QBNT Using Google as a marker for YouTube competitors would fit this Criticism of Google - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestEndKat (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  WestEndKat, "10,000 balloons" "film annex" in Bing shows results from websites related to this platform. The top result is this, which has "filmannex" in the URL. Per WP:GNG, we need significant coverage from secondary sources to indicate notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per mqs. may 11, 2013 §: 35mexico58 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I updated the Notable Channels content on the Film Annex page and left my comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Film_Annex - The page is now consistent with Vimeo's Wiki page. Messin33 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Roya Mahboob's connection with the site brings up Film Annex in the top results when searching for Roya Mahboob and her early commercial connections with internet classrooms, separate from Women's Annex Project. Recommend wikipedia page be improved, cleaned up, and promotional material removed. Rand49503 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Messin3 (talk · contribs) and Rand49503 (talk · contribs) have only mainly edited Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Global Medical Relief Fund as seen here. Neither of them have adequately responded to this topic's issues with notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Agree with Erik: Neither Messin3 nor Rand49503 nor WestEndKat have added or addressed anything as for coverage from secondary sources to indicate notability. Based on this and looking at the 'Keep' votes, it appears there is either vote stacking, sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) in play here (check & cross-reference history from main page and AfD history), % Thus: Erik, could you plese notify Wiki security about this? Based on this: tendency to Strong Delete than Redirect.Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not need to pursue any security measures; the closing admin can assess these comments and recognize these accounts as single-purpose. AfD is not a voting process, the outcome depends on arguments based on policies and guidelines and related evidence. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know internet slang but "meat puppet" sounds like my husband is mad at me :) I met Film Annex and Roya Mahboob through my friends at Global Medical Relief Fund on Staten Island. Maybe supporting the women of Afghanistan is not "Notable" here on Wiki, but it certainly is on Staten Island. I will bow out here after this post but maybe people should look at what is going on in Afghanistan. Positive stories are few and far between in Afghanistan. If that is not "Notable", please explain to Wiki readers what is? WestEndKat (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  
• In reference to Erik's comment, my account was started as part of a project for my BUS 256 class in Business Ethics, as part of a section we are doing on the involvement of businesses in non-profit organizations. Unfortunately, I haven't been the most consistent editor, but my comment from this morning was just trying to say that many non-profit organizations start from business investments (which are motivated by the govt's and that not acknowledging that wouldn't clearly explain the history of the projects mentioned in this page. What I can agree with, is that maybe this article does not meet wikipedia's notability and objectivity guidelines in its current form, but my counter to that is that if you consider the history of Ms. Mahboob's projects, you would have to mention this company, either in an article or a sentence integrated into another article, as part of the process that contributed to this charity being formed.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of USS Argus[edit]

Capture of USS Argus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The articles Capture of USS Argus and USS Argus (1803) are both small enough to be merged into one article. The main contents of Capture of USS Argus has already been moved to the USS Argus (1803) article and further needed edits and tweaking have been made. Now that this has been done there seems to be no reason to keep the Capture of USS Argus article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete withdrawn by nominator Have copied text from Capture of USS Argus to USS Argus (1803) and will add a 'redirect' to former as soon as an administrator removes the hidden Afd message. Will wait about a week before removing contents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Completed AfD step 2 on behalf of author. czar · · 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. AfD is for deletion discussions. If you are proposing a merge, it should be done from the article's talk page, possibly in conjunction with leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. If you are only interested in merging, please consider withdrawing the deletion nomination. czar · · 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge It is reasonable to bring contested merges here, or merges where a possible alternative might be deletion, but this seems absolutely straightforwartd, and I think you could just have notified, waited a week, and then gone ahead with it. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I think nom is saying that the content has already been merged, so redirecting is the way to go. Ansh666 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I read that uncontroversial and simple merges are okay without a discussion and so went ahead and did so. Since the 'Capture of USS Argus' article has had its contents copied/pasted to a section in the main article I saw no reason to not have it deleted. Do you really think this simple merge/deletion needs to be discussed in all the various forums user:czar posted to? It's pretty straight forward and uncontroversial in nature, as no content or meaning has been added or deleted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to contact anyone, but it's a nice courtesy to anyone who may have input (especially those who worked on the article, from the article's history). Also when merging, it's good to leave a ((copied)) template on the merged talk page, which links back to the old page's edit history so proper attribution is given for the prose. (If the page was outright deleted, that attribution would disappear.) To answer your q, you'd probably be fine withdrawing the nom and completing the merge/redirect yourself. If anyone objects, they'll revert and bring the objection to the talk page. czar · · 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination. Have added the 'copied' template to the destination page, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 9 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 housekeeping non-admin closure: 22:01, 8 May 2013 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page Lullabies for Macy Rose (album) (A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance) czar · · 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lullabies for Macy Rose (album)[edit]

Lullabies for Macy Rose (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NALBUMS, and the general guideline Wikipedia:Notability. The article was created by the single-purpose account Slb-v1 in August 2008, so it has been around for a while. I added the the ((Notability)) tag on April 10, 2013. With the best will in the world, this album is not notable. HairyWombat 19:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note to closing admin: Should the article be deleted then Category:Johnny Barker (entertainer) albums will be empty. I am not sure if this category then needs separately to be nominated for deletion. HairyWombat 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9; the artist's page has been deleted and there's no indication of the album's significance.  Gong show 21:05, 8 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTINHERITED. There is zero evidence of her being notable, which is not inherited. There is also a high risk this will become an attack page on a private person; the focus of the page is on her giving birth at a young age. While I assume that is not the creator's intent, I don't want to feed the trolls, class of 2015. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Marie James[edit]

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

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

Being a notable person's mother doesn't mean she is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Her info can be included in LeBron James —Chris!_c/t 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the only claim of notability that the article makes is invalid per WP:NOTINHERITED. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. She gets a few notability credit points for being someone's mother, but LeBron James isn't himself significant enough to push her over the notability threshold. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited from family members per WP:NOTINHERITED, and I don't see in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. The current lack of substance in the article speaks volumes. It's an interesting story, and she deserves a sentence or two in her son's bio. Remember: even if she satisfied the general notability guidelines, that is not a guarantee that the subject should have a stand-alone article per WP:N. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:24, 8 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. LFaraone 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCG Attorney Search[edit]

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

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

BCG Attorney Search appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH in that the multiple cited sources do not offer any significant or substantial coverage of the company. Instead, the coverage is trivial, such that BCG is included in a list of similar organizations, or a webpage/article written by BCG is quoted or linked elsewhere. There is no support for the statements about how and when the firm was founded. There is no description of the company's business focus in the cited sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Researched and added reference (number 2) to how and when firm was founded, as well as focus of the business. Aostler (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a reference to Zoominfo.com. Zoominfo allows users to edit their own entries, so this cannot be considered an independent source. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with Binksternet and also find the content overtly promotional. Deb (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above; article created by advert only WP:SPA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons already given by Binksternet, Deb, and Ohnoitsjamie. NOTE: Related articles created by the same user include Hound.com, LawCrossing, and Harrison Barnes (entrepreneur); the last of these is also at AFD. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge all the subsidiaries together. Individually, these headhunter firms are really run of the mill HR firms. There is no need for multiple articles on what are essentially one company, and there is no evidence that any of them are notable except for the size of the totality. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles to merge would be Hound.com and LawCrossing, into this one. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 13 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. LFaraone 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in the Netherlands[edit]

List of postal codes in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. There is no reason for us to keep this: it is redundant to Postal codes in the Netherlands, where I just added the link to www.postcode.nl, the search engine that generates them immediately. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another list of postal codes. The consensus with other lists of postal codes has been to delete based on WP:NOTDIR. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTDIR, WP:LIST, and TMI. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 13 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. LFaraone 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkeys (band)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable band - only albums do not meet notability requirements. Sole "award" is not significant enough for notability. This was speedied once, and rightfully so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as previous speedy nominator, I see no addition that will make this band notable. Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 20:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The band and its works have received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Metacritic lists several of these notable magazines/websites [3][4]; the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gong show 21:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable and obviously promotional. Koala15 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anyone bothering to Google the band would find plenty of coverage. Easily notable enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of coverage from reliable sources found through Google, some of which is already in the article. Meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:44, 9 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Chynoweth[edit]

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

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

Article is about a US Army officer without he coverage needed to establish notability. Sourcing in the article consists of the Annual Report published by United States Military Academy, Association of Graduates which would not be an independent source. The other is a link Arlington Cemetery. Whpq (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article effectively makes no assertion of notability at all. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing notable. Intothatdarkness 21:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being said the only significant coverage the subject of this AfD received was regarding the subject's death, written in this book, and the Atlantic Constitution. As such this biography falls under WP:BIO1E, and as the death did not receive continued coverage the event does not appear to be notable per WP:EVENT, and thus WP:NOTMEMORIAL appears to be relevant in this case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at the paywalled Atlanta Constitution article that is available in the preview, the headline "ARMY OFFICER IN LAST FIGHT", and the sub-headline "Death Takes Maj. Edward Chynoweth. Operation Fails to Give Him Relief and End Comes After Short Illness" match the second block of the Arlington cemetery page, although the "-Interment in Marietta or in His Native City." from the Constitution doesn't appear in the Arlington page. Byline dates are the same but the wordcount in the Constitution would seem to be a little bit larger. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 10 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greatswords[edit]

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

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

Non-notable portion of a game. This article consists of only in-universe description of a fictional portion of a game universe with a single reference to a primary source --Craw-daddy | T | 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Perhaps the odd sentence could be used in another article, but definitely no need for this to be a standalone article. 1292simon (talk) 12:55, 2 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) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, or alternatively merge into another appropriate article. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then redirect to Classification of swords#Great sword. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 8 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sorribes Tormo[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD: my original concern was that Sorribes Tormo does not pass the tennis notability guidelines. She has not been ranked in the top-200, she is not a top-3 junior player, she has no senior Grand Slam or Fed Cup appearances, and she has only played in the qualifying draw of the 2013 Mutua Madrid Open, i.e. no main draw WTA tour appearances either. In addition to this, Sorribes Tormo has never won a $50,000 ITF tournament or better. If requested, I wouldn't have a problem with the article being userfied and later being moved back into article space at such a time if/when the player in question does become notable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see no notability with this player. This really should not have been un-proded but the editor had the right to do so. When these articles are created there needs to be a link somewhere that shows they meet the notability criteria. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. (insufficient notability according to project guidelines).--Wolbo (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 9 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) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Introduction to Finality[edit]

Advanced Introduction to Finality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Television episode with no notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Final episode of season four of a TV series that has 73 out of its 84 episodes with their own articles. - RandomEcho (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if most of those 73 were turned into redirects to List of Community episodes? Most of them are just bare frameworks to present the plot to the reader, so what importance does that have for the encyclopedia? None. A bunch of the episode articles violate WP:TVPLOT by having too much text in the plot section, for instance there is "The Politics of Human Sexuality" which is almost entirely plot, more than 900 words even though TVPLOT allows a maximum of 500. "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas" violates TVPLOT with a plot section word count of almost 700, but at least that article has context and healthy sections about production and reception—it would be one of the few that are not redirected to the list of episodes. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like you should fix those other articles. Anyways, as has been stated, this is the final episode of the series; it's obviously notable, particularly when most other episodes have their own page. Naapple (Talk) 03:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to concerns about the synopsis length, I have edited it down to 498 words which is in accordance to WP:TVPLOT. That said, issues with other articles are exactly that. Issues with other articles and not issues with this article. Mpen320. Also, as the season finale (I just read the series has been renewed) it is notable, but even by itself it is notable. Every episode of Glee has its own entry.

• Keep Don't like the other articles? Stop being a lazy complainer and fix them! Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:24, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Keep The article is young, and might get better. The article's subject is an episode that is significant for being the last in the first season of post-Harmon production, and likely in the show's run. If things change in a year, perhaps I will change my position, but deletion so soon is premature. Mang (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Episodes of Community are regularly discussed in reliable sources (critically), so even before airing it would have been reasonable to create. Now aired, there's at least 3 reviews in it, likely more given time. ( --MASEM (t) 14:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is at least the season finale and possibly will be the series finale. Out of all the episodes that have articles, why is this the one you want to delete?? --TheTruthiness (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While yes the article could use improvement in how it is written, we Wikipedians should just improve the article. It is premature to dismiss this article as insignificant as it is a season finale and up until recently, could have been the series finale. Also, it already has three reviews in it and sections on continuity and cultural references less than 48 hours after the episode aired. -Mpen320 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely needs improving, but quality of current content shouldn't be an issue in deciding deletion.IrishStephen (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SNOW and the fact that there are enough critical sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Kenneth[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG to me, firm might be notable but I don't think the founder is. Sasquatch t|c 17:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : nothing significant about the person.--Robustdsouza (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Not notable person.Jussychoulex (talk) 18:52, 12 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. LFaraone 03:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Charles Vigilante[edit]

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

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

No real indications of notability here. A somewhat highly placed executive at CNN, who wrote a personal reflection on the effects of Hurricane Sandy. That's about all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. I have to agree; I checked the usual search engines and there's simply nothing verifiable we can say about him that isn't already in the two-sentence article. —Neil 18:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Affirmed. Shii (tock) 23:48, 12 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 as follows:

• Keep Supernova (The Echoing Green album)
• Keep The Winter of Our Discontent (album)
• Redirect The Story of Our Lives to The Winter of Our Discontent (album)
• Redirect Fall Awake to The Winter of Our Discontent (album)
• Redirect Hope Springs Eternal (album) to The Echoing Green (band)

The result here is in line with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars comments. There were no wishes for outright deletion except from the nominator, and the consensus was to keep two of the albums. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Our Lives[edit]

The Story of Our Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:GNG, and all related notability guidelines. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same thing just different albums/songs:[reply]

Hope Springs Eternal (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Supernova (The Echoing Green album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fall Awake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Winter of Our Discontent (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to The Echoing Green (band). All contain encyclopedic information that passes WP:V. --Michig (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on Supernova and The Winter of Our Discontent. The Discontent article includes links to Phantom Tollbooth reviews, and here's one from Christianity Today: [5]. I also found a review of Supernova at allmusic [6] to go with the Phantom Tollbooth review link in that article. The other nominated album (as opposed to single or EP) is Hope Springs Eternal which is the oldest of the bunch, so it is harder to find reviews online -- Foetusized (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Supernova (The Echoing Green album) and The Winter of Our Discontent (album) per Foetusized; Redirect The Story of Our Lives and Fall Awake to The Winter of Our Discontent (album) as tracks from that album; Redirect Hope Springs Eternal (album) to The Echoing Green (band) as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]