< 19 October	21 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.

Lin Evola[edit]

The result was Keep as per the positive consensus raised in this discussion. While the nominator's frustration with the quality of the article (at the time of its nomination) and the potential WP:COI issues is understandable, it would appear that Green Cardamom's thoughtful observations regarding whether the article meets this website's editorial standards would outweigh the shakier aspects of the article and its history. In cases like this, it is advisable to attempt to edit the article into a satisfactory shape rather than call for it to be thrown it away. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article appears to be written by an editor who is working behalf of the subject. After examining the content of the article, the sources the article relies upon and searching for more sources, it is clear that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The subject is an artist whose only apparent notability is for melting down guns donated by Police Departments and taking the remains to build a "Peace Angel". Besides the fact that this is not an original idea, her Peace Angel piece received scant and unsustained coverage. While this art display might be notable in the future, it doesn't appear to be notable now, and neither is the creator.

Just a sample of some of the problems with the article/sources:

The lead reads Art historians have declared her work to be "on the level of Leonardo da Vinci, Joseph Beuys and Robert Rauschenberg -- Lenoardo da Vinci? "Citation needed" is a little understated.
The source reverie-arts is an art gallery schedueled to be opened in 2014
Another problem source is is the subject's bio page on the Huffington Post
The article Lin Evola: The Arms Trade Treaty is written by the subject from the Huffington Post. Ignoring the fact-checking that this article possibly received, this is is essentially a primary source. An entire section from the article is sourced by this reference.

To summarize, this is a poorly sourced "press release" biography that has multiple issues. We should delete and ask the primary contributor to work on this in their sandbox and submit the article over at WP:AFC. ---Mylysol (talk) 23:45, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has clear issues. However it's a notable artist based on WP:ARTIST #4 and WP:GNG. According to these example sources (NY Times, Blacktie Magazine, CS Monitor, LA Times) she makes these 30' tall (and smaller ones) "peace angel" sculptures made out of melted guns and nuclear weapon casings, which have a classical look (thus the comparison to Renaissance art). There seems to be lots of news coverage about it. They are held in Presidential art collections (Bill Clinton),[1] displayed at the United Nations where she was honored,[2] displayed at One Police Plaza.[3]-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Green Cardamom has pointed out, significant coverage independent reliable soruces exists to establish notability. Problems with promotional language can be resolved through editting. - Whpq (talk) 20:49, 25 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) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull RB10[edit]

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

It is very vague and needs more information to be included in wikipedia. Authenticity to be checked. SajjadF (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Red Bull Racing has won the Formula One Constructors' Championship in each of the last three years, and is likely to win it again this year. A new car from that team for the 2014 season, and with the technological innovations dictated by the new rules coming into force for 2014, is certainly a candidate for a new article. I created this new article and the current content is all supported by the sources provided. Freimütig (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is fair to say the car will exist but everything about it even (or especially) in the source is speculation. Even the name of the car is assumed. While one source states the cars name as being RB10 that is not confirmed by anyone in the article itself. Premature creation. WP:SPECULATION --Falcadore (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPECULATION allows for verifiable speculation, if notable and almost certain to take place, and this is just that. One of the 2 sources I provided is the website of Red Bull themselves. And if they are speculating that their next car, following in the footsteps of their RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, RB5, RB6, RB7, RB8 and RB9, will be the RB10, that surely passes the WP:SPECULATION tests. Freimütig (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, upon first reading of the Red Bull website reference I couldn't find the RB10 name, but found it on the second attempt. Neverthless the article remains almost entirely speculative and my original opinion is unchanged. --Falcadore (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps even speedy keep as the nominator does not make anything close to a policy-based argument for deletion. Being "vague" and needing "authenticity checked" are cleanup issues; AfD is not for cleanup. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply; WP:TOOSOON might, but given that the 2013 season is nearly over and preparations for 2014 are well underway, there is likely to be sufficent data already to meet WP:N, and a quick Googling confirms this in my mind. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - Although the article will eventually be created, it's too soon. In the past, these pages have never really been created until all of the chassis designations are known, and sometimes not even then. Reading the article, its creation appears to be based entirely on the designation, and to serve as a link to 2014 Formula One season cars and Renault Energy F1-2014 so that they are not orphaned. Those pages have their own issues that need to be dealt with separately. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient degree of verifiable speculation on the topic seems to currently exist, or at worst, will most certainly exist in coming weeks. Best to improve vagueness and add more information. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - That information probably won't exist until March, when the car actually competes unless there is a major episode affecting it's development, like the Lotus E20. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is evidently notable. Warden (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adrian Newey has confirmed the 2014 car is RB10.^[1] StandNThrow (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Newey reveals that 2014 Red Bull RB10 is ugly". Retrieved 26 October 2013.

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Statutory Instruments of Scotland, 2012[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including a mere list of SIs. The concept of an SI is definitely notable, but the vast majority of these are not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This particular year's list is one of many: see Category:Lists of Statutory Instruments of Scotland. And see also the other linked categories of statutory instruments by other legislatures. I'd be thinking that they all stand or fall together and that should be the basis for any AfD nomination? AllyD (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch came into Articles for creation. There were more, but I think most were declined at AfC either for failing WP:GNG or WP:NOT. We'll use this AfD as a test case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the lists that were rejected at AFC. In each case I found that the reasons for rejection were manifest nonsense. The reviewers either did not know what statistics are, failed to realise that the lists were daughter articles of a broader list satisfying NOTESAL, or failed to advert to the reliable sources present in the articles. I have moved all of these drafts into the article space. I decided that there was no need to wait because the failure of this AfD nomination has been a foregone conclusion from the outset. James500 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We will not use this AfD as a test case for any country outside of Scotland as that would be completely inappropriate. James500 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with using a Scotland-only one as a test case is that editors interested in other legislatures won't have it drawn to their attention and could first encounter it as an outcome precedent. AllyD (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more serious problem is the fact that the countries of the United Kingdom are so different from each other that you cannot assume that it is possible to draw any valid conclusions from any one of them about the others. England is so much bigger than Scotland that there is no question of using Scotland as a test case for England on any subject. James500 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why would you want to delete this?. It's clear it's not an indiscriminate list of information? It clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's factual historical information, and ideal WP fodder. The UK lists alone cover Act(s), from about 1485. I think they should be kept enabling the editor to complete it. They pass WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The lists go back further than 1485. Our list of Acts of the Parliament of England originally began with the Statute of Merton 1235, which follows The Statutes of the Realm. It now contains an entry dated 1194, which I think was formerly a statute of uncertain date. There is unconsolidated legislation from the thirteenth century still in force in England (eg the Distress Act 1267). We have lists and articles concerning earlier legislation going back to the Anglo-Saxon period before the Conquest. The Irish Statute Book website lists legislation going back to at least 1066. Our list of Acts of the Parliament of Scotland begins in 1424. James500 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if it passes GNG, give me some sources that cover this significantly. It's just a bland list, of no importance, things lumped in without any consideration for significance, it tells you nothing you couldn't just get from another website. Absolutely zero encyclopedic value. I learn nothing from this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not bland. Even if it was, that would be irrelevant. The legislation is important. Why would we want to remove individual instruments from this list for POV based reasons about their perceived relative significance when we don't have to? You will learn something once the items of legislation are blue linked or annotated. Many of them will have amendments and case law. Many of them will be very substantial documents indeed. There may be intense criticism. There is nothing on Wikipedia that you could not get from another source. That is the whole point of WP:NOR. James500 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any judgement on this should theoretically apply equally to every list linked from Template:British_legislation_lists. From a procedural POV, I think a discussion with wider reach should be held. --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly will not because different types of legislation have different types of sources. English statutory instruments have, amongst other things, Halsbury's Statutory Instruments. Every public general Act passed since 1948 will satisfy GNG because of Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes Annotated. All of these works are massively comprehensive encyclopedias. There are others. The vast majority of public Acts applying to England will probably satisfy GNG by a very, very, very wide margin indeed due to the absolutely vast literature that exists. James500 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. You have got to be kidding. Scottish Statutory Instruments are notable as a group. That means that they satisfy NOTESAL. That means that they get a list. This page is a daughter article of that list. It is clearly a legitimate spin off. The idea that legislation is not important is astonishing. The ultimate purpose of legislation seems to be to authorise public officials to use massive ultra-violence. That is ultimately what is sanctioned if the legislation is not obeyed. Even if the legislation is obeyed, it forces people to do things they would rather not do, which will frequently be really quite unpleasant things. In all probability every piece of legislation on this list will become either an article or a redirect to the piece of primary legislation under which it was made. This list will be necessary for navigational purposes at that point. James500 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I think that this nomination is absolutely preposterous. I think that it would be a complete waste of time to give it any further consideration as it is obvious to me that it is absolutely certain to fail. I think that it should just be closed now. James500 (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Seems to be the practice. As someone that works in the area, there will certainly be official government documents/website that refer to the full list of intruments for any given year ( Like HMSO). Seems to be the practice to put the year's list of statutes on Wikipedia, whether this is a good idea or not I'm not sure, but the UK SIs are on their back to 1948, and there are other Scottish ones on there - eg - List of Statutory Instruments of Scotland, 2002 Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Government publications include, amongst other things, Legislation.gov.uk, three editions of Statutes Revised, Statutes in Force, three editions of Statutory Rules and Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised, many many editions of the Chronological Table of the Statutes, the Index to the Statutes, the Table of Government Orders, and the Index to Government Orders, two revised editions of the Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, the Northern Ireland Statutes Revised and a chronological table of statutes for Northern Ireland. There is also a revised edition of pre union Irish statutes. All of these are reliable secondary sources. They are not just lists or copies of legislation. They are heavily annotated. The revised editions are equivalent to encyclopedias. They have been in publication since 1870. James500 (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those are all primary sources - a secondary source would be a newspaper article talking about the implication of one for example. But as WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, simply being true and verifiable is no reason to have an article in itself. Specifically, "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." In the time you've got flustered and upset because somebody's disagreed with you, you could have improved Scottish Statutory Instrument, cited the text currrently tagged as ^{[citation needed]} and got it up to C class. Something really worth thinking about. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you are mistaken on all counts. None of those sources are primary sources. You don't know what the difference between primary and secondary sources is. (A newspaper is actually a primary source). This list contains no statistics whatsoever so INDISCRIMINATE has no relevance to this. (Statistics are numerical quantities calculated from data. This article contains no averages, no percentages, no standard deviations, and no other numbers whatsoever. Whatever the titles of these instruments are they are not numbers and therefore cannot be statistics.) The entries in this list will have context once they have been blue linked or annotated. It is only a matter of time before that happens. I am not upset that someone has disagreed with me. I think that this Afd is an serious embarassment to the project. I think that if the press or other outsiders realised that we were even discussing this, they would start laughing at us. This is not quite as bad as nominating George Washington for deletion but it is uncomfortably close. I also think that editors shouldn't have their time wasted with ludicrous nominations that have absolutely no chance of success. James500 (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I can see from here, and from your recent contributions to WT:N is that you prefer to argue and create dramatic tension from trivial matters in preference to improving articles, and you don't actually understand why I opened this AfD. I'll duck out of this conversation now and wish you a nice day. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you rationale for deletion perfectly. I just think it is complete misreading of the policies concerned. I am not trying to create dramatic tension, but think this nomination has a tendency to do that. Snowballing an Afd certainly isn't an attempt to argue with anyone. It is an attempt to put the thing out of sight and out of mind as quickly as possible. Bearing in mind the number of articles that I have created (about six hundred) and expanded, and bearing in mind that the vast majority of my edits are in the article space (about 75% or sixteen thousand) and the article talk space, I don't think that you have any right to accuse me of not being interested in improving articles, because that is simply nonsense. If I have recently made a very small number of edits to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space, it is because I think that some of the stuff there is making it increasingly difficult to improve the content of the encyclopedia. If you had not made this nomination, I would be improving articles right now. But I can't do that, because someone is wasting my time with this nonsense. James500 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how did my recent comments at WT:N come to your attention? Because I did say something on that page about lists of legislation a very short time before you made this nomination. James500 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly not an indiscriminate collection. --Vclaw (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure listcruft. I thought there was a convention that lists should be only of wikilinked items and most of those should be blue links. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characterising this list as "cruft" is not helpful if you do not explain why you think it is. I can see no reason for that characterisation and honestly think that this AfD nomination is spectacularly absurd. "I don't like it" certainly isn't a valid reason for deletion and that seems to be the argument that you are advancing. That is the only meaning that I can attribute to "listcruft". There is no convention that lists should be only of wikilinked items let alone that most of those should be blue links. You are thinking of disambiguation pages which are specifically intended to serve no purpose other than navigation. The manual of style explicitly envisages stand alone lists that contain zero notable entries. We like red links because they facilitate the creation of articles and redirects. That said, many of these instruments will be notable. The rest can presumably be redirected to the primary legislation under which they were made. I have no doubt that the list will eventually be blue linked from start to finish. This might take some time (Rome wasn't built in a day), but there is no deadline and articles are not required to be perfect. James500 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) In fact, if you bear with me, I will add as many wikilinks as I can bear to add now. James500 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:RHaworth was informed of the existence of this AfD by the nominator with this edit. James500 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is seriously out of process. Altough this AfD is obviously intended to impugn the validity of the other annual lists of Scottish statutory instruments (which, together with the list for 2012, really form a single list) no notice of this AfD has been placed on any of those lists. Furthermore, the list for 2012 was created very recently and it is obvious that editors and readers of the earlier lists are less likely to be aware of the list for 2012, and to have it on their watchlist, than the earlier lists. Nor have the creators of the earlier lists been notified directly. James500 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's merely a reproduction of a list available in primary sources - there's no value in duplicating it on Wikipedia when the vast, vast majority of the entries on the list are redlinks or nonlinks with no prospect of ever having enough WP:V secondary sources avaiable to become viable articles. Cynical (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reproduction of any source because none of the lists in reliable sources that might be used to source this article contain links to Wikipedia articles or redirects. A list of SSIs is a secondary source (ie the lists that might be used to source this are secondary sources). There is nothing wrong with entries on this list linking to redirects (ie to the primary legislation under which the SSI was made, whose article will discuss the SSI) which I assume could be done in all cases. There is no reason to insist on having links to articles. Instead of making vague references to "the vast, vast majority" could you please give us an actual number or estimate and explain exactly how you have worked it out. Because I don't know that what you are saying is true and I am not prepared to accept it on the basis of your personal knowledge. As regards secondary sources on individual instruments, I would probably be quite happy to accept an article on an SSI that consisted of the amendments made to it. It is not as if anyone could dispute the fact that an amendment has been made (leaving aside the possibility that it might be ultra vires, which we can leave to readers to decide for themselves) or that its effect cannot be accurately explained by quoting it more or less verbatim. Since legislation.gov.uk does not presently revise these instruments, I think that such an article could be enormously beneficial to the readers, since at the moment you have to pay for something similar or do it yourself, and bearing in mind the importance of a great deal of subordinate legislation and the extent to which the legislature delegates its powers. And if anyone starts waving policies, guidelines or essays about independent secondary sources in my face at this point, I am just going to refer them to WP:IAR, which one of the five pillars. Alternatively, the list could be directly annotated with this kind of information, like the Table of Government Orders was (and, indeed, with any other information that might be available). In which case links would not be needed to justify the list. There clearly is value in having an annotated list of SSIs. James500 (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The possibility of annotating this list is a very strong argument in favour of keeping it, that needs to be directly addressed by the people who are arguing to delete it. They also need to explain why they don't like redirects. Bearing in mind that neither NOTESAL nor anything else requires lists to have any individually notable entries. James500 (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list makes no effort to establish notability of this list as a group or set (and given that there are more of these, there should be more deletions to come) In addition, James500 is showing troubling signs of a displaying a serious BATTLEGROUND mentality, calling other discussions illegitimate (see the AfC references), casting aspersions on the motives of others, and warning people to not wave "policies, guidelines, or essays" "in his face." We might need an administrator to get involved if we're going to have a productive debate of the issues at hand. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Statutory Instruments have received significant coverage in a rather large number of reliable sources - see these results from Google Books. That does seem to indicate that they satisfy NOTESAL as a group. I feel that the comments you are making about me are mistaken. I have not called any discussion illegitimate, I have not cast aspersions on anyone's motives, and I have not warned anyone to refrain from doing anything. I feel that I have to point out that commenting on other users is considered to be disruptive. James500 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SSIs will probably be discussed in detail in the annual supplements to the Stair Memorial Encyclopedia, which don't seem to be searchable with GBooks. (Since GBooks is reported to be about three quarters incomplete, the actual number of books is presumably likely to be four times the number of results in GBooks). James500 (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list doesn't have to make an effort to establish that SSIs are notable as a group. You are suppossed to look for evidence of notability. You are suppossed to conduct some kind of search. James500 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Scottish Statutory Instruments as a concept is notable does not mean that an indiscriminate list of every single one is. Celts is a notable topic, a list of every person in the world of Celtic descent is not. And yes, you have cast aspersions. What exactly do you call declaring that people's reasons were "manifest nonsense?" Or announcing in advance that people shouldn't quote Wikipedia policies because you plan to ignore them with WP:IAR as if that's what it's there for? Or your vote of "snowball" keep, which absolutely does not apply here? Fact is, you've made it very difficult to have an actual discussion.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of every person in the world of Celtic descent is prohibited by NOTGENEALOGY. That is a specific exclusion which has nothing to do with notability or indiscriminacy and which has no application to this list.

"Indiscriminate", when applied to a list, means "random". It does not mean "lengthy" (NOTPAPER). It does not mean "includes items that are not individually important" (not that I can see any unimportant SSIs in this list anyway). A list of all SSIs, placed in order of their official numbering, is not random, and therefore not indiscriminate. A random selection (ie subset) of SSIs would be indiscriminate. If the SSIs in this list were placed in a random order, that would be indiscriminate.

Your comments about me are mistaken. James500 (talk) 02:18, 22 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This edit is an example of how the entries in a list like this could be annotated. This is the sort of information that a person confronted with an SSI would want to know about it. You could not say this isn't useful. James500 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly want to keep the article, I think the best thing you can do is read WP:BLUDGEON very carefully and then stop contributing to this discussion. Then go and improve Scottish Statutory Instrument with all the sources you claim to have found, which I asked you to do a week ago and yet you have not done. As you can see from the top of this AfD, I said "The concept of an SI is definitely notable" so it should be easy for you to do. As we can also see, you said "it is obvious to me that it is absolutely certain to fail". Clearly it wasn't obvious to the closing admin, as they've relisted it! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:BLUDGEON is a seriously misconceived essay. The user who relisted this debate is not an admin. James500 (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on this discussion's talk page regarding my relisting of this discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe topic passes WP:LISTN as similar lists appears in sources such as Law Making and the Scottish Parliament. Warden (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best "Keep" vote I've seen, but doesn't that source just say the lists exist? It doesn't appear to give any indication why they're notable, unless the explanation is on another page that I missed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN does not require the list to be notable. LISTN requires the items listed to be collectively notable. The existence of lists of those items may prove that those items are collectively notable. There is a complete list of SSIs in Current Law Statutes Annotated. James500 (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC) BAILII has Statutory Instruments of the Scottish Parliament. James500 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Please don't just wave policies around but actually quote sections of them and explain how and why they apply to this article. WP:LISTN does require the list to be notable - specifically it states "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group" and "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". This is how List of Hammond organs can legitimately exist - multiple, independent reliable sources talk specifically about each model in turn, including the B-3, the C-3, the A-100, the L-100, the M-100, the XK3, SK2 etc etc... whereas multiple independent reliable sources don't talk about, say, the A84 Trunk Road (Main Street and Leny Road, Callander) (Temporary Prohibition of Waiting, Loading and Unloading) Order 2012. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The passages you have quoted from LISTN are not, in my opinion, capable of bearing the meaning that you ascribe to them. A source that says "Scottish Statutory Instruments are good" is a source that documents the set or grouping in general. I think it is clear that the words "in general" mean "collectively". James500 (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Possibly the reason for this is that a list of SSIs is a daughter article of Scottish Statutory Instrument and the topic of a daughter article does not need to be notable independently of the topic of its parent article. James500 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does the one example that you have given prove about the other 359? And why start with number 18? Does that mean you agree that the first seventeen are discussed by "multiple independent reliable sources"? James500 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. LexisNexis has a resource called Statutes and Statutory Instruments of Scotland. Westlaw seems to have similar resources. I am unable to agree with the proposition above that individual Scottish Statutory Instruments are not individually notable due to lack of sources. No explanation has been given as to what is wrong with these sources which appear to deal with individual SSIs. James500 (talk) 21:13, 26 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) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Speculative Fiction Council[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. GrapedApe (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable. I did find one reliable source talking about this organization (very local coverage... the blog aspect is more like a professional blog like many newspapers use so it is a reliable source) but that isn't nearly sufficient to credit the organization. The rest is original research and relying upon very few sources. I say this as somebody very sympathetic to this group and know many of the people involved on a first hand basis. I'm a bit surprised that an article first drafted in 2005 has come up on the radar, but that doesn't change the notability issues either. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-profit it could apply under WP:NGO, but it is local to Utah so fails #1. Fails WP:GNG with only one source. The last news item on the website is from 2010, appears to be fairly inactive. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:55, 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.

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 Deleted as an article created by a blocked or banned user. Keegan (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Stott[edit]

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

A guy who first made websites, now float tanks. Several references, some of them even third-party and his name is listed on IMDB, but no significant coverage that I've been able to find. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 22 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) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esteves Jones[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. He also lacks significant independent coverage. Winning a second tier title doesn't show he's notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:24, 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.

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) 00:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Lewis (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA and whose coverage consists only of routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite He's a UFC fighter who canceled his debut fight due to injury. Keep it but do some rewrites on areas that consist "only of routine sports reporting"--Rockchalk717 18:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and assuming he will eventually is WP:CRYSTALBALL. When he meets NMMA the article can be recreated.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:24, 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.

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 Muslim_Public_Affairs_Committee_UK#Stop_Islamophobia_Week. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Islamophobia Week[edit]

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

All sources in article are primary, I was unable to find any 3rd party sources, doesn't meet WP:GNG so delete then redirect to MPACUK (who founded it). Loomspicker (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was founded by a notable organization and the sources seem plausible to me. What counts as a third party sources is sometimes a grey area and in such circumstances we can look for google hits for notability and the number of high-profile politicians who comment on it makes me think this is not non-notable. Pass a Method talk 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please present the sources you believe to be third-party including reports of policitians comments on it.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources means a failure of the general notability guide, none of the refs in the article qualify as a reliable source. When searching for sources, it is't very promising when hit #1 is to the Wikipedia article itself and #2 is to the organizer's website. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage anywhere. Article is mainly a collection of statements on Islamophobia and anything relevant could be merged there. PhilMacD (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muslim_Public_Affairs_Committee_UK#Stop_Islamophobia_Week. Not enough sources for a standlone article but would be OK as a subsection of the parent organization with a redirect. We can verify it exists and is something someone might search on. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK#Campaigns as it is their campaign. This is effectively the same solutiuon as Green Cardamom is offering. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK is a notable body, but this individual campaign does not seem to have gained much in the way of substantial independent coverage. Therefore, anything cited should be merged into the section in the organisation's article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 28 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) 00:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

America's Got Talent (season 9)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced speculation; no substantive information yet available. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salted redirect to America's Got Talent Yet another loop of the same editor which pushed the same false "Dan Sperry wins before auditions were announced" bull once before and is being a pain with multiple socks. Nothing needs to be done with this article until auditions are actually announced. Nate • (chatter) 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, no reliable information exists yet. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:51, 24 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) 00:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gaston[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier bouts, so he fails WP:NMMA. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. --Nlfestival (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:25, 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.

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 That Guy with the Glasses. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nostalgia Chick[edit]

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

I redirected this in February, but the redirect was undone bysomeone claiming there are sources. However, a search of Google News and Google Books failed to reveal any coverage of any kind, significant or otherwise. Suggest deletion or merging to That Guy with the Glasses. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to That Guy with the Glasses, where a paragraph can be added in the "shows" section. Not a remarkable show, should have remained a redirect. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect - there is no sourced content worth merging. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no involvement in un-redirecting this page but I do think, the Nostalgia Chick is notable enough for her own wikipedia page. Nile Man 234 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and your assessment that she is notable enough for a page is based on what? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources on talk page and those that I found when doing research for the nostalgia critic that I didn't get around to adding.--Coin945 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: here is a list of links I have collected so far. I believe that this is more than sufficient to justify the article's existence.--Coin945 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the articles are from blogs on blogspot/tumblr/wordpress. Read WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source (generally content on open-access platforms doesn't count). The only article which counts as reliable, in-depth coverage seems to be the Huffington Post article, and even that's not very detailed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Sure, some are. But many are from sources like imdb, Salon, The Huffington Post (as you pointed out) and Geekosystem (whose founder Dan Abrahms gives it credibility. In the case of the interviews and podcasts, The Nostalgia Chick gives valuable information in them - does it *matter* if the person asking the question is merely from a Youtube channel and not the head journalist of The New York Times?--Coin945 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of those links seem like reliable sources. I doubt any of them will save the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about in regard to my question in interviews? Some are official interviews of various comicon-esque functions.--Coin945 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those interviews seem to be mostly be YouTube links. The ones that are not YouTube do not seem reliable. Beerest355 Talk 19:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that there is something inherently non-notable about YouTube clips. This is not the case. If it is on the official channel of an organisation, then that is fine. Even then, some interviews may be valid, the access I had to them was only via a YouTube video uploaded by a random Youtubber. So what one would do in this case is to cite the event (and interview) itself, INSTEAD of the youtube video. It's like someone using some information from a Wikipedia article for an assignment and then citing the book that the information from sourced from not the Wikipedia article itself. Just because you access the information from a certain source doesn't mean that is the original source itself. And in this case the original sources are notable.--Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm not vote fishing; I've simply asked on the Nostalgia Critic talk page for users there to weigh in their opinion and perhaps gather sources I've missed.--Coin945 (talk) 23:52, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Edwin Adams[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. References point to one trivial role and 2nd prize in student journalism awards. Not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - WP:TOOSOON maybe he will go on to be a famous actor or journalist and have a Wikipedia article or maybe things wont work out and he will go back to being a paramedic and saving people but one of those people who have a real impact on the world that does not lead to an article in Wikipedia. But we are not in the business of making a prediction it will go one way rather than the other. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy has a role so minor in a film it is described as "parishioner". Our criteria is 2 significant roles in notable films, he has one insigniifant role in a notable film. He is not at present notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NACTOR. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:24, 24 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) 00:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-County Madness[edit]

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

Not a notable rivalry, despite the typical language. All the sources available on the internets are from the Beaumont and Port Arthur papers; there is nothing to suggest this rises above the local and onto the encyclopedic level. That the best non-local reference is this website is telling. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High schools are notable. High school football teams are rarely considered notable. High school football rivalries are even less likely to be notable. This one appears to have a good amount of local coverage but no notability outside that local area. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server, so the editors should try another wiki where it would be more appropriate. I wouldn't object to userfying the page until these enthusiastic editors can find a better location for the work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:31, 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 Bel Air, Los Angeles#Private. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Hall School[edit]

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

Non-notable school per PROD of Feburary 2013. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mulholland Drive. Elementary and middle school. There are many sources available but they are pay wallled so I'm not able to assess them for compliance with WP:ORG. However, per WP:BEFORE, I think we should examine alternatives to deletion and some content about this historic school will fit in nicely in the suggested target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If redirect is the decision, think either Bel Air, Los Angeles#Private or Sepulveda Pass would be a better (more specific) target than Mulholland Drive, which is 21 miles long. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bel Air, Los Angeles#Private per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator I have no objection to a redirect, with or without deletion of the page history. As with any lack-of-notability-based AFD, should enough evidence show up that this school is notable, then I will happily withdraw. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:15, 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.

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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K'ai[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics 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) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep this article concerning something with notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of material best suited to Wikipedia. There is a clear assertion for future improvement of the article, as notability only increases, so extended coverage is necessary. --143.105.13.12 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)— 143.105.13.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. A Nobody socking again.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, you're a genius! Copying the nominator's initial concern, but reversing it so it's now used as a keep option? I wish I could've done that first. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is purely descriptive, no claim is made about notability. No independent sources discussing this fictional location. LK (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those fit the criteria for speedy deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe for the usual reasons given in my arguments regarding this ongoing purge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 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.

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 Shannara. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arborlon[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Shannara 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) 17:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no third-party reliable sources given any hint of notability of the fictional elves, separate from the novels themselves. N2e (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shannara. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Four Lands (if we're keeping that one), or otherwise, to Shannara. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:45, 24 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) 00:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Johnson (writer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not notable local politician or activist. Article was previously deleted[4]. The creator of the article is almost certainly Nathan Johnson himself[5] as the editor name for the original article's creator matches Johnson's email. ...William 16:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator If this AFD results in a delete, could you possibly SALT this article, plus Nathan L. Johnson, and Nathan Johnson (author) to prevent an article on this person from being created again. This is as least the 3rd attempt....William 12:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last attempt was 4 years ago which is a long time. If it is salted it shouldn't be forever this person may be notable in the future. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might snow in the part of Florida I'm from too. Seriously, these articles have been created by the subject to promote himself. That's a WP:COI issue. Not to mention other behavior- WP:OWN and sockpuppetry as seen at the previous AFD(He is using two registered accounts and anywhere from 1 to 5 IPs to edit from). I raised all of these at ANI[6] but noone seems interested even though the evidence is damning. If these names aren't SALTED I think its only a matter of time before he tries recreating one again. He did so a month after the last AFD was closed....William 16:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions....William 16:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions....William 16:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the previous AFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nathan_L._Johnson. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to GNG multiple articles from the same source on the same topic count as a single source. So MinnPost is a single source. bringmethenews.com says at the bottom "My thanks to Nathan Johnson for contacting Shelby Shares and inviting me to tell its story." which makes it less than an independent source. minnesota.publicradio.org doesn't mention Nathan Johnson. presspubs.com appears to be OK. Reuters is a trivial mention. The rest are primary source. So that leaves two source, both local papers. Better than the original AfD, but still not a lot for WP:GNG purposes (how many "multiple" source is usually defined by how strong the sources are, such as major national sources). Green Cardamom (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There's no doubt that the Minnpost article provides significant coverage of the subject. I agree that the bringmethenews article doesn't appear completely independent, but according to this press release it was written by Don Shelby which does add some credibility. On the other hand though, the subject of the article is Pine City, not Johnson. I've checked factiva and google news but can't find any more suitable sources. With there only being one solid source the multiple sources requirement of the GNG isn't met so I lean to weak delete. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an overly promotional peace about a person who has not done anything notable. The claims about shaping curriculum and being among the first to graduate with an associates degree when graduating from high school are not supported in the link given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the subject or someone associated with him created this article, but let's look at notability aside from that. The article says he's an author. So, what has he written? Other than a few pieces in regional periodicals, which are not linked, it's not documented. He isn't inherently notable as city planner of a small municipality. He ran for a political office but lost in the primary. It is certainly possible we should have an article for him in the future, especially if he runs for office again and is elected, but for now, delete. Jonathunder (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laughably non-notable 78.105.23.161 (talk) 08:31, 24 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 no consensus. (Without, of course, any prejudice to a Merge discussion continuing elsewhere). Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (anime)[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary WP:CFORK of Dragon Ball, previously merged, and then unilaterally unmerged when Dragon Ball Z was created once again as a proper standalone article. The information contained within this page is already located and better suited at Dragon Ball. There is nothing worth merging, but it still has its utility as a search option, so redirecting would be the best option.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is an acceptable related article as it deals specifically with the anime adaptation which meets both notability and general notability guidelines. While the article is currently in development, deletion is not clean up and something that made billions and has been shown in over 40 countries and is an integral part of anime history is worthy of its own split to detail production, cast and cultural impact without ruining the flow of the franchise. This show has 153 episodes and even its music would go on to be a major success, the history of the English adaptation alone represents a need for a spinoff. Simply put, this anime is notable and needs its own page to address its own details as stated in WP:DETAIL without negatively impacting the broad coverage of the Dragon Ball franchise page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that this article does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG so stop bringing that up whenever someone sends one of these pages to deletion or argues that the page should be merged. This is already discussed at WP:PAGEDECIDE, and Dragon Ball (anime) (which has "been under development" for 3 months now) does not meet the requirements there. Therefore, it is best to have a single article discussing Dragon Ball the manga and Dragon Ball the anime that came before Dragon Ball Z rather than having this tiny article that's a puffed up cast list and a section chock full of ((citation needed)) posted in 2008.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has been rectified; I can grab some primary sources and some example images for the rest, but I included the Oolong citations and the nudity censoring and the changes to the bath scene and a discussion on the contextual changes made by the censorship and alterations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:CFORK, looking at the two articles, the only diffrences I see, are the unreferenced censorship section and a trivial cast section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because Ryulong copied and pasted it in before reverting it out.[7] Which you then re-added.[8] You than deleted the unsourced section.[9] Now... you say "CFORK", but having a specific topic is an acceptable "CFORK" perhaps you could explain your reasoning better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dragon Ball episodes Changing my opinion to Merge per below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article currently has information which should be in this article, not in an article only suppose to be listing the episodes. Dream Focus 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears sufficiently long to merit its own standalone article, even if it is part of a larger franchise. Since N and GNG appear to be uncontested, the real question is whether the non-Z Dragonball anime needs its own article. Given that it can be a summary style child of the major Dragonball article and the Z article, I see no reason why info unique to the pre-Z anime wouldn't be collected in a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems that the Dragon Ball article could definitely do double duty on this matter, considering how short Dragon Ball (anime) is at the current time. I wouldn't say that we can never have an article on the subject but there's simply not enough to split off, considering that most of the article prior to my attempt to merge was already located at Dragon Ball and everything else on Dragon Ball (anime) is unsourced commentary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. This is an editorial decision and absolutely not grounds for an AfD discussion. I would do it myself but I'm likely too involved in the surrounding bickering to count as uninvolved. --erachima talk 06:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an editorial decision, but ChrisGualtieri demanded that I take it to AFD to get it settled so here we are.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris has a history of Forum Shopping and an incompetent grasp of Consensus policies. His perspective on the matter is weightless and he's just fishing for a more favorable outcome. --erachima talk 08:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball episodes Because the plot and characters are purely the same as the main Dragon Ball article, unlike GiTS, I have to agree. A separate anime article just wouldn't work out well. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough valid information to have its own article just as Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT do. Very notable anime. Dream Focus 23:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we are not arguing notability. We know that Dragon Ball is notable. That's why Dragon Ball exists and it should not be just about the manga, particularly if this short split off article is all Wikipedia can bother to write about the anime adaptation. I do not see enough valid information on the page to satisfy having a separate article. All it is is a plot summary (covering the same plot as Dragon Ball) and a massive table that covers the cast list, most of which is bloated by the fact that there have been too many English language dubs of the show. This article is tiny and not worthy of having been split off, again, from Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball Z is large enough. Dragon Ball GT is another article of questionable quality. Again, no one is arguing notability. Erachima is right that this should not have been brought to AFD but ChrisGualtieri demanded that I do it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short? Its over 20k in size. No reason to have that all in the main article. Even without the plot and cast list, it still has enough valid unique content to justify its own article. Dream Focus 08:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that 20k is already in the main article. In August someone just reverted the change into a redirect and no one's touched it outside of the dispute caused by its returned existence. It's a content fork that was never fixed. For such an insignificant page it is just better to have Dragon Ball cover manga and anime instead of turning it into this god awful franchise page concept that ChrisGualtieri is forcing on the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is information at the top of List of Dragon Ball episodes which should be in this article, not an article dedicated to listing the episodes. That'll add some content to it. The Dragon Ball article is already over 80k in size. Dream Focus 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the format suggested by WP:MOSAM. Manga and anime generally share a single article with other information relegated to list pages so whatever content is on List of Dragon Ball episodes should remain there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in MOSAM; it is just your personal preference that you enforce. Also, MOSAM is not valid or a way to rule by fiat. It is sad that the Wikiproject's editors continue to express such opinions; opting for deletion of content they agree is notable. Merging this page to the "list of episodes" would not make it a list of episodes anymore and the "list of episodes" is already outside its scope. Given the specific anime focus and its size, it would be bad to merge this page into the larger franchise page. Those opting for deletion or merging seem to be twisting WP:PAGEDECIDE pretty far into a blank and redirect or deletion rationale. Clearly, editors of the Anime and Manga wikiproject are more concerned about having separate articles for notable adaptations than they are about the growth and depth of coverage itself. I do not think many admin closers will be swayed by the merge rationale that results in the List of Episodes effectively becoming "Dragon Ball (anime)" because it most certainly be an accurate title when you re-add dub production and releases back into it. The fact it was even called a "list of episodes" with such content was problematic. Sorry, but I see absolutely no reason to merge and if its notable than it should be kept. Anyone want to argue that the anime is not notable? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the preference of every other single editor who works in WP:ANIME. And the only reason that I'm opting for deletion is because you demanded that I do it and not go through a normal discussion to determine whether or not the content should be merged into one of the other existant articles. You are the only one who holds the opinion that every single manga and anime should get articles separate from each other if you keep pushing that opinion on everyone on Wikipedia. The content covered by this page is best covered by Dragon Ball, List of Dragon Ball characters, and List of Dragon Ball episodes because that's where it has been for the past 5 years and it was only in August that someone reverted the merge on the basis that you finally got Dragon Ball Z to be an article again. There is nothing on this page that is not already incorporated into other pages. Dragon Ball as a work of fiction is notable but the manga and anime are not independently notable of each other and per WP:PAGEDECIDE we should not have two pages on such interrelated topics when one suffices and has sufficed for so long. Erachima's right about you. You force people to go through unnecessary bureaucratic steps in a public forum such that you get your way and you forum shop whenever things don't go your way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long post, but let's analyze the arguments. Now, if I asked you to clarify these "other editors" as done before, you count only the "present" parties and omit those like Only in Death and the actual people who created, maintained and in this case restored the page - by all accounts, I am not alone, but I am the most vocal opposition you've ever encounter. Though that does not mean that I forced you to take it to AFD; it was wider Wikipedia policy that suggested such an action in this very situation. WP:BLAR is not my creation, but you are right to assume that I would challenge the local consensus of the Wikiproject. However, your argument is baseless from this point on. First, I do not subscribe or ever put forth any such notions that "every single" work needs its own page - and you've repeatedly stated that I also want to include all the lists as well. Please, I am tired of restating that this is not true and your say-so does not make it so. Your issue of PAGEDECIDE is a reversal of the actual usage and intentions; this is on the editorial, as in the individual editor's, decision to create a page and upon which such points are to be considered. PAGEDECIDE does not run in reverse so that editors can removal pages without formal processes to circumvent normal community process. The actions and arguments you put forth are "I don't like it" and this matter has been a terrible detour from our mediation, but let's evaluate our positions. Now, unless I am mistaken:

Everyone agrees the topic is notable
Everyone acknowledges the content has to be kept in some form - but the result or target differs

Evaluating the first line suggests that the page qualifies for stand alone status. Your "PAGEDECIDE" counterargument has a severe flaw besides its intention and usage. The first point, "Does other information provide needed context?" It seems that this applies to Dragon Ball, and in short, no it does not hold necessary context for in-depth discussion of the anime. Secondly, it would not make sense to place the cast, release or censorship information into the page and ruin the article's flow. This is a major point for the continued stand alone article. The merging to the list falls on the principals of mere titling; merging this content no longer makes it just a list and a renaming to Dragon Ball (anime) would be necessary - a useless endeavor when the non-episodic information now resides on this page. The second point "Do related topics provide needed context?" is a resounding no because of the impracticality and the unwieldy result - a separate page is necessary. The "What sourcing is available now?" presents the argument against the creation of permanent stubs, but the page has no expectation or is a permanent stub. Simply put, sourcing exists and the content needs to be added and this expansion for the coverage is best done here and not on the franchises page - the merger would bring up the previous two points. With all this said, the argument is really "because we say so" and lacks any evidence or clear reason to merge. The admin who will serve as the arbiter of this AFD needs only realize that the communities policies governing stand alone pages rests on N and GNG; some disputed and community rejected practice of notability practices pushed by Manual of Style will simply not hold up. The Dragon Ball anime has had over a dozen dubbings and the content potential is simply enormous. When cutting through all the policies and you go to the core of the matter; its deletion would remove sourced content on a notable topic and its merging would disrupt any target page and the likely removal of sourced content which is best kept unified. None of the "this is how we do it" arguments are simply relevant or valid arguments for deletion; the Wikiproject does not get to rule by fiat. Lastly, arguments for deletion or merging should not contain demeaning comments about editors. I do not like being called a "forum shopper" simply because I contest the repeated blank and redirect of a notable topic - on the grounds of an individual's editorial viewpoint. You may disagree with me, but I ask you respect me and respond to my arguments to better foster a more congenial atmosphere. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not guarantee having a separate article. It only means that it can be covered on the English Wikipedia. And in 99% of the cases in anime and manga pages, it means that only one article covering both pieces of media is necessary because they are so intrinsically the same that it does not make any sense to cover them separately simply because they are two different kinds of media. "Dragon Ball" as a work of fiction created by Akira Toriyama is notable. That does not mean the manga and its anime adaptation require two separate pages for coverage, particularly when most of the coverage is undue weight towards the American dubs and popularity in the west. That is why WP:ANIME decided as a group that it was improper to produce so many individual articles on each different form of the media and instead have one article that discusses the anime and manga together.. Just because you had a public RFC (forum shopping) to raise the issue that the wording of the page was somewhat unacceptable does not automatically open the door for you to radically change how every single anime and manga page is treated on this project. In some cases your format works (Neon Genesis Evangelion, Dragon Ball Z). In most they do not. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball (anime) fall into the second group.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... rather than make an argument for deletion and merging as it applies to this page you just rehashed your original argument? You are still pushing a local consensus and ownership by suggesting that it was wrong to have a public RFC on this novel interpretation of notability; and that the public's decision was wrong. Now, stop painting me as some extremist out to "radically change how every single anime and manga page is treated on this project" because that is false. Continuing to make such claims is a gross misinterpretation of my stated position and irrelevant to the actual discussion. Now, please stop attacking me as an editor and make your defense for the deletion of this page. If you cannot or will not, please withdraw this so the mediation can continue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason we are even here is because you demanded it. You will not allow merge discussions to take place because you believe it is deletion when you constantly cite WP:BLAR but then at AFD you pull the same shit. I am tired of it. Your positions on these topics are clear. The anime and manga are not independently notable of each other. That is my argument. That is why merge should take place. And that is the last thing I am saying about this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought fucking WP:ARS was eliminated for being a violation of WP:CANVAS. And this is a call to merge with AFD as the venue so there's no need for ARS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was never eliminated. There has never been any proof of canvasing. I have been trying to find reliable sources for the removed examples of censoring, to put that back in the article. That and other things can be added to help it grow. This wikiproject is good at finding sources for things and helping improve articles. Dream Focus 15:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain why Template:Rescue got deleted.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at these articles and their respective lengths, I have some difficulty understanding why we wouldn't have a separate article focused on this particular, notable series. In my view, forcing this content into a main article while having separate articles for some of the other derivative works is structurally confusing, could force the elimination of detail, and has some potential for non-neutral POV, at least by implication. In this regard I agree with the comments of Jclemens and Dream Focus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball episodes. Jun Kayama 07:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dissected that argument previously - could you please explain why this page should be merged to a list of episodes when the content is not even about the "list of episodes"? The Anime and Manga Wikiproject says "we do this", but provides no valid reason for doing so. You are the third editor to say this without providing a reason. Also, welcome back from your long break. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To the closing admin: it has been mentioned in passing above, but there is currently a mediation which Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri are participating in, of which I am the mediator. Because this AfD discussion is directly related to the dispute, I have put the mediation on hold until this discussion has been closed. This is just a note to say that I would appreciate it if this discussion could be closed this time around, rather than being relisted, as that would enable us to proceed with mediation. (Although please note that this is just a suggestion, and isn't binding in any way.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result of this AFD won't make any difference at all in that. So far its evenly split between those who wish to keep it and those that wish to merge it. Hopefully we won't have to repeat the same arguments again in a separate merge discussion after this closes here. Dream Focus 07:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but it will - for a mediation to be successful, the parties need to be able to discuss the issues in an atmosphere of openness and respect, and it is much harder to do this if they are simultaneously discussing the same issues at AfD. While AfD is a discussion and not a vote, it can be easy to slip into a frame of mind of "winning" or "losing". The idea is that if the admin closes the discussion the way that you "voted", then you "win". However, there is no winning or losing on Wikipedia - the important thing is doing what is best to improve our content. It will be much easier to get past the idea of "winning" and "losing" once the AfD is closed and the mediation parties no longer have to worry about what the result might be. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has an ego problem that big, then there isn't likely to be any way to get through to them anyway, and they are bound to cause problems constantly later on. People disagree on how things should be done all the time, there is no way to convince them. Some people like needlessly long articles instead of having relevant information on its own side article like this one, and there isn't really much chance of convincing them no matter how many people disagree with them and how the AFD closes. Dream Focus 13:59, 28 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) 00:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan II[edit]

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

Prod contested by an IP without an explanation. Fails WP:NFF - no reliable sources showing that principal photography is underway, and (although merger into Ayan (film) has been suggested, there is nothing to merge there without sources in the first place. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no reliable sources showing that principal photography is underway, either. --Stfg (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ayan (of which this would be a sequel) until there is actual confirmation (not WP:CRYSTAL rumors on blogspot), etc. per WP:NFF. Even once "confirmed" (apparently lots of Indian-genre films get claimed to have this status long before there is anything up to WP:NFF to have an actual article), could put a single sentence to that effect in the original film's article. DMacks (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suggested the merge - as in, there seems to be no reason to have an article for the sequel yet and a single line in the first film's article could indicate one was planned. I'm still not certain of the notability of films in pre production..-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 17:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per earlier comments by others. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inconsistency in the movie name between the article title and the lede indicates how premature this article is. As some news comes in, we can mention it in a sequel section of Ayan (film). Only after WP:NFF is met should we start an article for it. But until there's substantial coverage in reliable sources, no stand-alone article is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I requested CSD initially Fiddle Faddle 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Incubate: per nominator's point about NFF, but this could be a case for incubation rather than deletion. Mat ty.007 18:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Evidently TOO SOON. - Zananiri (talk) 18:35, 27 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) 00:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaullah Haq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:LASTING, guy was in the news briefly for getting shived in jail. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references speak more about this issue as it turned political internationally; it was more than mere news. There are over 40 articles discussing the subject - suggesting it is both wide ranging and notable. StuffandTruth (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a slanging match between India and Pakistan, they happen every day. It was not an international incident at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sentences appear to contradict each other. How is a slanging match between India and Pakistan not an international incident? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. We don't know if it will be lasting since it just happened a few months ago, however in light of the high amount of national exposure, public demonstrations, and "Sanaullah’s death will further strain Indo-Pak ties"[10] the safe action is to keep for now and wait and see (a year or more). I wouldn't call it an "every day" event, though straining events are nothing new. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mentions in the news over the last month[11] And only 19,900 hits on a search. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. It takes time for it to be written about in books, movies, work through the courts and political process. While we wait for longer term impact, it makes sense to keep the article given it already passes WP:GNG and had an unusual amount of exposure beyond a typical news event. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This ONE again? Really? It wasn't too long ago (just last May) that the very same editor brought the first nomination, but now to argue WP:LASTING is really pulling down deep for something. There is NO way to know WP:LASTING one way or the other way until significant time lapse, and so policy wisely suggests, I quote: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." For the nominator's argument to fly, the nominator would have to logically wait to see if it has been re-analyzed, because we know it had WP:SIGCOV, and ONLY then and after extensive period claim such. Last May is not an extensive amount of time between renominations for this particular argument! The nomination should be dismissed until a better one can be made. Crtew (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pointless nomination. The article is notable, a slanging match between India and Pakistan is a high profile international incident. Notability quite evident by the reliable sources concerning the subject. Fai zan 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to look like a snowball based on the weakness of the nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't snow close, it will provide reason to DRV. Let it run normal course, it will be a stronger close. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:59, 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.

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) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Kelsey Grammer & Martin Lawrence FX Sitcom[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Unnamed show that is still in production. ...William 15:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions....William 15:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems appropriate to apply WP:NFF which it fails as not having entered anything close to principal photography stage, and without even a name, way too soon. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rare non-musical example of WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete HAMMER indeed, and even more so with the FX/FXX split since the announcement in addition to the above, we don't even know which network it's guaranteed to be on. Nate • (chatter) 20:54, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. No evidence was given that all three entries are non-notable. Even if one or more were not notable, a dab page can still exist. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long Point State Park[edit]

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

Taken from Special:AncientPages. Was last edited in 2005. All 3 entries seem non-notable in their own right. Coin945 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the individual entries probably need to be dealt with first. While all three exist, a disambiguation page like this (even one not edited for a while) remains valid and generally policy-compliant. If one of the entries is removed then by all means this should be nominated again per WP:TWODABS. Stalwart111 13:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hard to see why lack of editing on a legitimate disambiguation page is a reason for deletion. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note The 2005 bit wasn't part of my deletion rationale. The fact that in my humble opinion the 3 entries weren't notable, is. I am quite happy to change my mind if evidence is given to the contrary. But with articles like these that were created so very long ago, it is very possible it could have stayed merely due to inertia. It's time to AFD these suckers and see if they really deserve a place here or not.--Coin945 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be an argument for deleting those three articles. But given that the articles exist and there is ambiguity with their names, a disambiguation page is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 15:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - a valid disambiguation page for the three articles that populate the page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an article, but a good DAB. Issues with each of the articles should be dealt with individually with a good dose of WP:BEFORE on each. Nate • (chatter) 20:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no reason to delete it: it disambiguates three articles. I've tidied it a little. "These suckers" clearly "deserve a place here" while the articles they disambiguate exist, or if the topics are mentioned in other articles. There's a lot of rubbish in the encyclopedia, but no need to kill off well-formed dab pages. PamD 13:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Age last edited is not a grounds for deletion. If the contents needed to be deleted, that would need to be done first; however, state parks are well-established as notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Even if all 3 pages were deleted, they would probably still meet MOS:DABMENTION and so be valid disambiguation entries. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 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.

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) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handsworth F.C.[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria - have not appeared in an FA competition. Kivo (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Handsworth, South Yorkshire. As far as I can see it is a local amateur football club, playing many tiers down the hierarchy. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many amateur clubs are notable, and indeed some in the Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League are. Kivo (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League. Individually the clubs aren't notable but the parent league does appear to have enough coverage in sources to be. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if no club in the league was independently notable, a redirect would still be appropriate. By the way, the notability guideline that Kivo linked to is old and has been superseded by WP:NFOOTY, though that's also the wrong guideline for teams, which is covered under WP:ORG. The league itself has also been up for AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware this notability criteria is still in place. WP:NFOOTY and WP:ORG offer no guidance on the subject of football club notability. The league itself has been previously confirmed as notable. Kivo (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:FOOTYN is a mere essay, not actual policy. Furthermore it is not fit for purpose and has not been for a number of years. Giant Snowman 15:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we supposed to go to find football club notability? Kivo (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG - same place as everywhere else. The inherent notability guidelines exist because for cases like players in the Premiership, we assume that significant coverage in sources will exist for them, and forcing people to go out and look is kind of pointless. If, hypothetically, a biography of any Sheffield United FC player had zero references aside from one on the club's website confirming his post, no sane person would try and send it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ritchie; cannot recall why I created the article 3/4 years ago but I assure you it was for a good reason. FCHD gives a good history of the club, which also confirms they have never played at a high enough level/Cup to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 18:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they have played at a high-enough level - our cut off point is step 6, which they spent two seasons in. Number 57 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So they have - keep. GiantSnowman 18:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is a source stating this cut-off point? I've only been able to find this, which states a club must have played in the national cup competition to be notable. Not having a go, would just like to see this 'step 6' criteria for future reference as I may start other articles. Kivo (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - See below. Number 5 7 19:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presumably GS created the article because the club had recently been accepted into the Northern Counties East League First Division, a Level 10 division. Consensus always used to be that clubs having played at Level 10 in the English league system were considered notable. This club not only played at that level, but won that division in 2012. They also had a bit more coverage than the average club at that level when they were not only refused promotion but actually thrown out of the NCEL because their ground failed the grading criteria[12][13] and the case ended up at arbitration.[14] And because Sean Bean is/was on the board [15] :-)
They're supposed to be merging with Parramore F.C.[16] So if this article isn't kept, I'd strongly suggest merge/redirect to Handsworth, South Yorkshire until the club's merger with Parramore goes through, assuming it does, and then the Handsworth F.C. detail can go there. And Handsworth SY would be a sensible permanent home for the content if the Parramore thing doesn't happen, whereas the league they play in at the moment is a purely temporary connection and by next season could be irrelevant. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Club meets the generally agreed criteria of playing at step 6 or above or in FA Cup/Trophy/Vase, as they played in the Northern Counties East League for two seasons. Previous examples of this consensus here, here, here, here. Plenty more if anyone needs. Number 5 7 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this 'generally agreed criteria' that a club that once played at step 6 is notable? Kivo (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the four links I provided in my original statement. If you want more, see here, here, here. It isn't a guideline written down anywhere, but a consensus that has evolved through numerous debates, much like English case law. Number 5 7 19:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so I could start new articles for existing Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League clubs that once played in the NCEL? How about the Yorkshire Football League? Would that league be considered step 6 or higher? Kivo (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes, although possibly only Division 1 or 2 of the latter. Number 5 7 19:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for the input. I shall be starting a new article on Houghton Main FC, who once won the Yorkshire League. Kivo (talk) 19:27, 25 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Crown Productions[edit]

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

The subject of the article appears to lack notability. The article is based entirely on primary sources, and appears to have been created and edited primarily by an affiliated person and his or her sockpuppets. Related link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealing Mary. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. -SFK2 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Qualifies WP:CORP as it is known province wide and has secondary sources from the province and also has a mention in the Association of Producers of the Province which qualifies the Production company under WP:CORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createart101 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

- please back up your assertion that CORP is met with appropriate sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been on the fence about this one, but have come down on the side of deletion. There was a claim in the article that they had won awards for their films, but all I can find is a third place in the documentary category at the San Luis Obispo International Film Festival, and that doesn't make for notability. Since there is no significant coverage to be found in secondary sources (and I have looked!), I can only conclude that it does not in fact meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 09:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not out of ill-will, but because it fails to meet our standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable 78.105.23.161 (talk) 07:53, 24 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 Withdrawn by nom. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cook[edit]

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

~~Delete per WP:Bio Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 12:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No valid reason given for deletion. Nom needs to consult WP:BEFORE. This NHL player is notable under WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 14:05, 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 pageor in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Christina Aguilar[edit]

The result was Nom withdrawn - and slap me hard. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cannot establish proper notability. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 10:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even a cursory glance at Google and the fact that she is credited with being the first female Thai artist to sell over a million copies eg here suggests that she is highly notable. On the face of it this is a speedy keep but perhaps the nominator is able to explain his reasons? --AJHingston (talk) 11:48, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhurjee[edit]

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

Not notable. Mentioned in a list of clans produced by one of several caste associations but not discussed in any significant manner in reliable sources. It seems to get more attention as a food item. Sitush (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ramgarhia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If at all its to be redirected, it should go to Bharbhunja (Hindu) where Bhurji redirects currently. Actually i would redirect it to Egg bhurji which probably is more common destination for search than either of the castes. But that am not really sure of. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:26, 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) 02:26, 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, KTC (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bhurjee is one of the prominent clan among Ramgarhias. We can disambiguate, if it gets more attention as a food item. I wonder why it is nominated for deletion. ☬ ਰਾਮਗੜ੍ਹੀਆ ਮੁੰਡਾ ☬ ^☎ 12:39, 22 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} 01:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Cool Records[edit]

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

It's somewhat telling when I can't even find an official website for this coughcoughDEADcoughcough indie record label. Pretty sure this one doesn't count. I'm unable to find any news coverage of this company, either. Doesn't meet the notability criteria for organizations or the general notability guideline. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The label doesn't have a website. The article is about the label listed on http://www.grunnenrocks.nl/label/d/deadcoolrecords.htm. I plan to add all front covers. And expand a bit further.--Mc peko (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could be notable, but in its current state it would be rejected from the AfC so I'm suggesting delete. If the creator wanted to work on this and develop it out on AfC or sandbox however I think this could be revisited 193.109.199.71 (talk) 15:33, 9 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) 02:39, 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, KTC (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of long-term notability for a label (notable acts or releases, etc), no sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete label with a small handful of releases, none of them by notable artists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 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) 00:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGNIVEER[edit]

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

non notable organisation. Most of the references are to its own website. Most of the others do not mention it. Google finds very few hits and nothng of significance. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay about the organization, sourced almost entirely to the organization's website(s). No evidence of notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:54, 4 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) 02:47, 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, KTC (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. As FreeRangeFrog, an essay about subject filled with its own POV.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 14:47, 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) 00:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resperate[edit]

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

Advert with cherry-picked citations from obscure publications. Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little worried about the journal publications, as it's very common for companies to pay for people to perform research upon the product. Until we can verify that the Resperate company didn't pay for the research, I'd kind of automatically assume that they're suspect and unusable. It doesn't mean that they can't be genuine non-paid for sources, but when you get to "new" stuff like this it's more likely that they're unusable. Most times it takes a long while to gain coverage in PR journals. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to sources, American Journal of Hypertension is an Oxford journal, The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a Wiley journal and Journal of Human Hypertension is a Nature journal. These are all reputable journals based on peer review and look notable in their own right. I'm not willing to second-guess the peer review process and assume all of these pubs are inherently biased. On the other hand for a medical article, WP:MEDRS applies and strongly recommends an article based on secondary sources Most of these papers look primary. The Sun-Times and Wired article are secondary, but again WP:MEDRS recommends against relying on popular press sources for medical content. There is some criticism about the trials and a rebuttal. --Mark viking (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm worried about as well, that these are primary sources that are paid for by the company itself. I've moved the original sources to the talk page until they can be verified. At first glance there does seem to be coverage, but at this point it's just weeding through them to see which are primary and which aren't. As far as the PP sources, those I'm more listing to show that there has been some widespread coverage in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source shows that as of 2007 there were 8 studies but only one wasn't manufacturer sponsored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say Delete because the device does not appear to have widespread recognition and also because of the exaggerated nature of the claims in the article. For example, the article says The American Heart Association has recommended Resperate as a "reasonable option to support lowering BP", but the linked paper does not actually "recommend" the device; the Summary and Clinical Recommendations section about Respirate says that Device-guided breathing is reasonable to perform in clinical practice to reduce BP and that further study is needed, which IMO is a far cry from a recommendation. The FDA clearance was under a process which finds the device to be "substantially equivalent" to already approved devices, which does not suggest that this particular device is unique enough to deserve an article of its own. Is there a reasonable redirect target? All I could think of as a target was Biofeedback which is probably too general. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 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) 02:55, 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, KTC (talk) 08:03, 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) 00:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light Man Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book series. (Wikipedia:Notability (books)) Proposed deletion tag was removed by the page's creator with the edit summary "Page is in progress, more info to be added shortly.", which doesn't address the notability issue. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:25, 13 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, KTC (talk) 07:54, 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 Jaipur#Education. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen School (Jaipur, Rajasthan, India)[edit]

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

If this article had gone through AFC it would have been declined as non-notable and unreferenced. With no references to back up the information, and seeing that the school either doesn't exist or hasn't opened yet (see my talk page), then this really shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According schoolsworld.in, this is a primary school. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on the photos on the school's website, it appears to exist. I am puzzled by the claim "To be affiliated to CBSE, New Delhi" on the school's website. CBSE is the Central Board of Secondary Education. This is the only suggestion on the site that high school grades are or will be offered. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Eastmain. The data sheet found elsewhere on the school's website indicates that Evergreen is a K–8 school whatever its coming CBSE status is. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 22 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, KTC (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jaipur#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 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.

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) 00:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Naylor[edit]

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

Declined PROD, where the reason given was no secondary sources. there are, but PRODder requested bringing it to AFD if declined, so i have done so. I am myself not sure the refs provided are enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm basing this only on the sources in the article, because when I search the subject in Google News I can't seem to filter out articles written by her. From the listed refs, I don't see enough coverage to establish notability: the News Fresno source seems unreliable (based on geocities) and the link provided is not to the article referenced; the two News Review Sacramento and Chico references are trivial mentions; there's no evidence that the Emmy SF is a notable award; the KFSN bio is not independent; and I can't get the Family Tree Legends link to work.

In general, though, does anyone know what the policy is on people who are covered only in local news outlets? --Cerebellum (talk) 03:23, 13 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, m.o.p 04:38, 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) 00:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ojaswi Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hardly any coverage in newspapers. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 22:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's tough to mine Indian and Hindu language sources online. I would say that an assumption of good faith might be in order here. Also, political parties are generally notable. I myself have found at least a half dozen sources in a quick Google news search. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the links obtain upon google search are party's own website or social networking webs. Also the party is yet to be launched.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 20:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The single instance of a reference is a website not on the topic, which contains one reference under a section called related topics, that says simply "Asaram Bapu's son to launch political party named Ojaswi." In other words, the reference does not even confirm that the party now exists.

Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vigyani BHai Ji ,,,,

Ojaswi is a political party set by Narayan Sai... I have given ref on article OJaswi Party...

Do not delete this page plssssssssssssssss..--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 14:57, 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) 01:55, 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) 04:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a recognized political party, no coverage at all except in the context of "he also did this". At best a single line mention in the bio should suffice. —SpacemanSpiff 14:03, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aura (song)[edit]

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

Does not meet article standards Plmnji (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just re-direct this to the Artpop article until there is more information for expansion, which is inevitable. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep. This article needs a lot of work, but that does not mean it should not exist. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect. It doesn't make any sense to quick-delete. Qianpx _(Talk) 13:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If sources can be found to support the article, I'll at least suggest a weak keep since WP:IGNOREALLRULES could apply. However, redirect until the album's been released and happens to make a minor chart appearence thanks to the digital sales of the album. 和DITOR E tails 17:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct. There isn't enough info to justify a standalone page yet. --I AM A BOX! OF APPLES! (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to parent album as non-notable yet. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Striking my opinion since song has debuted on Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart making it notable. Keep it as a song page or a promo release, but not as a single. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 00:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Billboard chart saved it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Tbhotch. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:34, 19 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) 04:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Billboard chart would mean that it now passes WP:NSONGS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - there already seems to be enough content to warrant an article (with more likely to come when the ARTPOP album is released and more critics review it) and the song has already charted on Billboard. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has charted and was released as a promo single. — ₳aron 12:47, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda (Cape Verdean singer)[edit]

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

The article barely passes WP:A7 as she won "Miss Black Rhode Island", and then what? Is she notable? Did her albums make her to pass WP:BAND? Does she has any chance to became something else than a stub-article? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to establish that the subject exists, but that's about it. No coverage or other indication of encyclopedia relevance found. --Michig (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michig perhaps could I ask you please to try again your search in Portuguese language but for "Belinda Lima", looking particularly in Angolan and Cape-Verde press sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few short articles in ASemana, a couple of press releases, and a TV item that probably wouldn't be considered significant coverage. Not sure there's really enough to support an article. If you have examples of a few articles that would make a convincing case for notability I would be happy to reconsider. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - She might not meet general notable guidelines. However, she was able to release one album and win the beauty contest. Cape Verde is an island country, as Gibraltar is a small territory. Same with Hong Kong. The fact she went back to Cape Verde after years of American residency proves that she must be researched in non-English sources, most probably offline. Her "notability" does not end now, and it will not end in 100 years. --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Then go to Cape Verde and prove her notability with offline references. I will tell you what somebody told me at DYK once: "Since you have asked us to take what we have been given, we will do just that: unfortunately, in the article's present state that is insufficient for listing on DYK, so the nomination will be closed shortly", and I will reword it to an AFD perspective: IIO created the article about a real person who won an award, small, but award. He is presenting this to the reader, but being coherent, how many of the articles created by IIO have been expanded to start/C/B/GA/FA/FL status? I haven't checked his creations, but I'm sure that less than a few have done so. If this is all Wikipedia will present to a reader, the best is not to present it, because the article adds nothing to the project. It is just about a real person who was considered the best "black" person from RI and released a few albums from an unknown record label, they never charted, and that's it.

Notability is not about "she won a [trivial] contest, therefore she is a heroine in Cape Verde", notability is about five simple points: coverage, reliability, references, independence and presumtion, and the article doesn't pass any of them and you recognized it. "She released one album", and what? Anyone can release an album and because of that they deserve a page? Notability is not inherited in either side. If the album is notable, but she doesn't WP:A9 may apply. Also, coming from a small country, which seems to be your "strong" point, still trivial. C Kunalan comes from Singapore and demostrates notability, Agatha Barbara comes from Malta and demostrates notability, Rolando and Arménio Vieira comes from Cape Verde and demostrate notability. Belinda doesn't demostrate notability, and if she is in fact notable ask someone from the country to demostrate through offline references that they demostrate she is notable.

Your "keep" !vote, as the way it is formulated, reads "She is not notable, but she comes from a small country, and people from small countries have no opportunity to shine like other countries, so let's give her a chance to have an article as offline sources possibly exist". You didn't come here because you believe the article deserves to be kept, but because it was a creation of IIO and, therefore, there's nothing wrong with it. This is demostrated with the line "She might not meet general notable guidelines" and the comparison with other AFDs you participated, called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Dunn (journalist) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Frye, among others. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly per Michig. Aside from the single Portuguese-language interview cited in the article, I have not found any other significant coverage of this person. Also, not that it necessarily matters a great deal, but there is no article on this person in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia. Dohn joe (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per Michig, you need to search for "Belinda Lima" cantora cabo-verdiana. And as for pt.wp not having an article, that is irrelevant, pt.wp lacks many articles on Brazilian and Portuguese singers, let alone Cape Verde and Angola. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Cape Verde and Angola newspaper coverage Portuguese language Cape Verde press mentions. Also Cape Verde radio and TV coverage, e.g. "Belinda Lime" hits on Cape Verde national TV station website. Also per WP:WORLDVIEW. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(On a procedural note, would also have to note that the nomination itself is seriously misleading in citing "WP:A7 as she won "Miss Black Rhode Island" which is an irrelevant piece of trivia for an article labelled (Cape Verdean singer), mentioned in passing in only one of the Cape Verdean newspaper mentions which discuss her as Cape Verdean singer) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the first link "Portuguese language Cape Verde press mentions". I get 40 page results, the most reliable or trustable are interview and news about a performance, the rest are blogs, false positives, quasi copyvio-videos of her and illegal download links, and some of them are labeled as "dubious" or "dangerous" by McAfee. In the second link I get 11 links of the same video by rtc. WP:WORLDVIEW is an essay, not a policy. The question is, why Wikipedia needs an article about a woman who is likely to get no further notability than a stub article and how three or four references satisfy WP:BAND and most important WP:GNG? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Tbhotch but these AfDs are beginning to look WP:POINTY and possible misuse of the AfD mechanism. How is that proportion different from making the same search for Miley Cyrus? The official Angolan government press agency, the main Cape Verde TV station and newspaper are reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant since these sources are 2006-2010. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is more than obvious that if you compare Belinda Lima with Miley Cyrus, Cyrus passes WP:BAND points #1 to #12, while Belinda passes none. If I Google Miley Cyrus I don't get the same video repeated 11 times, I get 1,090,000,000 results, and the mechanism of AFD is "where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted", not whatever you intended to say. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources exist, per WP:SIGCOV, albeit in Portuguese. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 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) 02:38, 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) 03:59, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Swamy[edit]

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

Smells like self-promotion. Is this guy actually notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article would require a Heymann's standard improvement to make me change my mind. There are twenty references there, though they're not inline.--Laun chba ller 13:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a BLP article, this requires adequate inline citations before it can be considered usable, otherwise it will look purely promotional. Improve, then try again. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think sticking this in userspace or AfCspace until it is suitable would be any good?--Laun chba ller 15:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article's don't require inline references to be notable. That would be nice but AfD is based on the sources, not the style of the sources. --Green Cardamom (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, notability depends on the existence of sources, not on whether or not those sources are included, and much less on how they are included. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep. Barely passes WP:G11 in my opinion. However, it does pass and afd is not cleanup. WP:BLPPROD is also not an option, because there are references, even if they are not inline. So notability is the only grounds for deletion here. But there seems to be a little significant coverage. [17], [18], and [19], [20] are examples. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 20:32, 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) 03:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think subject is unnotable. The sources are all advertising companies and not real news sources. Plus it is fairly promotional.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 15:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significant parts of the article are copy-pasted from Swamy's LinkedIn profile and he seems to be claiming sole credit for any successes by the companies he's worked for. Really this is a CV of someone who is clearly beginning to make their presence felt in Indian advertising, but not notable yet. Sionk (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet, maybe never will be. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:36, 26 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) 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in La Francophonie[edit]

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

Except for the unreferenced lead paragraph, this article covers nothing that isn't already available via LGBT rights by country or territory. Is there any benefit to creating LGBT rights article lists for arbitrary subsets of the countries in the world? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As with the Commonwealth article, the fact that there are historic and/or current ties amongst these nations has led commentators and sources to remark on and compare the state of LGBT rights in the different countries. eg. [21] [22] I'm not finding as many sources as I'd like, however, and as with my comment in the discussion on the Commonwealth article, the majority of the article ought to be prose based upon sources that discuss the phenomenon, not a duplicate of the info on different countries.. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article creator here. I created this article because just as British law strongly impacted the legal and ethical perceptions of homosexuality in former British colonies (including those in my country) in the long term and shows up in debates regarding the intersection between LGBT rights and post-colonial relationships with the former colonizing power around whom the Commonwealth is largely built, the same also applies to French/Belgian law and its historic impact on LGBT rights in formerly-French/Belgian-colonized nations, most of whom share membership with the Euro-centered La Francophonie. It is already showing up in the decisions on binational marriage law that were made by France in the early 20th century, and the current government is trying to work that out both within and outside of La Francophonie. This, whether it is the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, or the Portuguese-centric CPLP, is a topic that helps to illustrate LGBT rights in both colonial and post-colonial multilateral relationships. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 15:33, 13 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) 03:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs sourcing improvements, but eminently educational and encyclopedic for a page. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 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) 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident[edit]

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

the AfD began as a discussion of the article under the above title. The article has been moved and the AfD should now be considered to be about:

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

The article was created about the ship. However, none of the sources are actually about the ship, they are about the incident the people who own/sail the ship were involved in - straying into Indian national waters carrying guns without proper licensing/charges of illicit procurement of fuel etc. As a current event, the " incident" also currently fails WP:NOTNEWS, yes there are a lot of potential things that might happen that might make this more than some news filler, but we dont build articles on things that might happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Note: that the article has been moved back to MV Seaman Guard Ohio. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep (and reverse rename).

This business of floating armouries as part of the anti-pirate measures is an interesting one and worthy of coverage. We have many article on individual ships and the MV Seaman Guard Ohio has coverage that meets our standards to justify it as a "notable ship". Furthermore, this incident has also novelty and credible newspaper coverage to support it as an article.

Whichever of these three directions we took the article in, then there is interest and 3rd party coverage to support an article. Personally I'd tie it to the ship, as a ship, but others might have other opinions. A broad article on the use of floating armouries in these anti-piracy operations would be a good topic, but I suspect rather difficult to source from this secretive area. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while the subject of floating armouries as part of the anti-pirate measures is interesting we do not create subjects for secretive events for which there is not third party coverage. This particular ship and this particular event have not shown themselves to be WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only you had the wit to read a comment, rather than spotting the one word in it that blows your particular dog whistle and then completely ignoring the rest of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One feels the need to remind others of WP:NPA. I did in fact read your whole message and responded to the only part that had not already been addressed in the article nomination. Unless you feel the need to also be reminded of WP:OTHERCRAP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep (and remove the deletion tag and the notability tag).

The incident has received wide coverage in local media and is therefore significant enough to merit a wikipedia page. The issue of the incident also gains significance because it comes on the heels of a chorus of warnings from academia, industry, political and legal experts regarding the loosely regulated industry of PMC (Private Military Companies) and PMSC (Private Maritime Security Companies).

After cross-checking with rules as defined on WP:GNG I think that there is a strong case for the removal of the NOTABILITY tag and also the DELETION tag.

For info (on 19 Oct 2013), the search term "MV Seaman Guard Ohio" at present has 182,000 results on Google Search and 8,190 results on Google News. The events surrounding "MV Seaman Guard Ohio" have received global coverage and through all major news sources : BBC, VOA, Fox News, Sky News, ABC, France24,... and also press wires like Reuters, AFP, etc.,

As for a search on "AdvanFort", the numbers are as follows : 99,500 results for Google Search and 6,720 results for Google News.

Given the fact that several media articles ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] have talked about the persons managing AdvanFort not release us from citing company names and individuals who hold management positions in the firm ?

Armed ship in India had prior brushes with law - "The Hindu" newspaper [23]

Not first brush with law for ship owner - "The New Indian Express" newspaper [24]

Shadowy Arab billionaire behind armed US ship - "The New Indian Express" newspaper [25]

Storm clouds gather over detained US ship - "The Telegraph" [26]

I've suggested on the article's talk page [[27]] that the text could be divided/distributed over 3 subjects (1) the ship "MV Seaman Guard Ohio", (2) the company "AdvanFort and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdvanFort (2) and (3) the incident "MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident".

Any attempt to delete/curtail this article would be unhelpful if done without consensus and prior discussions based on valid reasons. 81.240.147.136 (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

again, simply being in the news does not equate to being encyclopedic and meeting our requirements for an article. WP:NOTNEWS The subject lacks a WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage in that there is no indication that once the result of any charges have been completed anyone anywhere will remember, care, or write about this incident again. (and of course THIS is the forum in which the notability of the subject is determined, and the tags indicating this discussion is ongoing stay on while the discussion is ongoing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, revert move from MV Seaman Guard Ohio to MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident, stub, and create an article on the company, AdvanFort with a section on the incident. The incident has made the company notable, but it's entering crystal ball territory to give the incident an article of its own; time will tell whether it results in any legal or procedural changes or receives continuing news coverage. Right now, however, the news coverage of the incident has provided sufficient RS to source a brief article on the ship, and thereby, like it or not, made it a clear example of any ocean-going vessel that receives coverage in reliable sources being a suitable subject for an article. Also, the article on the company will need to be NPOV and not give undue weight to the incident - or other criticisms that may surface as a result of news coverage of the incident. But this is not a mere news event; the present title does lay undue weight on the incident. The gap we should attempt to fill as soon as possible for encyclopedic coverage is the company, and the incident should logically be covered as an episode in the company's history. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While in theory that makes sense, there doesnt seem to be anything about either the ship or the company prior to the incident - leaving us in essentially the same place: no article about the ship because the only thing we can write about the ship is that its owners were involved in a potential crime , no article about the company except that its employees were potentially involved in a crime, no article about the incident until enough time has passed to show that it is more than a news blip. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see some usable sources on the company at the AfC, and as I say, the incident has made the company notable. As to the ship, my understanding is that the WikiProject sets a low bar; its vital statistics must be recorded somewhere, some of them are probably in the news coverage. I don't think the ship merits more than a stub, but I haven't looked into it yet so can't exclude the possibility that it has an interesting past. In short, there is no requirement for long or detailed articles on either the ship or the company; the real issue is whether they're notable, but I'd be surprised if nothing more could be assembled on the ship, and I see usable data on the company just looking at the last source cited at the AfC. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the ship is neither a person or event, the fact there is only coverage about the ship in the context of this incident is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please cancel the redirect and move the wiki back to Ship Name. This incident can be a section under the wiki of MV Seaman Guard Ohio.Quartzd (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the overall thick of things, not really a notable event. No significant long term effects on the world at large are going to come of this, and because of previous coatracking/attack language that earlier forms of this article have, its purpose seems specifically aimed to cast certain people and companies involved in a negative light. I would evoke WP:BLP1E to some degree (yes, not a BLP, but we are taking about living people involved with the issue. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reverse move; while the incident may or may not grow legs, the ship itself is notable, as well explained by Yngvadottir and others above, and the fact that the coverage of the ship is WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED is irrelevant. (Also, those with less good faith might look at the move of the article from the ship name to "incident", immediately before this nomination was made, as a deliberate attempt to paint it as AfD-bait.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the move, per Bushranger, Yngvadottir, Quartzd, and, really, common sense. Yngvadottir asked me about this, not so much to weigh in on the AfD or on the move, but on what to do with an AfC for the related article, about the company, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdvanFort (2). You can read their comments on the talk page; in a nutshell, they asked me (I believe) since it could be considered disruptive if they start shuffling content and what not.
At any rate, I wasn't aware until just now that the move was done in what could be considered a preparation for this AfD or at least an attendant operation: TheRedPenOfDoom's previous edits certainly point in that direction. Bushranger is kind enough to assume good faith, and so am I, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the article was about the ship, and that's what this discussion should focus on as well. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uhh - all versions of the article that I saw had 1 unsourced paragraph about the ships equipment. That's the extent of the article that was about the ship. And then it had ooodles and ooodles and oodles (and now even more oodles) of information about the "incident" of which the ship plays a completely trivial role other than being a convenient catch-all phrase.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I'm not saying your move came out of nowhere. And there is no doubt that coatracking is an issue, but it's not one we can't handle if (as this AfD should decide) the article on the ship itself stands--with the incident as part of it. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so is this AfD now about "the ship" or about "the incident"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's obvious. Coatracking or not, the article was and is about the ship (ostensibly). If consensus decides that the ship can stand on its own merits, it stays. An AfD is about an article; this AfD is about the ship. The "incident" content (calling all of that verified content "coatracking" is probably hasty) may or may not contribute to the ship's notability; that's for the participants to decide. (I'm not going to move this AfD--I hope participants will pay attention to these comments.) For instance, I'd appreciate it if Masem comes by again to speak out on the notability of the ship as a ship, and it would be helpful if verified content about the ship were added since, I grant you this immediately, the article in its current state does not have a lot to say about it. If there's really nothing to say about it, then Masem's point may well stand ("BLP1E as applied to non-ghost ships").

And my move back does not mean that coatracking isn't a serious and valid issue to bring up here, far from it. But that's for participants here to decide. I don't really know what notability standards for ships are, to which extent basic factual information from registries etc. helps toward meeting GNG requirements, and that's not really my job. But I do know that it's fair to not move the article's focus rather drastically just before an AfD, and that's what your move did. That's all. If editors here decide that the article is really not about the ship but about the incident, and/or if they think that this incident is coatracking and/or not noteworthy enough, they will vote delete. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the question whether the ship is notable: I again continue to take the concept (but not exact language) of WP:BLP1E applies. I consider the example of Exxon Valdez (the ship) and Exxon Valdez oil spill (the incident) as an example - most of the notability of that ship is from the oil spill, and there's little question that was a notable event, but even then I would think the ship and incident could be merged without losing any information. Here, we're already struggling with notability of the incident (per NEVENT) and that makes me question if even the ship is notable, and since the only bit about the ship is its participation in this. (This is a separate issue from the coatrack aspects). Really, this is a decent story to be covered at Wikinews, but seems like a footnote to an article or list of maritime incidents on en.wiki, due to the fact there was no loss of life or property involved. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Masem. I hope you don't mind my re-indenting this; your comment is relevant to the AfD as a whole and I don't want it to get lost in the mix. Editors: note how carefully Masem delineates notability and coatracking. These are the kinds of comments admins need to compile a final judgment on an AfD or any other community discussion. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and Move or Reverse Move to the ship's name); while it's sad that there are pirates today and a need to combat piracy, the tools, methods, politics, ... all of what is used to combat them, have notability (and notoriety, but that doesn't negate notability.) More ships will be involved, crossing boundaries inadvertently (or not) and then they or their crews detained and further processes gather press. We will need to have articles about all of this, and this is a good place to start. htom (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find despicable the manner in which TheRedPenOfDoom packed my talk page with clutter by throwing in all kinds of tags ranging from "Potential conflict of interest", "Username issues", etc., just because I edited the article page with some information that is freely referenced in newspapers. He ought to stop seeing things in red Arccotangent (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep and reverse to MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident... seems notable... M aurice Carbonaro 09:13, 24 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 List of Rugrats episodes#Season 2 (1992–93). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Santa Experience[edit]

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

Woah, what a mess. Even if this were to be severely pruned, it still doesn't pass WP:GNG. I'm pretty sure "Tigerdude22" is not a reliable source. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Rugrats episodes#Season 2 (1992–93) A TV.com plot summary and a random TGWTG forum poster as "sources" for this? Even more comical and absurd than any 'type what I see' recap we usually get here (TV.com is a disqualified source in most cases). And there is literally not one soul in the world that cares about the "Billboard Kidvid VHS" chart from various years. Redirect and the existing one-line plot summary is enough. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Judginjg by most Simpsons episode articles on here, episode articles are mostly made up of information taken from the DVD commentary of the episode. I have been unable to get this so have had to scrounge around on the internet to find some information. Take a peek at the sorts of sources used in the GA A Rugrats Passover and the FA A Rugrats Chanukah to get an idea of the sorts of information on this episode that I just havent been able to locate yet. I know that this is one of the most famous and iconic episodes of the series, so there should be a wealth of info out there. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, i know, i know... but my point still stands. Discuss the concept of the article, not its current state.--Coin945 (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rugrats episodes#Season 2 (1992–93) --Nlfestival (talk) 00:29, 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.

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) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmartGit[edit]

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

COI issues, but more importantly it's a product that only cites its own website Rhododendrites (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who supplied the initial version of the SmartGit article. Full disclosure: When I wrote the article, I was working in the company behind SmartGit, syntevo. I left the company a while ago, though. The article was written with full intention to comply with Wikipedia's policy; and in particular, to make the article informative and avoid writing a product advertisement. It's possible that subsequent edits have introduced some issues. After skimming the current version of the article, I would vote to Keep it, since the mentioned problems can be easily fixed, IMO. Tiger3d (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this software is notable, as no independent RS coverage is referenced. A search found blog coverage and how-to pages, but did not reveal any substantial RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As for notability, please keep in mind that this software is mainly used by developers, not normal users, so you won't find any mention of it on "popular" sites like lifehacker and such. Of course, that doesn't mean SmartGit isn't notable; it's used by quite a lot of people within the Git and programming community. Tiger3d (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This gets a mention in The O'Reilly book, but that's all it is. If this was mentioned in our article on Git (software) it may have been worth redirecting, but as it is the lack of coverage suggests Delete. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 27 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 speedily deleted by User:Mackensen per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweentown 5:The Return of Kalabar[edit]

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

I have found no evidence this is a planned sequel, nor does this article have any legitement references. Roborule (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found evidence because before I created the page i went to the page called Halloweentown series and saw the characters and Cast portraying them under Halloweentown 5: The Return of Kalabar. (ACO35) 00:13, 20 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACO35 (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone (this article being a prime example), that would not be considered evidence. Reliable coverage is considered evidence. I marked the article for CSD as a blatant hoax. GSK ✉ ✓ 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy delete G3 supported There would be many, many sources if this was actually a true project, and these hoaxers always forget that kid actors eventually grow up and out of their signature roles. Highly doubtful Sara Paxton will revisit a role of her youth at this point. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 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.