< 12 October	14 October >

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hall (ice hockey)[edit]

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

This article has remained a stub and received virtually no editor traffic since its creation in 2009. Further internet searches reveal no mainstream media reporting on the article's subject and only one non-circular, non-crowd-edited mention of the subject of any kind (namely the single, unelaborated page of statistics on the hockey page linked to currently). Unless others can produce print sources I am not finding, I suggest deleting. Thank you. AsadR (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With 4 games in the NHL, the subject passes WP:NHOCKEY. We've had many AfD discussions for stubs like this. They are usually kept. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject easily passes notability standards by virtue of playing in the NHL.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 05:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing in any number of games (even as few as this guy) in the NHL is one of the notability standards for hockey players on Wikipedia. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 05:47, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:NHOCKEY. See also WP:NOEFFORT, WP:TOOLITTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria #1 of NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For fun, I also added some additional sourcing and content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep This article doesn't have a snowballs chance of being deleted when the player played in the NHL. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an accolade that I don't have time to add to the article, also a trivial mention: First Team All-Star in junior. Also this: [1], but with no abstract, I am not really willing to pay $3 to see if this is a story of any length. tiny blurb from HHOF. Also, even at 4 games, he will have an entry in Players, a book I have that documents every NHLer from 1917 to 2003. Given his 1959 Memorial Cup performance, he could also be noted in a book I have related to the Canadian junior championship. Resolute 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are completely unable to satisfy GNG. Dolovis (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind that I have not advocated a keep !vote, while you have. Also, I don't much care if you want to act like an ass in your interactions with me, but you should consider that your cute little WP:POINT here undermines your own keep arguments, both here and in most other AfD you participate in. Reso lute 16:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I have not been hypocritically, and I do not choose when and where I will rely upon the criteria of NHOCKEY in my arguments to keep articles such as this one. My reasons in AfDs for keeping articles such as this one have been consistent. Per WP:NSPORTS, this article, and others like it, should be kept so long as they “provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets ... the sport specific criteria” as set forth in NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in - I never looked at WP:NHOCKEY before, but if playing one game in the SM-liiga is presumed to make a player notable, Wayne Hall is highly notable in comparison.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Documentation showing he played in the NHL makes this easy--meets WP:NHOCKEY. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 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. G11 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intensive Krav Maga[edit]

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

A spammy, unreferenced article. A Prod tag was flicked off, so I am bringing it here for consideration. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD G11/A7. Purely promotional. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 23:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No difference from the Krav Maga page?? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this article had a reliable source, it could be worth a paragraph in the main 'krav maga' article. jmcw (talk) 11:51, 14 October 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 LGBT rights in Russia#Bans on "homosexual propaganda". Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Saint Petersburg demonstration[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:EVENT, one of those ordinary demonstrations that happen in various parts of the world, with no long-standing effect (and WP:NOTNEWS). Brandmeister^talk 21:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LGBT rights in Russia#Bans on "homosexual propaganda" which includes a section about the domestic reaction to the laws. This does seem to be a news report of an event, rather than something significant enough for its own WP article. Sionk (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the involvement of cossacks, which is always interesting, just another news story. Doesn't pass WP:EVENT Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Sionk. A rally of 200 people in a country of more than a hundred million isn't that earth-shaking. This article is more like a news article summary. --Soman (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sionk and Soman. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --hydrox (talk) 15:24, 19 October 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 Fareham#Education. WP:NOTBURO, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteley Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school with no distinguishable or notable features. Has already been merged to locality and reverted by original creator Atlas-maker (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Atlas-maker (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Atlas-maker (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been off WP when this was un-redirected. This was part of a larger cleanup on primary schools, and, of course, this one needs to be redirected (and protected if necessary), as there is nothing particularly notable about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fareham#Education as normal for nn primary schools. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- This is usual outcome for Primary schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 14 October 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 Cowes. Zad68 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cowes park and ride[edit]

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

Declined PROD. I fail to see how an 85 space car park qualifies for an article. A local scheme with no wider notability. Fails WP:GNG, WPNOTTRAVEL at the least. Charles (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to either Cowes or Southern Vectis. Delete - On second thoughts this can't be merged with bugger all!, As Editor5807 has kindly pointed out!. -Davey2010T ~~20:30~~, 21:55 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep - I fail to see what relevance it has to Cattle? Which section were you thinking of merging it to in that article? As for Southern Vectis, they may run services through the site, but they don't own it. Incorporating the information into the main SV article would overload it. Editor5807^speak 20:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad typo clearly!. Davey2010T21:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Maybe it meets notability guidelines, but the references are all "Retrieved 26 December 2008" or earlier, suggesting lack of maintenance (a problem where information may become outdated quickly). There's a sentence in Transport on the Isle of Wight, maybe more could be added? Peter James (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cowes (and possibly Transport on the Isle of Wight considering Cowes is a 'gateway' to the island). The article rests on two news articles in the IOW County Press in the first week of the scheme's launch. Much of the remainder of the WP article is non-notable travel information - bus routes, timetables and bus fares (which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia). Sionk (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Park and ride lots are not notable unless it is part of a rail station. Dough 48 72 01:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a park and ride next to a railway. In fact most stations I know have utterly draconian parking restrictions next to them - try parking outside the front of Euston Station and see how long it takes you to get clamped and towed away. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think examples such as Bristol Parkway were intended, but they are of course very different and I cannot see the car park being notable independently of the station myself. --AJHingston (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete P&R schemes are two-a-penny in the UK, and this one is small fry compared to many, eg English tourist cities. I see nothing to establish notability. --AJHingston (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to Cowes, delinking the bus routes, if mention is retained in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cowes, adding a brief bit of information about the park and ride from the sources. Some park and rides might be notable (for instance, St Catherine's Park and Ride in Winchester was the former site of the A33 Winchester Bypass where the battle of Twyford Down occurred in the early 1990s, so it might be possible to spin an article out of it) but this one isn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was bigger and had more routes orienting from it, I'd say merge, but it really is just a glorified car park. aycliffe^talk 14:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable in and of itself and doesn't provide sufficient useful information that a merge makes much sense. Even the references are either generally simply news reporting or mention the park and ride in passing. Obesity in the United States may be a notable article, but a mention that I enjoy bacon does not justify its own article, even if a reference appears in a reliable source on an actual notable subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:24, 20 October 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 User:Jimfbleak as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery of the Sancy[edit]

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

This is an article about a book, and the author of the article is the author of the book. There is no indication why this book is notable. There is no reference to any book review. More than half of the article is about the author (so it's wp:autobiography). That part of the article is completely unreferenced, thus contrary to WP:BLP. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could probably be speedied as sheer promotion. There are some assertions to notability through the epaper link, but we'd need some specific information to know which page has the article in question about the book so we'd know if this was an actual article rather than a brief mention or an advert. I searched for the book and the author's name separately, but couldn't find anything to show that this is ultimately noteworthy. There is a language barrier and the possibility for more sources, but I somewhat doubt that there is more out there beyond what is already on the article. From my experience with looking for Indian sources, the more notable subjects almost always have some sort of coverage in the English language papers or the papers that offer articles in English. This isn't a rule, but it's common enough that a lack of English language coverage in Indian sources is pretty telling- especially given that the article claims that this is widely sold and had a huge debut party. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 16 October 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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall at Westlake[edit]

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

As per WP:GNG not notable enough to warrant an article. Gaba ^(talk) 03:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 28 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage found here, here, here. The mall was dead over 20 years ago, so other coverage may be scant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the article's talk page, the mall, if redeveloped as is being proposed, could be a vital part of the city of Bessemer's rejuvenation. Taylor2646 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 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, Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as lacking any reliable source that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Such sources as there are, or have been produced in the discussion, are peripheral or passing mentions of the mall or its occupants. I note, as background, that the failed notability proposal WP:MALL suggested a notability threshold of 800,000 square feet, more than twice the size that this mall was. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH. There is sufficient coverage out there, I added one additional ref solely about the mall.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:50, 15 October 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 List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightfoot (Transformers)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge/Redirect to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters, per WP:BEFORE section C4, which states that if a topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. Mathewignash (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs) reasoning, I know we don't delete a lot of Transformers articles. JJ98 (Talk) 19:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:09, 14 October 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, Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. This character is not independently notable and lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. There is no out-of-universe notability, however as part of the group he is worth mentioning, so coverage in the list is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. Likely searc hterm and worth a mention on the character page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Super-God Masterforce characters. The only reference included in the article seems to be a dead link and while I think that the "Toys" section should count as real world information, it isn't nearly extensive enough to justify this as a stand-alone article. --Jpcase (talk) 17:30, 19 October 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 close. Wrong venue - belongs at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 21:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi A Campbell[edit]

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

Article moved to Articles for creation for review. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 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) 01:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Ryan[edit]

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

A sex advice columnist for a magazine, cited to her column in the magazine. Even her IMDb profile says she's only secured a few small acting roles, so her acting appears to be non-notable. The 'notability' tag was removed from the article almost immediately, so there seems little enthusiasm (or possibility) for the article to be improved, and I can't see any evidence of notability online. Sionk (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Ryan has also garnered a huge fan base on Twitter, having over 60 thousand fans as of 10/13/2013, for which other notable people have been recognized on Wikipedia (Including Rob Delaney and Megan Amram). Her appearances as a celebrity guest at the Tom Leykis listener show, Brian Howard radio show, and inclusion in MCM's top ten list, make her notable enough for Wikipedia. Her upcoming filmography will be added as it becomes available online. ojoruuso (ojoruuso) 17:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how the subject is notable. One of her greatest "claims to fame" is that she was selected as "One of the hottest girls of World of Warcraft" by Men's Confidence Magazine which happens to use a photo of the her for their banner heading. Why? Because, "Bailey Ryan is our resident relationship expert and senior editor". Yep, she was put on that list (which otherwise includes only A-list celebrities) by her "magazine" (blog) colleagues. Everything else is either unreliable (other blogs or IMDB) or is coverage by her (which might not be considered reliable anyway) rather than coverage of her which is what we need for WP:GNG. Stalwart111 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little actual coverage of the subject that qualifies as substantial, neutral, or independent, mostly just references to interviews with Bailey. Simply having 60K followers on twitter or a cameo in a movie is not sufficient to establish notability. That the path for some to become notable *initiated* by Twitter followship, it was subsequent events that resulted in notability, not merely being popular on Twitter themselves.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:59, 20 October 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 Lynx (spacecraft) (non-admin closure) p b p 16:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xerus (spacecraft)[edit]

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

The article concerns a concept that never went beyond paper. We could easily double the size of Wikipedia if we included things that never happened. Pete (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lynx (spacecraft). The nominator's rationaile is wholly flawed and not based on policy; WP:ITDOESNTEXIST is not grounds to not have an article, as Bigfoot, Ogopogo and Aurora (aircraft) will attest. This would ordinarily lead me to call for a speedy closure; however, since we're here and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the fact is that this is a case where there is a clear merge target for what would otherwise be a permastub: Lynx (spacecraft), the sucessor that developed from the Xerus project and leverages heavily off its technology. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - so little information here as to be practically useless. If it was very distinct from the Lynx, it might merit an article, but that doesn't seem to be the case. James^x12345 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lynx (spacecraft)—no source indicates that it was anything more than a conceptual preliminary design, somewhere along the road to the XCOR Lynx. N2e (talk) 14:29, 21 October 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx (spacecraft)[edit]

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

The article appears to be a puff piece for a project. All sources look to be either from the company or clearly sourced from press releases. A close reading of the sources shows that despite initial passenger-carrying spaceflights promised since 2008, the actual vehicle does not exist beyond a few parts, such as a photograph of a nosewheel. My concern is that Wikipedia is being used as a board to carry multiple company links to increase their visibility. --Pete (talk) 16:08, 13 October 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 October 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nom is involved in an dispute with User:N2e on the article, nomination appears to be WP:POINTy. --W. D. Graham 16:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (comment) Actually, I went to WP:RSN to get more eyes on the article and was directed (via WP:NOTABILITY) towards listing it for deletion by Blueboar here. Just following up on good advice, as I have on yours, WDG. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A basic Google search throws up plenty of other sources, and your post at RSN was hardly a fair and neutral assessment of the situation. Instead of trying to enforce your views like this, please try to participate in the discussion which N2e started on the talk page. --W. D. Graham 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me? Who started that discussion? Me. Google throws up plenty of hits, sure, but they all go back to XCOR and press releases. Top of the list is our article, which is basically a collection of XCOR links and press releases. As I've noted several times now, notably in the RS/N discussion you take exception to. That is my position, and if you have a contrary view, please point out the links which aren't from XCOR or one step removed. Be fair. --Pete (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - My mistake, I didn't see the first line. But that is still the right place for this discussion to be taking place, not here. --W. D. Graham 16:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Following good advice, as noted. Here we are, let's see how it goes. Wikiprocess in action! --Pete (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "One step removed" is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was WP:BEFORE followed? [2], [3] seem to establish WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion has been ongoing since 20 September. Thanks for the two article links, but again they are no more than regurgitated company publicity. We don't seem to have anything that stems from an outside source. There are some pictures of a plastic mock-up being displayed at trade shows, but we can't really have an article about a spacecraft that's only a plastic kit, can we? --Pete (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - USA Today/AP does not blindly reprint company PR. NASASpaceFlight has an independent editorial team. And yes, we can really have an article about a spacecraft that's only a plastic kit if enough sources cover it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, yes we can. Things need not exist in order to be notable and have articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's exciting, space tourism, history in the making. NASA is now a partner. News of it's construction and test flights has reached 6 continents. It easily passes WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 21:15 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep and a jumbo-sized ((trout)) for Pete. Coverage in third-party reliable sources is blatant and in the article: Popular Mechanics, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Air & Space/Smithsonian, SPACE.com, The Wall Street Journal, and MSNBC are all third-party reliable sources that are in the article currently. Their sources are irrelvant; the bottom line is that there is plenty of coverage in RS to establish notability, and that the apparent WP:FORUMSHOPPING in an attempt to get this article deleted is disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A simple Google search reveals literally dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources about this article's topic. Here's just a small sampling:

List of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability
Space.com - Lynx Space Plane Taking Off: Q&A with XCOR Aerospace CEO Jeff Greason Popular Mechanics - XCOR Lynx: Don't Sleep on the Space Corvette Aviation Week - Rocket Test Paves Way For XCOR Lynx Flights Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine - The Lynx’s Leap Popular Mechanics XCOR Unveils Suborbital Space Vehicle The Planetary Society - Live at the Space Tech Expo with Bill Nye, Xcor and Zero-G BBC News - Rocket planes seek market share Engadget - XCOR's Lynx aims to enter space tourism business in 2010 New Scientist - Rocket company offers $95,000 trips to space Yahoo News - XCOR Aerospace Announces Midland, Texas, R&D Headquarters CNET - Lynx Fox News - New rocket plane to begin space tourist launches in 2014 Wired - You'd Look Sweet Upon the Seat of a Spaceship Built for Two New York Times - Space Tourism May Mean One Giant Leap for Researchers Los Angeles Times - Planetfest: Lynx vehicle offers a $95,000 trip to space Wall Street Journal - Economy Fare ( $100,000) Lifts Space-Tourism Race USA Today - Company seeks to capitalize on space tourism market The Globe and Mail - Bargain blast-off: Space tourism opens up Christian Science Monitor - Space tourism is ready for takeoff The Sydney Morning Herald - Private plane into space unveiled

List of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - as above, lots of references, not sure why this was ever put up for afd? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep–there are a large number of reliable sources on this vehicle that indicate strong notability. N2e (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems like it's well sourced, even if it were to end up failing it would be notable. --Dramamoose (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The rationale for deleting this article simply goes against WP:DEL-REASON and simply shouldn't be here. This is an article content dispute that spilled over into the AfD simply to spite some of those other participating editors. This is a notable topic, plenty of reliable sources, and issues of point of view need to be resolved within the article talk pages. Ditto with complaints about source quality which merely needs somebody to bring in perhaps some additional quality sources to back up their edits, including the nominator. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:06, 18 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator with no opposing !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shin[edit]

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

What a horrible looking article. When I read it on pop ups I presumed it to be a disambiguation page. Laun chba ller 15:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is hardly policy based. I think winning an Annie Award shows notability. Plus, he's been nominated for four Emmy Awards. Crappy article, yeah, but he's probably notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patched the article up. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work - I am happy to withdraw.--Laun chba ller 06:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - 4 emmy noms + 2 wins (annie, daytime emmy), notable indeed, article looks good now, well done Trescott.--Stemoc (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Person sounds notable from winning and being nominated for awards. Dough 48 72 00:19, 15 October 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) 01:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Joe [edit]

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

Huon (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Database searches (EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Infotrac) —Darkwind (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Cerebellum (talk) 01:42, 20 October 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) 02:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Patterson (choreographer)[edit]

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

Non-notable choreographer. Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:NACTOR. Article lacks verifable, independent references. Of the 10 references only 3 mention the article subject and each of those mentions are trivial. reddogsix (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting nomination. There is a solid Washington Post reference that clearly identifies the subject, her title (and recognition) in the entertainment industry, an association of importance (relationship to a world renowned rapper) and a photograph of her:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postlive/michelle-kwan-sam-kass-and-an-ex-surgeon-general-my-worst-eating-habits-as-a-kid/2013/09/26/93499ce4-26be-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_gallery.html#photo=15

The Washington Post is a reputable publication...and distinguishes the subject as a person of importance in its subcaption: "We asked athletes, mayors, public health professionals and others for one food vice they had as a child — and how they managed to beat it." This demonstrates that the feedback sought from select program presenters was valued and respected at a broad and global level. It is further asserted that the subject is an important, newsworthy figure by Washington Post standards; has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media; and has various photographic citations that are completely verifiable.Scriptly (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Scriptly (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Scriptly (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined by the nominator. There is very little at all about her online. The Washington Post quote is a brief eating advice tip by Patterson, so is not substantially about her and not counting towards her notability. Appearing near a famous person doesn't count towards notability either. Sionk (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Response to Sionk:

1. The Washington Post article is meant to encourage healthy eating habits to children afflicted by obesity. It uses well known individuals and celebrities to send out a message of healthy eating practices in much the same way public service announcements draw on celebrities to get out a particular message.

2. The Wikipedia article, written by Scriptly, does not merely speak to a subject "appearing near a famous person" -- what it establishes is a lengthy history of a choreographer's professional contributions to another (more well known) artist. The subject, in the majority of the citations, is performing alongside Hammer (not simply appearing near him). If you look at the 2012 American Music Awards photo and video, as well as the Dick Clark's Rockin' Eve photo and video, it is clear that she is actively engaged in a highly visible, professional dance routine with both Hammer and Psy. It is not difficult to pick her out. The reason is because she is prominently displayed and is a major contributor:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130101/times-square-theater-district/gangnam-style-star-psy-joins-rap-icon-hammer-at-new-years-times-sq/

The Grand Finale in the 2012 American Music Awards was heralded as the highlight of the evening. The showmanship demonstrated by Tiffany Patterson is remarkable and noteworthy.

This clarification is not meant to appear negative or argumentative, what is hoped is that the collective body of references can be viewed in totality -- each lending to a more expansive understanding of the subject. Scriptly (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - #1. I don't even see any reference to the article subject in the reference. It matter not what the intent of the article, but if the article was mentioned in a non-trivial form. The article has to be supported by non-trivial references. Per WP:BASIC, "...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." #2 The article may have attempted to establish the individual's contribution, but there are no references to support the contribution. As far as performing with Hammer, notability is not inherited from someone else - the subject's notability has to be able to stand on its own merits. There is no substantial body of work to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't keep this. No references that are focused on her. The Washington Post article lists her alongside some notables and some non-notables; in the latter category is a 17-year-old student. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 14 October 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) 01:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Bulzan[edit]

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

Nice résumé, but I fail to see convincing evidence the subject passes WP:PROF. I do see the article is authored by single-purpose account Fbulzan... - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Delete. Despite the article's promotional nature there seems to be no pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the reviews so far. I will add more references to the mentioned information so it can better validate and prove the impact of the accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbulzan (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — Fbulzan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. See: https://www.google.be/?gws_rd=cr&ei=iiddUsjgNdDy0gXZ24CQAw#q=Carmen+Bulzan In Romanian academic society she must be very well known, English version of wikipedia is "international". She can not be "discriminated" because of being a Romanian. Wikipedia has enough space to be generous. Aster554 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Need we point out the obvious? One, Aster554 has just joined Wikipedia, his other main contribution being to try and save an article about another academic of dubious notability. Two, a Google search alone is no indicator of notability (WP:GHITS), and the other assertions are meaningless. It must be shown concretely that the subject meets one of the WP:PROF criteria, or the article should be deleted, without reference to nonsense about "discrimination". - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WorldCat shows 6 books with cumulative holdings of 8 copies and WoS shows 1 research publication that has never been cited. Article is basically a CV consisting mostly of original research and there are no secondary sources given, evidently because none exist. Absolutely non-controversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The claims in the article look to me like a better fit for WP:GNG than WP:PROF. But the only thing resembling a reliable source that has been presented so far is the gds.ro story (certainly a video of a book launch party does not count as a reliable source). But we need multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth, and even the gds.ro story does not have the necessary in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 18 October 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) 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devvon Terrell[edit]

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

COntested PROD. Reason was "It is not simply having references that allows an article to remain here. The article must also show the subject's notability, and this one does not. Currently fails WP:GNG." Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and i am continuing to update the page with very reputable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BraggadocioMusicPub (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional material created by affiliated entity (now blocked). JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A catalogue of the artist's biography and discography is not enough to establish notability; there is insufficient media coverage to meet WP:NMUSIC. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:26, 14 October 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 Binibining Pilipinas. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binibining Pilipinas winners[edit]

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

Redundant article. The list is already in the Binibining Pilipinas article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binibining Pilipinas as a possible search term. I'm surprised this wasn't done earlier. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Binibining Pilipinas as a WP:CFORK. Weird because the content in the charts overlap but not perfectly. It's like two parallel winner's charts with slightly different content in each. Looks like some well meaning IP and red-link users decided to make their own chart with extra info, but it should have been done in the main article not a separate article. --Green Cardamom (talk) 17:29, 14 October 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) 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Grand Central[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG there are no third party reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant manner. it is mentioned in several travel guides, but only to say "it is central but not grand" [4] [5]. . The building is a typical 70's building of no architectural significance. no events of historic or notable value have been recorded as occurring there other than a single human trafficker using it to house 2 of his victims and a church using it as one of many many many many temporary locations. it is being demolished and being replaced by two different buildings so no future notability is possible. BURO nom per contested PROD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith Keep. The page is a perfectly fine stub-class/start-class article. The hotel is being demolished for refurbishment, and will be reopened by the same owners under a new name (by when a page rename is necessary), so there is "future notability". (It already quite popular in Singapore). More could be included in the page over time (such as the human trafficking or church location subjects the nom have mentioned). Just like any such start-articles, give it time, it will grow. Also, the nom has removed large chunks of content before the mentioned PROD. The original version could be found here Rehman 03:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not a "perfectly fine stub" - a "perfectly fine stub" would have third party sources that talk about it. That is not the case here. It is a perfectly run of the mill hotel. And yes i have removed large chunks of text that were not supported by reliably published sources, which left the unsupportable stub. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) and it is not going to be the "same hotel" - there are going to be two new hotel properties developed on the site. IF either of the new properties has generates significant content about it in the future after it is built, then an article can be created using the sources that do not exist now.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - and regarding the "events" - i have further clarified their trivial nature in my nomination post. the hotel was named as being used by a single human traficker housing 2 victims - it is not named as some sort of notorious housing location of vice. the church's use of this building as a temporary home was of no particular significance to the church - the source includes the hotel in a list of about 8 other temporary sites that were also used. Trivial passing mentions in both cases - and those were the most significant that I was able to find.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article for the now-closed hotel doesn't offer proof of notability, and a quick search didn't find anything of note; if anyone can find evidence of past notability, please provide it. Future notability won't fly. --Larry (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is more or less an advert sourced to the owning company's website. The only mentions I can see online are listings in travel books and on travel websites. The nominator was quite within their rights to remove this trivial fluff. Sionk (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't 'demolish for refurbishment'. If you refurbish, the building or whatever stays. If you demolish, it's gone and you may get a new building - or a waste plot if the money runs out... Peridon (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Valkie[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Taro through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 6 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not establish notability - no coverage by third party sources. if the character may be a likely search term a redirect to Ultraman Taro is also acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. Periodical and academic database searches turned up nothing. —Darkwind (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability by indie sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Ultraman Taro or Ultra Monsters; no out-of-universe notability however mentioned in the latter, at least, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:07, 14 October 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 List of Transformers: Victory characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tackle (Transformers)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Based on sources provided in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers: Victory characters. Switched my opinion to merge, it will help the character page with the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has good sources, and is notable. Mathewignash (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Transformer is not notable. The sources are all either primary or unreliable. Article is a NOTPLOT violation. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Deletion should be avoided if at all possible if you can merge or redirect a page to another, per WP:Before C4, you should at least consider merging it to List of Transformers: Victory characters. Mathewignash (talk) 13:44, 5 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 6 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers: Victory characters. This fictional character does not have notability independent of Transformers. The sources offered include fan pages, newsgroup posts, and primary sources. This is not sufficient to establish notability. Deletion is also acceptable, but I agree that merging is preferable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Victory characters. The sources do not establish out-of-universe notability. As part of the group of characters, a mention and a redirect to said group's list is appropriate, however a stand-alone article is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Victory characters. I think that the "Toys" section might count as real world information, but there isn't enough of it to warrant a stand-alone article. I would support keeping this if reliable references can be found for that section and some reviews of the toys or of the character are added. --Jpcase (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge – third-party reliable sources are not provided for notability beyond the various in-universe world of the fictional transformers themselves. N2e (talk) 19:03, 20 October 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) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Fairy Tail[edit]

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

Trivia list of in-universe information without notability. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. This article is sourced almost entirely to the show itself, apparently based on watching it. I should note that the main article for this manga is at Fairy Tail. If anyone finds any useful nuggets in this one, it can be merged to that article. İn ictu ocli (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC) inpersonation, banevation[reply]

Comment; other editors, and anyone closing this AfD, please be aware that this is not myself but a sock playing at building a history. It has been added to relevant SPI. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep by creator] - First of all, please pardon my English. I agree with you all. I tried to write it in non-universe form but there is some points that only suitable the Wikipedia's criteria. I just edit it but I know there is a lot to improve. I'm not good with "notability" you said just now. I agree for merging this article with the main but when I get the "greatest" references for this article, I want to claim it back online! Cheers! SNN95 (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPLOT. Give me one source that gives this article notability. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPLOT, better suited to wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:16, 14 October 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. Consensus is that the article itself should be kept. Whether the final article title should use "Jimtown" or "Jamestown" is not decided here, and must be resolved using the normal WP:DR pathways. Zad68 02:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimtown, Indiana[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax as there is no Jimtown in Indiana The Banner talk 10:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Checked Google Maps. There's a Jimtown High School in Elkhart, Indiana, but that's it. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An entire chapter about Jimtown in the Arcadia book Around Nappanee: Hometowns of the Heritage Trail [6] There is, or at least was, a Jimtown Historical Museum: see mentions at [7][8][9] Seems to be a real community with a defined identity and history, and as such probably deserves its own article under our gazetteer function. ~~Alternatively could consider merging into Baugo Township, Elkhart County, Indiana, but I think there's enough here to justify the separate article.~~ --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revise comment: Per Deor's comment below, if there's a merge (and there probably should be) it should be with Jamestown, Elkhart County, Indiana; whether "Jamestown" or "Jimtown" is the principal title of the article can be decided by the usual editorial processes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Under normal circumstances, I would check any disputed U.S. place name article using Geographic Names Information System, but that resource is offline due to the U.S. government shutdown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm, this is a perplexing one. Both the USGS topographical map and Google Maps call the place Jamestown. On the other hand, this 1951 map of Baugo Township labels it Jimtown. The local public schools definitely use the name Jimtown, but there's a preschool, a church, and some other businesses that use Jamestown in their names. Earlier this year, a single editor created this article and redirected the previously existing Jamestown, Elkhart County, Indiana to it. My first impulse is to suggest that the USGS map be treated as the most authoritative current source and to recommend restoring the Jamestown article and reversing the redirect, but more research is probably needed. (Note that the book linked by Arxiloxos refers to "Jamestown, generally better known today as Jimtown", which might be taken to suggest that "Jimtown" is a nickname for a place that is more properly named Jamestown.) Deor (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you, I somehow overlooked the earlier Jamestown, Elkhart County, Indiana article (and I even looked to see if there was something like that!) I am indifferent to whether Jamestown or Jimtown is the principal title, as long as suitable redirects are included; and we can also now move to improve the article a bit based on the sources dug up here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And its probably the better name now, but that can be decided later.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:50, 8 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; whether it's Jimtown or Jamestown, this clearly is verifiable as existing, and under Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer under the Five Pillars it is therefore notable. Which name is correct is something to be discussed at the article talk page, not AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See USGS. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That GNIS page is for a place completely different from the topic of this article. That's in Gibson County in southwestern Indiana; the article's place is in the northern part of the state, in Elkhart County. The correct GNIS page is this one, which calls it Jamestown (with "Jimtown" listed as a "variant name"). Deor (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate Jamestown, Elkhart County, Indiana and redirect Jimtown. Jamestown is the primary name. Jamestown was the established article. The author of Jimtown started a second page, and he/she redirected the original article after a merge was proposed. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate and redirect to Jamestown per Gene93k, Jamestown seems to be the correct name unless we can find reliable sources saying that Jimtown is more common. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:07, 20 October 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 WP:INCUBATE and redirect original title to Tigmanshu Dhulia#Career. Zad68 13:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REVOLVER RANI[edit]

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

There is no reference. There is no evidence that this film actually exists/ Vanjagenije (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources can easily be found via Google (as per WP:BEFORE). I have added one. A better ground for nomination here is whether this film, which appears to have cast but not yet be made, meets WP:NFF? AllyD (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate article and Redirect title for now to Tigmanshu Dhulia#Career as being worth covering in some manner, but just a tad TOO SOON for its own article under WP:NFF. See WP:INDAFD. If the nominator had looked as well as did AllyD, he'd have found that sources toward this planned film DO exist. We can allow undeletion or recreation once filming commences and the project gains more coverage. Note: Deletion policy suggests this article can be incubated right before the title's redirection. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:42, 7 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient coverage about the production project, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMcUuSZ6tI , http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Kangana-Ranaut-prepares-to-become-Revolver-Rani/Article1-1121958.aspx , http://ibnlive.in.com/news/for-kangna-revolver-rani-is-her-toughest-film-so-far/422144-8-66.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-R5m0uc3ZQ , http://www.indianexpress.com/news/will-play-my-first-intense-role-in-revolver-rani-vir-das/1138061/ etc. --Soman (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate and redirect per Schmidt, lots of sources but doesn't seem to have started principal photography yet. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:04, 20 October 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. Most opinions here are in favour of deletion, with no coverage found since its formation. Michig (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Nazi Party[edit]

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

This smells like a hoax. Seemingly, the evidence of the existence of the party is a facebook page (with 70 followers), which is the basis of the first reference, and an interview with 2 guys claiming to be running a party. For me, that fails the minimum criteria of WP:RS for a wiki article on a political party. Soman (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the nom's rationale. The Egypt Independent is a reliable source which says: "A group of Egyptians have announced their intent to establish a Nazi party .. an independent Egyptian news website said on Wednesday. Al-Badeel, a leftist news portal, quoted founding member Emad Abdel Sattar as saying .." No "Facebook" there, rather Al-Badeel the source cited, but even if was Facebook who cares, many groups coalesced around Facebook it played an important role in the Arab Spring. Also Nazism is a well known and understood phenomenon in Egypt going back to WWII so it's not surprising to see it surface. The important thing for WP:NOTE is that this group has been discussed in multiple reliable sources such as Egypt Independent. They also appeared on Egyptian TV[10] as reported in The Blaze[11], The Jerusalem Post, Foreign Policy (paywall). However I'm not voting Keep since all the sources date to 2011, the formation announcement, and nothing since. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With due respect to the nominator, I don't think "hoax" can be argued based upon the footnote showing from the Egypt Independent. That prospect out of the way, I'm in the favor of the lowest of low bars for articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections (regardless of ideology) on the basis that this is the type of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If no other reliable sources can be mustered, I'd still favor keeping under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES (use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). I have a hunch that the nominator feels the same way and would ask that this nomination be withdrawn. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm in the favor of the lowest of low bars for articles on political parties..." In that case all people would have to do is register a political party and WP would write an article on their views.. I'm thinking about starting the Teddy Bears for All party. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reason noted in my comment above. The only sources are the initial announcement of the founding in 2011 and nothing since. As the nom rightly points out this could be two guys in a basement. It received news coverage because of its shocking nature. There is no evidence the group ever did anything other than announce existence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:19, 12 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are interviews with party members talking about their party. No secondary coverage about the party and really no assertion of notability. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked both Google and commercial databases - there is some discussion of this party forming (including on the Jerus Post), but nothing to indicate it ever did, or that is exists. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Egypt Independent, cited as a source in the article, states explicitly Al-Masry Al-Youm could not verify the news reported by Al-Badeel. As for unverified Facebook tittle-tattle, it is best ignored. And the picture highlighting the story in Egypt Independent is of an incident in Spain. If anything, it calls into question its reasons for publicising the unverified report with the unrelated picture.-Zananiri (talk) 19:05, 14 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hs and Ts[edit]

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

This is an originally written elaboration of the 4H/4T mnemonic used in advanced life support and advanced cardiac life support protocols. I don't think it is encyclopedic, in the sense that it strays into WP:NOTHOWTO and, as I said, is originally written. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of high quality sources to back it up. A section on history would be useful. I am happy to allow this maybe borderline expansion as we are not limited by lack of paper. This sort of formatting does not belong within the main article on cardiac arrest Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure but I'll make a broken record of myself and say we should ideally have a featured List of medical mnemonics page. (That was red at time of writing.) Could that influence the decision, if it existed? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ((U))) while signing a reply, thx 21:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable topic as demonstrated by the references. The subject is heavily promoted by resuscitation councils in the English-speaking world. The article lacks in-line citations, which would be helpful. Thus the article would benefit from addition of these and perhaps some clean-up. The nominator (JFW) uses the phrase "originally written" and links it to the policy WP:NOR. These two concepts, "originally written" and "original research", are entirely different and must not be conflated. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 7 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems legit per [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:58, 20 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeva Samadhi[edit]

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

Delete This article is orphaned and has no references. It is not clear what purpose it serves and is written like an essay with an unexplained list. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content appears to be a bit like an essay, the list doesn't make much sense for me. The article has been around for quite a while, leading me to believe the topic has some relevance, but it will need a fundamental re-write and some decent sources to be encyclopedic. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 23:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Samadhi and Samadhi (shrine) and "Jeeva Samadhi" can be redirected to "Samadhi". The term is quite a common one. Some cursory Google search would show you that. The stuff-not-making-sense to delete voters is probably their incompetency. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:19, 10 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article can be merged with Samadhi or Samadhi (shrine) because so far (after seven long years) it does not have a single statement that can be verified. I know what a samadhi is, it is a tomb or shrine for a deceased person highly regarded in Hinduism. But this article is categorized as Tamil History and Tamil People only. It makes remarks that seem to be from word of mouth rather than books. The list is unlinked and unreferenced. It seems to serve no purpose, at least for the uninitiated reader. I would agree to merge this article if I could see something in it that could be used. While the word "jeeva samadhi" can be found on the internet, the word "jeeva" simply means body, or embodied soul. So it is a samadhi for a body. But the more general term is samadhi. To see that the common word in Hinduism is simply "Samadhi" see the Commons category by that name. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself just now said that Samadhi is a tomb and then why do you say that whole article is unverifiable? That verifies the first line of the article. Please note that verifiability has nothing to do with bunch of weblinks present at the bottom of the article. I also hope you do realize that we will not be deleting any article only because it's wrongly categorized. The lead can be merged to the "Samadhi" article whereas the list can be merged with "Samadhi (shrine)" article. Also note that AFDs are not for cleaning up articles. Also, other wikis are as reliable as this wiki. So if you are showing us something on commons, that's useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree the first line can be verified, at least by me: "Jeeva Samadhi or Adhishtanam or Brindavanam is the tomb of a Hindu Spiritual Guru or a saint." For Adhishtanam, I get "Basis; a principle in which some other principle inheres" [17] and "One who is the root cause (and foundation) of the Universe" [18]. Lines like "The seed cells in the body never get damaged" are so strange and unexplained I cannot see how this can simply be 'cleaned up.' If it could be cleaned up, a Hindu expert like yourself would have done so. Are lines like this to simply be ported to Samadhi as is without references? Is the list to be moved to Samadhi (shrine) without references? How is that a solution? Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, being unreferenced doesn't mean its not verifiable. Being unreferenced doesn't mean its not notable. If at all you were looking properly, you would find all the necessary references within Wikipedia's other articles itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article could be renamed Samadhi (Tamil people). Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! Why do you think Samadhis of Tamil people should have a different dedicated article? Since when did Dnyaneshwar become Tamil? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Tamil people is how the article categorizes itself. You seem to feel it could be merged. So is the article to simply be tagged "merge"? Who is going to merge it? As it stands it is orphaned, redundant, and written as an essay with unsubstantiated metaphysical opinions. I am surprised you don't begin to improve it, since you feel it is an okay article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't compulsory. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. I don't have to do anything; especially when ignorant people come up and start tagging articles because it doesn't make sense to them from their western view points. And that doesn't happen like once or twice a month with WP:INDIA but almost everyday. Your ignorance of the subject has been reflected quite well over here. So has been your ignorance of how Wikipedia works. Without a single constructive edit to the article since you AFDed it, you have shifted your opinion from delete to keep with rename and you base that on the categorization of the page, which existed even at the time you AFDed it. Also you are assuming bad faith on my part and other WP:INDIA editors by questioning who will be merging the articles. We have approx 200 articles currently up for merger since their AFD. You can invest your energy worrying about those. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please no personal attacks. My vote remains to delete. There are many excellent India articles on Wikipedia. Sai Baba of Shirdi is a GA article for instance, and has plenty of references. I don't think you are admitting how strange this article is written. "It is believed that this force remains forever and the time limit for the Samadhi status depends upon the saint's bio-magnetic strength". Believed by whom? What is bio-magnetic strength? What are seed cells? If I am ignorant, I would hope this article would inform me. I don't see what part of it could be merged, as none of it is referenced. I do know that a samadhi is a tomb. I think that's the most often used term. That's all I know. Merging this article with another would make more sense if there was something in the article that was cited, and if it wasn't so strangely written. A person has to read it to see what I mean. Maybe we should ask for mediation, as you and I don't seem to agree, and we seem to be the only interested editors here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons I would give for deletion of this article, from the list or reasons at WP:Deletion policy:

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

Also the list seems unusable because it does not list articles, and it has no references. Therefore nearly anyone could add anything to the list.

If there was cited information, it could be merged. But there is almost nothing that can be merged except part of (but not all of) the first sentence. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article could be redirected to samadhi (shrine) (rather than being deleted) and the name jeeva samadhi added to the names samadhi and samadhi mandir there. But without the uncited content. Would you be open to that idea? Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarless of "merge" or "delete", I have nothing against keeping a list of Samadhis in India, but I do not know, and it is not made clear, as to how representative or partial the current list is. Also in the title, the "jeeva" part, seems to make the article specific to the teachings linked to agasthiar.org. If not, we would need to have more sources, independent of agasthiar, referring to samadhis as "jeeva samadhis". But even so, mention of bodies that do not decay after death, notions of magnetic fields acting as the life force in the corpse and seed cell ideas, that appear to be the original research of the writer, have to go, unless they can be written in the form "according to A, (an accepted as reliable source), so and so". No such text given as factual information is permitted in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the list of samadhis in the article you will note that they are mostly in the state of Tamil Nadu. For that reason I think it is not a neutral representation of samadhi shrines in India. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, I see that such a list would be a huge project, and then the hardest question would be which of these samadhi mandirs would be important or notable enough to include. So under this title and these circumstances, the present list is unusable. Hoverfish Talk 20:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The second and third line of the article can provide a starting point for an article, but the rest of it is plain op-eds introduced by different editors. At this point, this article does more to misinform readers than any encyclopaedic purpose. Even if refs are found (and they can be found deeply embedded in scholarly works) the article needs to be written from scratch, not from a smorgasbord of opinions and listings dubiously sourced. WP:TNT applies. —SpacemanSpiff 14:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with SpacemanSpiff. If there is anything important that can be said about the present title, the article should be written from scratch. Hoverfish Talk 15:28, 21 October 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) 02:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Anderson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - this guy killed his wife in 1992 and was himself killed in prison in 1994. No one would give him a second thought except that another prisoner was killed in the same attack, by the name of Jeffrey Dahmer. This guy fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CRIMINAL. Nominated once previously and kept largely because of the supposed effect he had on the Northridge Mall but those rare reliable sources that link the murder to the mall's closing do so in one sentence (that starts with "Some people suggest") which offers no evidence in support of that supposition (the mall was open for 11 years after Anderson killed his wife and 9 years after Anderson's own death). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not 1E because there were ~~two~~ three events, regardless he was in the wrong place wrong time, GNG covers it. He is still being discussed to this day in magazines, books and journals; and it was covered in local, national and international press. Some additional sources follow:

Gibson, Kyle, and Benjamin Grant Purzycki. "Religion and violence: an anthropological study on religious belief and violent behavior." Skeptic [Altadena, CA] 16.2 (2011): 22+.
Katheryn Russell-Brown, The Color of Crime, pg. 38
Mike Mayo, American Murder: Criminals, Crimes and the Media, pg. 96
Gary Allen Fine, Whispers on the Color Line: Rumor and Race in America pg. 205
George Curry, The Best of Emerge Magazine, pg. 594
Jonathan Coleman, Long Way to Go: Black and White in America, pg. 303
Ron Scapp, Etiquette: Reflections on Contemporary Comportment, pg. 121
Joe R. Feagin, White Racism: The Basics, pg. 99
Springer International, Medicine and Law, Volume 15, pg. 460
Donald A. Davis, The Jeffrey Dahmer Story: An American Nightmare
"Inmate attacked with Dahmer dies from trauma." Jet 19 Dec. 1994: 16+.
"Inmate Bludgeoned With Jeffrey Dahmer on Work Detail Dies" New York Times 1 Dec. 1994.
"Man Convicted in Killing He Accused Blacks of Committing" New York Times 16 Aug. 1992.
"INMATE WHO WAS BLUDGEONED WITH DAHMER DIES." Albany Times Union [Albany, NY] 1 Dec. 1994: A6.
"Man hurt in Dahmer attack dies; Jesse Anderson." Times [London, England] 1 Dec. 1994: 14.
"NEWS BRIEFING Witness to Dahmer attack dies." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 1 Dec. 1994: A16.
"Dahmer Slain In Prison .Anderson Seriously Hurt In Same Attack", The Milwaukee Journal - Nov 28, 1994
"POLICE SAY VICTIM FOUGHT OFF ATTACK." Albany Times Union [Albany, NY] 1 May 1992: B14.
NewsBank shows 443 newspaper articles from 1994 that match a search of "Jesse Anderson".

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he had only killed his wife and not been attacked at the same time as Dahmer there is no way that he would pass any guideline. There are hundreds if not thousands of murderers whose crime gets covered in the local press and they don't and shouldn't have articles. The only event for which he could possibly be notable is being attacked at the same time as Dahmer. One event. Sources discuss the event of killing Dahmer to a great extent. they do not discuss Jesse Anderson in the sort of detail to sustain a separate article. "He killed his wife and then two years later he got killed at the same time as someone famous." That's all there is. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources show notable for three things: Killing of wife, death in prison, archetypal symbol of someone who used race during a crime (as discussed in multiple scholarly sources linked above). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable for killing his wife, any more than the hundreds of other murderers without articles are. Simply committing murder does not make one notable. That "archetypal symbol" nonsense is nonsense and an attempt to bootstrap the non-notable murder into something it's not. Getting attacked at the same time as someone notable does not confer notability. The simple fact remains that if this guy had been cleaning the kitchen instead there'd be no question of deletion. The notability of Dahmer is not inherited by the guy who was attacked in the same room with him. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued attempt to try and hide the sources by collapsing the thread is not appreciated.[19] It is standard and normal to list sources in AfD, that is what we are supposed to do, making it "easier to read" makes little sense when reading the sources is exactly the reason this AfD exist. Stop trying to hide the sources and interfering with the due process of this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to "hide" the sources. Indeed, I hope many people look at your supposed "sources" and recognize that many of them merely mention this person in one or two sentence blurbs along the lines of "also attacked was" and so are not substantial coverage as mandated by notability guidelines. My intent was to make the overall nomination easier to read by reducing a gigantic block of difficult to read text to an expandable band. Your accusations of misconduct on my part are nothing but baseless and an abject failure to assume good faith. Shame on you. Stop trying to distract from the substance of the nomination with what amounts to a lie. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But by all means, let's more closely examine the sources upon which you hang your hat:
Gibson: A five-page anthropological study of violence that mentions Anderson in one sentence. Not substantive.
Russell-Brown: One paragraph out of an entire book. Not substantive.
Mayo: One sentence out of a 400 page book. Not substantive.
Fine: Three sentence out of a 300 page book. Not substantive.
Curry: Two sentences out of a 665 page book. Not substantive.
Coleman: three sentences out of a 440 page book. Not substantive.
And on and on it goes. One "source" after another that consist of nothing but "This guy was also attacked at the same time." Try reading what constitutes substantial coverage. One- and two- and three-sentence passing mentions don't come anywhere close. Any subject you can think of is likely to come up with hits if all you do is plug it into Google. Google hits are not a measure of notability and simply copying and pasting a dozen or so of them into an AFD not only is not an argument for retention, it's an indicator that the person doing it lacks certain fundamental understandings of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Come up with sources that aren't these two sentence nothings. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is not a mathematical count of words. Significant coverage could be a couple sentences and be significant, depending on what those sentences are and in what context and sources. Furthermore, when someone has enough mentions in enough sources over time, the sheer mass of coverage itself becomes significant. Also some of these sources demonstrate the topic has been discussed as an archetypal racism case which obviously goes beyond "This guy was also attacked at the same time." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (emphasis added) Repeating in 100 sources that this guy was attacked at the same time as Dahmer with no additional information does not somehow add up to significant coverage. And please, which of your many two-sentence passing mentions discuss this supposed "archetypal racism"? None of the two-sentence mentions I saw included this significant discussion that you claim. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Scarver -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - user Green Cardamom pretty much covers it all. per GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 11 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject doesn't have an amazing depth of coverage, but it's quite broad and for more than one event that the individual was involved in. The sum is enough for me to keep it over the notability line, especially with existence of previous AfD that was an easy keep. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 20 October 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 Doctor_Steel#Controversy. This has been open almost a month, relisted twice, and has gotten nontrivial attention from editors, so it deserves a close. The nom's Delete was based in "no independent sources" but then the nom later acknowledges independent sources were provided. The Keep !votes point to Wired and Coilhouse but acknowledge those sources do not provide significant coverage of the album itself, and also point to other poorly-sourced articles about albums but acknowledge the WP:OSE weakness of that argument. The Redirect argument is strong per the general agreement here that the sources found cover the controversy and not the album. Zad68 15:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel Read-A-Long[edit]

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

Self-published CD by never-signed artist with no independent sources (discogs is a directory and not independent, of course). Zero evidence of significance. PROD disputed by a fan, so brought to AfD. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This album is notable in that it was actually at the center of the controversy in 2008 that had Dr. Steel fans and Joss Whedon fans clashing, and was reported on Wired, Coilhouse and other places. While not specifically mentioned by name in the articles themselves, it is mentioned by name in the comments attached to these articles and made clear from them that this was central to the controversy and key to understanding it. (It was also mentioned by Steel himself as the specific reason for the controversy in his MySpace blog, though MySpace has taken their blogs down.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also listed as an album of Steel's in an article on PlanetNews. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor_Steel#Controversy. The problem is, this controversy was relatively small when you get down to it. Other than that there really isn't any true coverage of the album as a whole or any reviews that I can find. The pertinent data about the whole Steel/Horrible thing is already logged on the main article for Dr. Steel, so there's really no need to keep an entire article for that purpose alone. We know it exists, but existing and receiving coverage for one event isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, yes, but it was rather a big deal in the steampunk and whedonverse communities back then. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My big problem is that other than a handful of articles about the potential idea theft (which looks pretty damning TBH), there is zero coverage for the album. What's more is that Wired and Coilhouse talk about Whedon potentially taking the entire concept of Dr Steel rather than this particular album in specific. (The Wired source doesn't mention this album at all!) From what I can see the only thing specifically taken from this album would have been the title of the album. Everything else is about Dr. Steel as a whole rather than his actions on this album specifically. I'm not saying that this wasn't a huge deal and shouldn't be covered, just that this doesn't really focus in-depth on the album in specific. Considering that we have zero album reviews from reliable sources and zero coverage that focuses specifically on this album at length, it makes more sense to redirect this to the main article. The coverage here just isn't enough to show notability outside of Dr. Steel as a whole. If you can find me one review, one review in a reliable source then I'll change my vote. The problem is that it just isn't out there, although if anyone knows anyone in one of the major sites that review stuff like this (the horror sites such as Dread Central actually review stuff like this quite often) feel free to ask them to do you a solid and post a review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I'm surprised that someone hasn't reviewed this in a RS yet. The album is pretty good from the free clips I'm finding here and there on the Internet. I'll probably buy it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep When did Wheedon swap from being plucky little browncoat to evil Disney steamroller? The Dr Horrible article is enormous, because Wheedon and Fillion are big money and mags likes Forbes will take an interest. Although even there, many of the sources are to out-and-out fansites like Whedonesque.com, that raise all sorts of WP:RS red flags.

This album has nothing like that same level of money behind it or interest yet paid to it. Yet our barrier for notability in music is very low (please, don't quote OSE at me, I've read it already, but just look at the plethora of trivially minor rappers we're covering). This is an album by an artiste in a niche scene, yet it's sourced and it forms part of their discography. We are just not in the habit of deleting such articles.

As to the specific complaints in the nomination, then what do they mean? "Never-signed"? "Self-published"? This isn't the 1970s - music doesn't need an established label to get it published. Why would any small artiste choose to sign to a label any more? WP's hard line on self-publication is tied to use as WP:RS, not their inherent notability. Now I'm not claiming that Dr Steel is an entirely reliable source for his theories on child rearing and the appropriate place of domestic robots in the home, but that's not the issue here. As to "no independent sources", then WTF is Wired? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so someone is finally adding independent sources? That's good. It remains a self-published record with no independnt significance, of course - the record itself is entirely incidental to the controversy. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference after the complaint had been brought up. A good 99% of albums listed in this wiki have no references, especially in niche genres, as the threshold for notability in music is very low as Mr. Dingley correctly pointed out. And an album's being self-published is completely irrelevant in this day and age, as Mr. Dingley also correctly pointed out. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold is low, yes, but at the same time it still requires coverage that focuses specifically on the album. We don't have that here. The first two links are for Discogs, which looks to be a typical database type entry. The third link is to a primary source, which cannot show notability. The fourth link is to Coilhouse, which is predominantly about Dr. Steel as a whole. The album name is sort of briefly mentioned, but that's about it. When it comes to showing notability specifically for the album, this is pretty much trivial. Now the Wired source doesn't mention this album at all. It focuses solely on the idea that Whedon stole the concept of Dr. Steel, not that he specifically stole this specific album. The point is, none of the sources that could be usable as RS are ones that focus specifically on this album. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Dr. Steel being a notable musician. At the end of the day the controversy is over the potential idea theft of the Dr. Steel concept as a whole, not the idea theft of this specific music album. WP:NALBUMS specifically states "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.". We don't have enough here to show that this album has received any notice outside of Dr. Steel and the controversy that seems to focus specifically on the idea that Whedon idea thefted the concept of Dr. Steel as a whole- not this specific album. If other articles exists, then all that means is that they haven't been deleted yet. As much as I'd like to keep this, it doesn't pass notability guidelines for albums. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor_Steel#Controversy There's essentially nothing here that isn't already in the artist's article, and that seems unlikely to change. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 3 October 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 13 October 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 Fey deities#Skerrit. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skerrit[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fansite that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, as per usual for these D&D articles, all the sources are primary/non-independent and the subject fails WP:GNG. The options then are merge redirect or delete. Given that there is only primary source material and the proposed target is also already bloated with only primary sourced materials, merging seems an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. Potentially a search term, redirect might be a possibility, but given the history of these articles, it will need to be locked down, and delete is probably preferable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M states Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. Difficulty in maintaining a redirect is an editor problem and not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. --Mark viking (talk) 06:23, 5 October 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold - I ask that this page be held off from being merged by the closer so that I may do the necessary tasks rather than having to work twice of three times as hard to fix a mergeless redirect that would otherwise be performed. A widescale and large clean up operation is underway as noted by this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of an incoherent nomination. First "most of the information is about plot details" is not reason to delete. If there is some non plot information, there is a basis for keeping. e.g why need there be " current assertion for future improvement of the article"? The possible of future improvement is present in any subject about which there is continuing discussion, and a merge permits this. What is the meaning of "extended coverage is unnecessary" ? We do not need extended coverage to keep an article, just enough coverage to justify one. We certainly don't need it to keep merged content. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BURO even if your assertion was true, but ...
- WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WHYN clearly observe that if the only content we can source is plot details, we should not have a stand alone article about the subject.
- An assertion that "I have some sources that I will be bringing" made on the talk page would have been a reason to not bring the article to AfD at this time, but there was no one indicating that they were searching for data the would have made a courtesy delay in nominating for AfD. or a large number of similarly currently non independently sourced articles of a similar nature that had recently been brought up to standards by sources appearing could have also been raised as a courtesy reason not to nominate a similar article for deletion. However on the contrary, a large number of similarly situated non third party sourced articles have been brought up for deletion and NOT been found to have any third party sourcing forthcoming.
- A merge most certainly does NOT prevent any future appearance of sources from being used to spin off a child article if the content about this particular subject begins to get to large to be handled appropriately in the merged article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- would you care to address the requirements for a stand alone article put forth in WP:GNG and the fact that we dont have any third party content AT ALL let alone anything that could be considered "significant"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your interpretation of the phrases the nom uses, and I see you have translated it, but it was not meaningful as written. Had it been nominated in accordance with your explanation above, I would have said merge, as I usually do. But tho a merge does not prevent later expansion, it also facilitates the show diminution of content, as has happened hundreds of times to fiction articles.: DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 16 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The sources aren't independent, being from the publisher of Dungeons and Dragons, TSR. Deserves a mention on the List at best. Sionk (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ~~List of Dungeons & Dragons deities~~Fey deities#Skerrit. Every source and external link provided is a primary source; there are no sources to provide evidence of out-of-universe notability, and no evidence that any such notability exists. This is a case where, as part of the group, coverage is suitable at the merge target, but a stand-alone article is inappropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Pre-merge completed to Fey_deities#Skerrit. This page covers all of the Fey deities and removes 12 standalone articles in the process to cover the "Seelie Court". Please redirect and keep the categories for category browsing purposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to consider renaming that to Fey deities (Dungeons & Dragons), as 'fey' is a pretty...widespread term (cf. Changeling: The Lost etc.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 23 October 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.