< 16 September	18 September >

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Clarke[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. Length of career does not make him notable, as he has not received any significant honours in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Standard Non-notable footballer, may be a pro but has not played in a fully professional league or internationally, nor has player achieved anything specific in the game that has garnered significant comment in reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharath Sury[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable vanity bio. Undocumented bold claims. Runarb (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AFD is now properly templated. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims appear documented by 3rd party citations.. Lfullmar (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Lfullmar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Certainly looks like an advertisement promoting the subject. Investment publications do the same for fund managers. Portfolio management is, in any case, not an exact science and anything to do with investment, as fund managers and conscientious financial advisors keep reiterating to their clients and potential clients, carries risks and rewards. He may have commented on what other notable people in the field (mentioned in the article) have said to back his statements and/or writings (name-dropping), but that does not, in itself, make him notable, even if Bloomberg has given him the time and space to say what he says. Bloomberg, CNN, the BBC and other similar channels give a lot of people in the world of finance, be they lecturers, professors or ordinary investors, the opportunity to voice their opinions on a variety of financial issues of the day. It does not make them or this man notable either. Here today, gone tomorrow! Bloomberg producers are just doing their job, he is doing his, and he is still only a lecturer in San Diego, leaving aside his incidental work elsewhere. So, still some way to go before he becomes a full-fledged professor, which would indicate some sort of recognition from his own peers and superiors in academia. I think he does not meet WP:GNG at present. I note, too, the timing and similarity in the comments on the talk page and also the similarity in the signature styles of this article's supporters on that page and on this AfD page!- Zananiri (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go Zani! I too agree with Zanianiri that all investment advisors are lame! As he says, portfolio management is not a science and doubtful that there are even Nobel Laureates in economics. As before, will support and assist in deleting other economists. Concur. - tdtd09 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — tdtd09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davin O'Neill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been included in a Multi AfD in the past.. WP:Articles for deletion/Mark McNulty (footballer)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Standard Non-notable footballer, may be a pro but has not played in a fully professional league or internationally. Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:As usual.Has not played in fully professional league.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL RRD13 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. article created by a sockpuppet of community banned user Ryan kirkpatrick; deleted per G5 and WP:DENY. No prejudice against recreation by an editor in good standing if notability is proven. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dab El Ahmar building collapse[edit]

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

A random event of unknown historical importance. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources seem to indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Selzer[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. First 5 Google hits are to this article, images on Commons, and a Facebook page. I originally PROD'd it, but the author (who also happens to be the subject) de-PROD'd it without explanation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Impossible to verify claims for notability. Hoax? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a hoax, but not a notable kickboxer either. I couldn't find him on the ISKA web site, but it turns out the tournament mentioned in the article was an amateur event. I couldn't find the results at the ISKA site or anywhere else when I searched--but I did find him mentioned in the 2011 ISKA European amateur results [1][2] where it shows he came in second out of three in semi-contact in the "Veterans men Super Senior 36-40 -75 kg" division and second out of two in light contact in the "Super Senior men ‐75 kg" division. In other words, he placed in these very specific divisions just by showing up--he may not have won any matches. In addition, WP:KICK says "Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable" and he appears to lack the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect hoax because the article claims he be multiple champion. Surely countrywide champions, even amateurs, must be reasonably notable in media, which we don't see. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the WAKO-USA national kickboxing championship event garner almost no press coverage, so a senior division competitor might easily fly below the media radar. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 September 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 WBIR-TV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Five at Four[edit]

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

Article about a local newscast on Knoxville's WBIR-TV which is the station's 4 p.m. show and not extraordinary in any way as it has all the hallmarks of any 4 p.m. newscast found in any city in the US or Canada. Consensus in the past has not to give local newscasts their own articles unless they're large market (even then they must be well-sourced on their notability) or have a unique format, and this average newscast in a mid-market doesn't fill those requirements. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WBIR-TV, where it will not struggle with notability or sourcing issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Problem is Live at Five is a very common newscast branding, and even though this is a one-market branding for now there's always going to be another station in the US wanting to copy the title if they start a 4 p.m. newscast one day. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does copy the name, we can just change the redirect to point to Live at Five, the appropriate disambiguation page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IT is not called Live at Five it is called Live at Five at Four, i think it should stay, I think this article is good for wikipedia!!!! ACase0000 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to WBIR-TV. This is a run-of-the-mill local TV news show -- not a notable topic. --Orlady (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WBIR-TV. I'm from Knoxville and watch the show. "Run-of-the-mill" definitely sums it up. The only things nationally known and shown on this show were when the fourth hour of the Today Show on NBC was covered, as well as the ESPN Gameday coverage for a college ballgame. — Wylie pedia 08:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you or someone else do like a section in WBIR-TV's article? ACase0000 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 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 Tottenham. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham cake[edit]

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

not notable, originally cites only one (dubious) source, the second reference now cited basically is a telly programme which has used this page as its reference. Star-one (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable now even if it was not then. Having seen the TV programme in question, the allegation that the piece was nothing more than a mirror of the WP article is not sustainable. We have to distinguish between the notability of the subject of an article and whether we think that the sources are correct on the history. That the programme makers did not offer a substantially different account of its origins may just mean that the sources are right in the first place. The programme made much of the Quaker connection with a number of interviews, and almost nothing of the football association other than the name. --AJHingston (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is one reference on a telly programme mostly using this article as source material, and an interview with somebody baking it not referring to any sources sufficient notability? Star-one (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Twitter stream around the time of the broadcast, beyond the excitement of seeing somebody they knew being interviewed on the telly, all the Quakers commenting expressed surprise at never having heard of it themselves. Star-one (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the statement that the BBC researcher relied on WP as their source. That may well be, as it is of what other journalists produce today, but I do not recall it being said in the item itself. As for the Twitter discussion, those commenting may have been right in disbelieving the version offered of the cake's history, but one has to ask how they would know it was wrong, and what members of the local meeting concluded when they discussed it on the following Sunday. The claim was not particularly that it was made by people who are members, though one did, but originally by a commercial baker who was a Quaker, and that the colouring was from the mulberry which grows in the grounds of the meeting house. Very little was said about an association with Spurs. As for notability, a fairly substantial piece in a national programme with high viewing figures does count toward that. There will be people who now associate Tottenham with the cake just as much with the football team, and with very little else. Deletion is not the right forum for questioning the accuracy of what is said in an article. --AJHingston (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My claim of it being based solely on WP stems from there being no information in the item on the programme which wasn't also in this article - there was no evidence of second source information, even the interview with the Quaker baker repeated information already in this article. Admittedly this evidence wouldn't stand up in a criminal court trial, but I think it stands in this instanceStar-one (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either to Tottenham or Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. I see nothing about it that is separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peter and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I would support a merger of the single verifiable fact of this cake's existence into Tottenham, with a link to the fansite.Star-one (talk) 18:06, 25 September 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. postdlf (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Vectis bus fleet[edit]

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

PROD declined by IP with no previous edits. Not a notable subject per WP:GNG. Can only ever be drawn mainly from primary sources or unreliable blogs. Charles (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't really warrant an article. aycliffe^talk 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG, Could add all into a dinky box just here. Davey2010T 21:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have an article on Southern Vectis, tagged as out of date. We do not need one on its bus fleet. The article will frequently go out of date as the comnpany buys or scraps buses. There may possibly be something to merge to the company article, but I hope it is not much! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Vectis#Fleet - As it currently stands this article will go out of date quickly since there are not many contributors to it, however redirecting is better than deleting since it automatically directs incoming links to the appropriate section, and the history is preserved. Q6637p (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David O'Sullivan (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. PROD was contested without any explanation. JMHamo (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Standard Non-notable footballer, may be a pro but has not played in a fully professional league or internationally. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Has not played in a fully professional league.RRD13 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:59, 23 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Union of Karate-do Organizations[edit]

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

Unreferenced - each successive creation never achieved notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The same name keeps being used by different organizations, but my search didn't turn up any significant independent coverage. The article's only source is to the organization's home page. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No supported claims of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Hauptman[edit]

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

Although this article does contain sourcing, I've never been fully convinced that its primary notability claim — the fact that he was a campaign manager for an individual candidate in the British Columbia general election, 2013, who garnered a small flurry of press coverage when he resigned — is something that would warrant coverage in an encyclopedia in the first place. Rather, it seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS, in that there's no real demonstration here of sustained notability outside the context of a single event of almost purely local interest. I cannot, for example, find a single substantive source about him that's been published since the couple of weeks in May in which his resignation was current news — and while the article does cite a couple of sources that were published prior to the resignation, neither the volume of sourcing nor the activities that they reference would be sufficient to get him into an encyclopedia if the resignation flurry hadn't also happened. So, all in all, I just can't see how the guy's actually notable enough to be covered in Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nonnotable politician. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to have lasting notability. Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 19 September 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 The Forbidden Kingdom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Benoit[edit]

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

Unreferenced - notability not established Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Forbidden Kingdom An unsourced BLP that fails to show he meets any notability criteria--an an actor, martial artist, or GNG. His most significant role, though hardly starring, was in The Forbidden Kingdom where his character is mentioned in the plot summary. A redirect seems reasonable, keeping the article does not. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect No sources and doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. I saw "The Forbidden Kingdom" and his role is minor, but at least he played a named character.Mdtemp (talk) 17:10, 25 September 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) 19:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Retallack[edit]

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

I passed this at AfC- mea culpa- I didn't notivce that the submitter was the subject. Which he has admitted on the TP. Therefore pretty clear CoI? Basket _Feudalist 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't in itself grounds for deletion. He could still meet the guidelines. And you've nominated the wrong page! :-) Deb (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems potentially bent, that's all... and rectified my inability to discern one page from another!!!

Basket _Feudalist 15:20, 17 September 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 September 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted COI is not, in and of itself, grounds for deletion. It's certainly not going to help an article's case if there are other substantive problems, such as a lack of reliable sourcing or a weak claim of notability, but strictly speaking an article isn't deletable if your only case is the COI itself — if the notability and the sourcing are there, which both seem to be the case here, then COI can be cleaned up by simply having established Wikipedia editors give it a scrubdown for potential bias issues. Of course, if the scrubdown reveals that the sourcing and notability are actually weak or nonexistent after all, then a more substantive argument for deletion will be presentable at that time — but in the meantime we don't delete salvageable stuff just because the contributor was the subject himself. Keep for the time being, without prejudice against renomination in the future if cleanup reveals deeper problems. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- subject of the article appears to pass the notability guidelines; the quotations do a lot to justify the work as having made a substantial impact in the field. The COI should have been disclosed, but isn't itself grounds for deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources but stubbify down to lede to cull mind-boggling promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Agreed it needs massive restructuring because as it is now it is a promotional page. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Stub is clearly warranted here due to obvious PR and synthesis. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glauber Da Silva[edit]

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

Article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (reliable sources indicate that he only played in the not-fully-pro Portuguese third level, Brazilian state, Salvadorean, Guatemalan and Tajik leagues) and which fails the general notability guideline. PROD was contested without any explanation. Jogurney (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Standard Non-notable footballer, may be a pro but has not played in a fully professional league or internationally. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trialome[edit]

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

No evidence at all of notability; appears to be a term coined by one academic, Vojtěch Huser. This Google Scholar search appears to show that no-one else is using it. Article created and maintained by a single editor who may have a COI - discussion at WP:COIN#Trialome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- that COIN link is actually WP:COIN#Vojtěch Huser. The article creator and overwhelmingly-largest-contributor, Sakaton, has also inserted a great deal of other links I would call refspam, the majority of which point to other of Huser's papers. This editor was also the creator and primary contributor to the article on Dr. Huser. There are also some IP addresses that have edited both articles that geolocate to the NIH (Dr. Huser's employer). Multiple requests for clarification of the nature of the potential conflict of interest have gone unanswered. Sakaton also appears to be of the opinion that some usage of the term on twitter is enough to establish notability, which I would personally disagree with. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, the topic only appears in the publications of one academic group. I could find no independent reliable sources for this topic, so it fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The article itself has conflict of interest problems as noted above. A non-notable topic suggests deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- The only 2 references not written by Huser do not contain the word "Trialome". PubMed search of keyword "trialome" gives only one hit (written by Huser, and a primary source to boot). Google scholar is getting some 14 results. Some written by Huser, some in ~~Spanish~~Portuguese (not sure what trialome means in ~~Spanish~~Portuguese, but it is recurring along with the word - "tanos" ... suspect it is not the same as this usage of the term), and a few I think are referring to some kind of parasitic infection (?). With this few search results I get the feeling this is a newly coined term, and wikipedia is not the place to promote it. Reliable secondary sources please (from a variety of authors). Also (by no means a valid reason for deletion), I am having difficulty understanding what exactly this term means. Lesion (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: in the Google search linked above, the references in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian to "trialome-tanos" "-tani" etc are to Trihalomethanes, the spelling in those languages being without the "h"s; the parasite is apparently a Google misreading of Triatoma infestans. Obviously, neither topic has any relevance to this article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inasmuch as a medical topic should be supported by reliable sources for medicine-related articles, of which there are none supporting the statements in this article -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.is[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; nearest thing to a reliable independent source I can find is this blog, which appears to be a university department blog. Subject may gain notability in future, but doesn't have it yet. —me_and 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are there, no question about it. Obviously notable, considering its practical purpose. And, why are we here exactly? Poeticbent talk 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE - notability is not conferred by usefulness. As for the "no question" sources, there are in fact eight of them currently in the article...five of which are the site itself. Of the remining three two do not appear to be reliable sources, and the third is Alexa which is only used to source its rank. Searches are confounded by "...archive is..." results, but there does not appear to be anything that can establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a very good article about it from the Web Science and Digital Libraries Research Group at Old Dominion University. The fact that it has been posted at blogspot is completely irrelevant in this case; a matter of convenience. Poeticbent talk 20:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one, then. Are there others that provide in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs better sourcing. I just deleted a wiki used as a source. There is a discussion about a block evading bot using massive numbers of proxies to install links to archive.is at the moment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_rollbacks_required. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wiki.dandascalescu.com is not a wiki in a sence of website everyone can edit. It is Dan Dascalescu web site. He is one of the authors of the MojoMojo. No wonder that he uses the same software (and wiki. subdomain) as a CMS of the site he owns. 77.255.95.230 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is much worse than the article about WebCite and worse than Archive.is articles in the other wikis. It does not explain what the service does, how to use it and how it is related to the wiki projects. Perhaps, another attempt to write the article from scratch would be more successful. 77.255.95.230 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless one more reliable source can be found such as the one brought in by Poeticbent. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editorial policy of CrunchBase is: [3]
Currently, all additions and edits to CrunchBase go through an approval process before they are pushed live. We are working on ways that will allow users to make immediate changes to the site.
—rybec 20:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means simply that they check to make sure it's not spam/obscene/etc., not that it's fact-checked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can find more reliable significant coverage. As it is, it's pretty weak. (Funny enough, it's been used here on Wikipedia for dead/dying links. [4]) MithrandirAgain (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best source that can be found is a blog by a non-notable student group. The group is led by Michael L. Nelson who has an interest in internet archiving, and has published documents on the topic, but he is not notable in himself, and the research group's work does not appear to be widely cited. Archive.is is a start up^{[citation needed]} operation, and if it does establish itself in a year or two's time, and becomes notable, that is when we should have an article on it. But at the moment there is not enough verifiable information to consider Archive.is as notable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Herbert Van de Sompel is member of this non-notable group. 77.110.134.11 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had the article in mind and been waiting for some quality sources to surface that would address the notability issue. However, the bottom line is there is only one quality source, but besides generic description, it mostly just covers one specific functionality. Thus, the topic fails the WP:GNG with no multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources. As for arguments of usefulness and use within Wikipedia, this is irrelevant. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site is the same notoriety than WebCite and Wayback Machine. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Bushranger's comment, it is not enough you claim WP:ITSNOTABLE, you have to show how according to our guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:39, 23 September 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 to International Computers Limited . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QuickBuild[edit]

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

A useless disambiguation page. Disambiguates nothing. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ICL VME#QuickBuild. Right now there is only one QuickBuild reference I could find on WP. Arguably, PMease – QuickBuild is a more notable QuickBuild product, but there is no article on it yet. --Mark viking (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was a redirect to International Computers Limited until an anon IP editor created the dab page last week. Why not revert? • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually, I'd rather took Mark's suggestion above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:21, 19 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelbeam[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Mebius 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) 17:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. This character lacks reliable sources and can not establish notability. A redirect is acceptable, but I don't really see any point in redirecting these minor characters. It's like putting in redirects for every individual alien who ever appeared in Star Trek or Star Wars. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. Veeriya Vandayar[edit]

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

Article was prodded for having no sources; another editor added one source, but that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. The only thing we know about this person is that they founded a college. This deserves a line in the college's article, not a stand alone article. Unless there is substantial discussion of this person in reliable sources (which I cannot find), it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blaq Ice[edit]

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

Though its hard to tell with no properly formatted references, this person does not appear notable. It also appears to be an autobiography. Benboy00 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 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. MichaelQSchmidt has improved the article, film has released, AFD nominator has withdrawn his nomination. (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 13:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOUNG MALANG[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a future, non-notable film. WP:NOTCRYSTAL Benboy00 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A (not sure if reliable) source has been added, and a release date after now, but before the end of this AfD process has been added. This means WP:NOTCRYSTAL no longer applies. However, I still believe this subject to be non-notable. Also, I find it interesting that a previous article, with the same title, was deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Malang). The title of this current article seems capitalised to avoid recreating a deleted page. This is slightly suspicious. If this article is kept, then it will almost certainly be moved to that article. Benboy00 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Apparently written by a newcomer, article is in terrible shape (yikes)... but this soon-to-release film meets WP:GNG through coverage in multiple sources. They need to be added, but that would be a matter for regular editing and not deletion. Anotyher point is that maybe if User: Vigyani had done a little before or even sent the earlier film article to AFd instead of tagging it as speedy,[5] we might have a better article and NOT a deleition discussion now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production:

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

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

Primary cast:

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

Comment When this film is released (presumably on the 20th of september), I will withdraw the motion, but can people please bear in mind WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Wikipedia:NF#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films. Try to refrain from creating articles first just so you can have the credit, or so that the name is reserved, or any other of a list of understandable but bad reasons. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much my thoughts inre WP:NFF were because it is a completed film with an imminent screening date and enough coverage. When a release date is so very close, we do not need to "wait" to do what is right. I can only hope the newcomer contributor realizes the necessity for sourcing when writing any article. I've asked that the original title Young Malang be undeleted due to it have more addressable content and context. The two histories can then be merged.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am waiting is because of what it says (rightly so) on the page Wikipedia:NF#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films , namely that "there is no "sure thing" production". If the film does release on the 20th, then all is well and this article will become appropriate. However, if there is some unforseen difficulty and the film is *not* released, then this article will remain inappropriate for wikipedia. I appreciate that the date is very close, but I still think that the rules should be followed (at least in this case), as even if the proposal is not withdrawn and the film is released, there will still be 5 days until the closure of this AfD, which is plenty of time to withdraw. Benboy00 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your wanting to wait two days, but guidelines are not "rules"... they are guides " best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Through consensus and common practice we quite often allow articles when the film is slated to release in a very short time. Point here being is that proper research shows it's

A) completed,

B) is receiving coverage to meet GNG and NF, and

C) is slated to screen in two days...

thus the cautions of the NFF "guide" are addressed. Sure, the production house holding all copies might burn down in the next two days and all copies would be lost, but presuming the worst for a completed film slated to screen in a couple days feels just a little like inappropriate and unsourced crystal-balling, and runs contrary to that nutshell that heads each and every guideline page. It's not as if we are speaking about a speculated film set for filming or release at some approximate date in 2014 or 2015. You are welcome to stand your ground until the snow begins to fall and this becomes a speedy keep.

HOWEVER, and as you are ("rightly so") depending on WP:NFF, please note its third paragraph stating "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" (my emphasis). This film is completed and as an film slated for release we may indeed have an article as its production is itself notable through notability guidelines. Best Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not quite sure why you are so insistent that this AfD be prematurely terminated. What harm will be caused by waiting another day or two? I appreciate that you are an experienced editor, and I welcome your expertise, but I see no problem with waiting until the film has been released to withdraw an AfD. In the NFF guidelines, it suggests that there are two categories of film: Films that have begun shooting, and films that have been released. This film is clearly in the former category, as it has begun shooting, but it has not been released. My reading of the guideline is that it doesnt matter whether a film has finished shooting or not, merely whether it has been released. I am presuming nothing, and indeed, to remove my proposal would be to presume that everything will go according to plan. I personally think it will go to plan, but why prematurely withdraw? I would have no problem standing my ground until it became a speedy keep, but this is not what I intend to do (unless an admin is particularly fast with the speedy keeps). As I said before, as soon as the film is released, and it is verified by sources, I will withdraw the AfD (a polite prod on my talk page would be helpful though, as I am currently monitoring a lot of different things). As someone recently said to me (although in my opinion the usage was incorrect on that occassion), "There's no need to rush anyone to close an AfD, ever". Benboy00 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not continue an unnecessary process simply for the sake of continuing the processes, and ending an unnecessary process is not at all "premature". That an AFD nomination might be graciously withdrawn by its nominator when an error in the nomination is politely pointed out is perfectly within the suggested guidelines for AFD, and does not hinder improving this encyclopedia. . But as I am going to undelete the original version that was (perhaps incorrectly) speedied late last August, and place it with intact history into my own userspace to address its then-addressable issues before returning it to article space, this entire discussion is becoming moot. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this last post, and to a lesser extent the one before, is somewhat uncivil, especially the last sentence, which (I feel) is entirely unnecessary. I apologise if what I said has irritated you in some way, and stress that this was not the intention. All I wish is to make the encyclopedia better, and hope that we can work this out. I understand that you feel this nomination was in error, and if the nomination was made tommorrow (assuming that the movie does come out) I believe that you would be correct. I dont think that it is in error, at the moment, and you have made your disagreement with this point of view clear, both here and on my talk page. I respect that, and I would ask that you also respect my opinion, whether you think it wrong or not. As I said before, I am perfectly happy to withdraw when the film has come out which, all things going to plan, will be tommorrow. I hope you are successful with your improving of the previous incarnation of this article, and wish you luck with Project Film. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite intentionally remained polite and civil in explaining the proper application of WP:NFF and in underscoring that as a guideline its last paragraph is just as important as its earlier under WP:GNG, and wish to thank you for remaining civil in sharing your opinions and interpretations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Despite the length of the above discussion, I feel the project is far better served by my putting my words into action. I thus took the time to address this article's issues with tone and sourcing. With the "keep" I opined above, I also think this improved version should be moved to the proper film title Young Malang after the expected keep. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts on this page. Benboy00 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur on the rename if this article survives its AfD. May as well kill two birds with one stone here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NFF. Principal photography has started (if not concluded) and there have been regular updates in the Indian media in regards to the film's production status. If this were a Hollywood movie it wouldn't be up for deletion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw As the film has now been released, as discussed earlier I would like to withdraw this AfD. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 09:48, 21 September 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 Decepticons. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overlord (Transformers)[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. While there are a couple of third-party sources, there aren't enough to pass WP:GNG here; notable as part of the faction and worth a couple of lines, but not a full article unless additional sources are found. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above - unable to find sufficient coverage for this character to warrant an independent article. Gong show 18:51, 24 September 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 G7 by NawlinWiki (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singam 3 Danny Returns[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about an apparently non-notable film that has not been released yet. WP:NOTCRYSTAL Benboy00 (talk) 15:26, 17 September 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. I deleted it the first time around. WikiDan makes a bit of an argument for a redirect; I'll create that and protect it against all-too hasty recreation: in its current state, A7 might apply (no legitimate claim to notability), for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the rationale for deletion and protection is that there seem to be only two options for this article (the history bears this out; admins can verify). It's either a puff piece (that's what I just deleted) or it's an attack page (one of the previous versions in the series I deleted yesterday, and the version deleted by DGG in 2008). That's not acceptable. Recreation can be done, but only if a proper biography is written--the creation of attack pages or puff pieces by SPAs needs to be discouraged. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Belcher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author with a few self-published books under his belt. Possibly notable as the legally-challenged CEO of Selmedica. Article should be deleted or left as a redirect to Selmedica. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Lazarazo[edit]

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

Article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (reliable sources indicate that he only played in the not-fully-pro Colombian Primera B, Panamanian and Salvadorean leagues) and which fails the general notability guideline. PROD was contested without any explanation. As an aside, if this article is kept for some reason, please move to Miller Lizarazo - the correct spelling of his name. Jogurney (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Hindu war cries[edit]

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

Completely unverified, created by a now indef-blocked editor--blocked in part because of their inability to provide references for their work. Perhaps someone can save this; in its current state it's really nothing. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Indian Army, all these information can be written in a single paragraph. This is a POV-pusi=hing article as well. What do they mean by "Hindu war cry"? --Tito☸Dutta 17:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Marcal[edit]

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (he was in the reserves at Chievo, played in the not fully-pro Portuguese third level and in the not fully-pro Salvadorean and Guatemalan leagues) and which fails the general notability guideline. PROD contested without specific explanation. Jogurney (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Can find sources (of questionable reliability?) just with a google search that confirm that he was at least employed by clubs in a fully professional league, but can't find anything to confirm he ever made any appearances in said leagues. Everything seems to start from a couple of seasons ago when he was playing in Honduras. Fenix down (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is unconfirmed. Unless we can confirm that he has played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT, and he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helia Bandeh[edit]

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

Non-notable dancer and actress. Claims of being a "prominent figure in the preservation of Persian Classical Dance" are not verified in the article, nor can I find any such verification. Claims of notability as an actress hinge on her most notable role, in a film called The Day I Disappeared, which, although it won one of the side awards at the International Film Festival Rotterdam, seems somewhat non-notable itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, likely nn. jni (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, notability not established. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrfing in popular culture[edit]

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

This isn't an article about Tyrfing in popular culture, it's an unencyclopedic list of fictional works in which someone has a weapon called Tyrfing. The actual topic of Tyrfing in popular culture is not notable. Hut 8.5 10:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of arbitrary fictional stuff. jni (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have Tyrfing (disambiguation) where much of the material could be placed. Some could also be mentioned in Tyrfing itself. BayShrimp (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brimsdown F.C.[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no rationale provided. This is a recently formed, low-level team - they compete in the Spartan South Midlands League Division Two, which sits at Level 11 of the English football pyramid. They have not competed in a national cup competition, they do not meet WP:GNG - they are non-notable. Giant Snowman 08:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. No problem with the article being recreated if they start playing in national cup competitions. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Club is notable for reasons other than playing in National Competitions. As it stands, the club should move up to step 6 next season which qualifies for National Competitions, however, in a Borough with several teams, it has had an impact in providing representation for the Brimsdown area and ground which has a proud history, including David Beckham playing youth football there. The revival of a 'Brimsdown' team has been warmly received by the Leagues in which we compete and those involved in football in and around the region. Most of the teams in our Division have pages on wiki, even teams we have beaten heavily in league competition. I will put up more citations as to the importance of the Brimsdown area being represented again in pyramid football at a time when clubs are folding everywhere - a team has already folded in our division this season and yet they have a wiki page. Brimsdown's resurrection has transformed the Brimsdown clubhouse, as it is now the busiest it has been in years. The impact on non-league football is tangeable and I feel that should be supported. There are many clubs on Wikipedia that folded years ago and provide no relevance to football beyond limited archival reference, whereas Brimsdown FC are expanding at a phenomenal rate, providing a real pathway for players in the community to Non-League/Semi-professional football, with youth teams playing in the highest standard leagues available for the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it may be notable in the future is irrelevant - please see WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 09:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My crystalball failed to predict future notability. jni (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not citing future notability, that was one sentence out of many that you have chosen to focus on. Why not focus on the many sentences that confirm our relevance?

I don't see why so much energy is being put into deleting Brimsdown FC. We are in the pyramid system, we are included on the spartan league wiki page, so why would people interested in reading the Spartan article be denied reading about one of the clubs competing. Brimsdown FC is entirely relevant, current, of interest and notable to those involved in football in the south east. I could list teams on wiki that are no longer relevant, that have folded and not updated their page that would be better candidates for deletion.

I'm not a wiki expert, I'm a football person and I accept I have probably fumbled my way through this process, but for the life of me, I cannot see why you are choosing to pursue deletion so vigorously. Wiki will not be the lesser for the inclusion of a current and relative pyramid club, such as Brimsdown FC. The page has not been written as a free advertising tool - that I would understand. It is information based — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstyly, by saying "our", I take it you are linked with Brimsdown F.C.? If so, you ideally shouldn't be editing the article. You also need to verify notability, using reliable sources, especially those that cover the club in significant detail - not just passing mentions. Giant Snowman 13:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly appear that the editor is related to the chairman and is also the primary author on their website. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think edits most non-league clubs' wiki page? I don't play or manage at Brimsdown, I play and manage at another team at a higher level and their wiki page is edited by the club secretary. A friend of mine is the secretary at a Ryman Premier league club and he edits his club's wiki page. Who else would do it? Man Utd would have nothing to worry about but there's a lot of clubs under that, that would have no presence on wiki if they were waiting for an independent person to decide to do it. There is nothing contentious, dubious or accusatory on the Brimsdown page that should or could ring any alarm bells - apart from someone who keeps sticky 'delete' for reasons that are best described as opinion-based.

The second part of your point is more constructive and can serve to help improve the page. I have other citations that can be added regarding Brimsdown FC. The Spartan League, like most leagues, is not known for waxing lyrical about clubs, so their website is fact-based - tables, results, location etc, I would not expect the Spartan to do much more than that. The fact that Brimsdown were formed in June and entered the pyramid system immediately shows that the guardians of the Spartan League, Allied Counties, Southern counties & Eastern Junior Alliance who all require notability for entry, and of their members who voted for us as we were entering after the deadline date, all consider Brimsdown to be sufficiently qualified for an FA sanctioned league that generally only admits step 6 and upwards.

Lee Okugbeni (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer for Felix, but in general people closely associated with topics should not be editing articles about them, at least not in any substantial way. When they do, they must take great care to put the interests of Wikipedia above their personal interests. WP:COI applies. In any case, I have opened a discussion about the issue as it relates to football clubs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Possible COI editing. You are welcome to contribute to that discussion, but I would implore you to not just read but study and as much as possible in a short period of time deeply understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy before adding to that discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PRODder, non-notable football team. Definitely Wikipedia:Too soon as noted above. There are other teams in this league with articles, but most have a long legacy and all have played at the first division or higher. I'm not saying I would even keep those articles if they went to AFD, but this club doesn't even rise to their level of notability if the criteria is either a long history or playing at the "first division" in the league. I did make some minor improvements to the page, including adding the league's template at the bottom and adding a relevant category. I also wikilinked this club's entry in the league template, so if this page is deleted that will have to be undone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and shameless Wikiproject advertisement: This article is probably here only because WP:AFC is so backlogged. The original author did try to submit this through AFC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brimsdown FC. Had he allowed this to go through that process, a similar discussion would have happened there rather than here. The backlog at AFC is about 3-4 weeks now. If you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, please consider going to WP:WPAFC to help out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass our generally recognised threshold of playing at step 6 or above, or having appeared in the FA Cup, FA Vase or FA Trophy. Number 5 7 20:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or project-specific notability guideline. None of the article's creator's arguments are rooted in WP policy - the fact that David Beckham once played at this team's ground is particularly irrelevant. Claim that "the club should move up to step 6 next season" is also a pretty bold one to make after four games (and with the club only four places off the bottom of the table). TBH we are probably being too generous allowing articles on teams as far down the pyramid as we are (in my area at the weekend there was a Step 5 match which attracted a paying "crowd" of 8 people!), going even lower would definitely be a bridge too far IMO.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved from the top of the page:
Begin comment moved from top of page

The criteria for inclusion seems to be changing with each contribution. I wouldn't go as far as saying people are making it up as they go along, but I would say that it appears to me that people want to delete the article and are making suggestions to justify doing so. Anyone who has read my responses objectively would not focus solely on David Beckham, my name or new ideas for deleting, but would instead consider some of the valid points I have raised - which none of you have even mentioned, you've just looked to pick holes.

If step 6 is the lower limit then why are there clubs and leagues way below that level on wiki? And it's not to do with longevity as then the step 6 'threshold' would be rendered irrelevant.

The FA Cup competitions provide no guarantee of notability or relevance either. I know clubs that have competed in the FA Cup that are run with the efficiency and professionalism of a Sunday pub team. If Brimsdown had played an FA vase game but lost 8-0, how would that make the club any more notable or relevant? Brimsdown could have gone into another league at step 6 but chose not to - the club would have been as it is now but somehow would have generated this air of notability?

It's not about attendances. Anybody saying a step 5 club should not be included because they had 8 supporters just shows a complete misunderstanding of what Non-League football is, and it's place in the local/borough/regional community, not to mention it's part in the history of football in Europe - and, no, I couldn't explain it to you.

Does a team need to play division one to be included or is that another new idea? Div one yes, Div 2 no? The standard varies across the leagues and it would not be unthinkable or unusual for a div 2 side from one league, to outclass a div 1 club from another league. Div 1 or Div 2 across leagues is no indicator of quality. Very often, club choices of league are more based on geographical/financial issues rather than any footballing reasons. If a club chooses not to go up a level, does that make them less notable or relevant? But, of course, I don't have to explain Non-League football to you guys, do I?

I haven't spent my life on the Internet but I have spent my life in football, so maybe when I've suggested the possibilities of step 6 next season, it may be that I have a little bit more of an idea of what is going on with the club than others and it's nothing to do with where the club is in the league. You didn't mention that Brimsdown have played less games than most of the teams and a win in the next fixture would move the club significantly further on - but we're here to concentrate on the negative, aren't we?

I'm an honest person and have no problem stating my name as I have nothing to hide - that's why it's visible on the website and that's why it's visible here. I have no problem accepting personal responsibility for everything I type or say, so my username is my name. There is no COI as the page merely states facts about the club that can be checked/verified with a click. There's nothing controversial, accusatory or otherwise on the page, which I did state earlier but of course it was ignored in favour of reasons for deletion.

I welcome debate on most issues, but I have not received a fair run out on here at all. The focus has been on deletion and on trying to 'find me out' or support eachother in the negative. I had no idea that this is what goes on behind Wikipedia.

Brimsdown FC have trialled over 300 players in the close-season, and have signed well over 100 between the first team and the youth teams, without spending anything on advertising - and trialists continue to contact the club, almost daily. There is a community interest and a regional interest in the club in football. Anybody going to a Brimsdown FC wiki page is obviously interested in Non-League clubs or is interested in Brimsdown in particular -either of which could be satisfied by the factual, inoffensive Brimsdown FC page. There is a long proud history of non-league football in Brimsdown which sadly ended in 2010 with the loss of Brimsdown Rovers which has been the force behind the support from football people for Brimsdown FC. Having Brimsdown represented again has received a massive positive response and as was said: "it's like seeing an old friend again". It matters and it's an exciting development for football in this region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

end comment moved from top of page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is some level above which clubs are presumed to be notable (until proven otherwise). Below that, they have to demonstate notability in other ways. This would explain why some lower-than-level-6 clubs have articles. As to why level 6 is the appearant cut-off level, I don't know. It's just that a line has to be drawn somewhere between the lowest level amateur league and the highest level professional league, and appearently there is already a consensus to draw the line at or around level-6 of the Pyramid. For an informed discussion on why this level and why not some other level, you might want to ask the good folks at WikiProject Football.

You raise some good points about division 1 and division 2 not being comparable across leagues. Perhaps all of the teams that have only played at division 1 or lower should be evaluated for notability and, if found non-notable, nominated for deletion. Based only on my breif review of the current divsion 2 teams in this league, most have been around long enough that they would likely pass Wikipedia's general notabiliity criteria even fi they did not pass specific notability criteria for organizations.

As far as the team moving up next season, that is analogous to someone who knows a local politician is interested in running for parliament in the next election even though the official announcement hasn't been made yet and writing a Wikipedia article about that person because he is "going to run for parliament." That article would rightfully wind up at articles for deletion as WP:TOOSOON.

If this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, it will be by meeting its general notability criteria, not any criteria specific to association football clubs. The article as it stands doesn't show this.

It would be best if someone not affiliated with the team or league did some research and improved the article in ways that show regional or better yet national or international interest in this team beyond its mere formalities (i.e. an article in a far-away newspaper about a game involving this team and the paper's home team wouldn't count, but a feature article about this team in that paper would).

An alternative would be for someone like you to do the same thing but propose the changes on the article's talk page. Many of us have that article on our watchlist and we will see your proposed changes on the talk page and will likely edit them in fairly quickly (doing it this way avoids even the appearance of editing with a conflict of interest). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Okugbeni: - please take some advice from an experienced editor. Your posts are overly long and such walls of text are not suitable for AFDs. You need to be consise - please read WP:TLDR. Giant Snowman 08:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the length of my posts. I was unaware of the etiquette. Any help in improving the page would be greatly appreciated. 'National or international interest', like most clubs,is unlikely for us. I'll do more research for web references, but I don't want the page to be deleted in the meantime. I don't see why that should happen, notability is not an exact science

Lee Okugbeni (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS with regards 'step 6' next season, that was never meant to be part of my case for notability, it was more to display that not being a step 6 club was a choice taken by Brimsdown

Lee, you could always request the page is userfied i.e. taken out of the main encyclopedia and put into your subpage (something like User:Lee Okugbeni/Brimsdown F.C. so you can work on improvement. Giant Snowman 10:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and they have never been in a professional league (or even close to being.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional league? Are you serious? I don't think you've read any of this discussion, have you? If a league is deemed 'notable' enough for inclusion on Wiki, as the Spartan South Midlands is, then the teams that compete in that 'notable' league should qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be taken down and userfied? How would anyone else then help to improve it or contribute - and if they could, why would they, if it was not live? Lee Okugbeni (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not notable - and therefore not suitable for inclusion in the 'live' encyclopedia. As for "would anyone else then help to improve it or contribute" - the only person who has edited this article in its shrt lifespan is you. It is a minor club with little-to-no interest to anyone outside of the club itself. Same goes for my local club, I'm afraid (which I created an article about many years ago, and it was subsequently deleted). Giant Snowman 11:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that I'm a far more experienced editor than you are, Lee, and actually know the notability guidelines rather better than you. WP:NOTINHERITED applies for starters. Also, there is not one person who has !voted to keep at this point, and you've provided no evidence to suggest that they actually are going to move into the sixth tier next year anyway. "Close to being" in a professional league = within a couple of tiers. They're SEVEN tiers from being in a professional league. Also, you responding to every single voter isn't constructive, and is usually frowned upon in AfDs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an experienced wikipedian, nor will I ever be, but to be honest having had this to and fro with experienced people, the only consensus is on deletion. The issues raised: step 6, div one, FA cup, COI, longevity have not held water as there are clubs on here that would not qualify given your criteria - but they're on here. To me it is much simpler: if a league is considered notable enough to be on here then the clubs competing in that notable league should have a right of passage. If they withdraw or are relegated: then they can be deleted. It would save the debate and would prevent people's work from being arbitrarily deleted because they have no friends in here. You say no one has voted in my favour, but out of the millions on wiki only a handful have joined this discussion - hardly democratic . I don't know what region you guys live in but Brimsdown FC's introduction has had an impact in our region. There are more citations to go up but David made some improvements and I don't know how to add to the reflist. Sorry it's another long one. :) ----

If you can identify articles on clubs that have not played at step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup, Vase or Trophy, I will gladly nominate them for deletion. The only exceptions I am aware of is Wallsend Boys Club and Senrab F.C., both of which are youth clubs notable for having produced numerous professional players. Number 5 7 18:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You very rarely get AFDs with more than a handful of participants, so that's no reflection I'm afraid. Other non-notable clubs having articles? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your opinion is that a club deserve an article if it plays in a league notable enough for its own article? Fair enough, but not one shared by the rest of Wikipedia I'm afraid. This is nothing to do with having "friends" or not, it's to do with the fact that the club has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - see WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about deleting existing articles. As i am informed, it is only a handful that join these discussions at any one time, then those who join the discussion are acting as the gatekeepers for wikipedia and so i think it's unfair for me to raise a fair point, only for it to be dismissed as not agreeing with wikipedia, when you ARE wikipedia in this discussion - and it's unfair to slip the chains of your argument by citing wikipedia in the third person. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The objections raised all have pages that contradict the argument, whether it be step 6, FA Cup or whatever. Notability as defined by wikipedia is not based on fame or the such like. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am an academy scout at a high profile club and I get calls from players, clubs, agents, parents all the time. I use wiki to look up the clubs they've played at and the league they are in (however seemingly obscure someone else may feel they are). I can use other sources but wiki is the only source that has one click movement around the leagues and teams and where they promote to. I'm not the only scout/agent that does that. What a football supporter/statistician/enthusiast/archivist etc may feel irrelevant has a more practical application to someone like me. Brimsdown themselves used wiki when deciding on which leagues were reasonably available to them. the inclusion of Brimsdown FC is part of that because of the league in which they play. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete an article I came across while doing my work? The fact that, while not knowing the club, I went on their page in the course of my work justifies their existence.77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that I am the only person interested in the page. Several people have already seen it and commented on a minor error (which I will obviously correct). I have not advertised the page or anything. The page could be better but I was mindful that it should not be an advert for the club and should provide information of interest only. I was even thinking that I should remove the 'Media' section as other clubs do not have that on their page. 77.99.152.24 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- — 77.99.152.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Editing from an IP address to try and appear as if you are another editor is severely frowned upon, please don't do it, you are doing nothing but harm to your cause. Giant Snowman 20:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit my IP address and have no intention of disguising my identity, that's why I made several references to my previous statements. It is quite clear that it is still me talking, so why accuse me of trying to pull a fast one? What happened was that I did not realise that I was not logged in until I went to do some minor edits to the Brimsdown page. I even put 4 '~' to sign it. Lee Okugbeni (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALL of the statements above from IP address 77.99.152.24 are from me. There should be no doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman have I not raised some valid points above that may be worthy of response or debate? Instead of accusing me of things I clearly have not done why not address my statements? I am not the bad guy, I just fumbled up a wiki page. I would not know how to disguise my IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Okugbeni (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fereshteh Joghataei[edit]

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

Declined prod; no references outside an IMDb entry: clearly fails WP:GNG for biographies. PS. Created by Fereshteh Joghataei (talk · contribs), so also clearly an WP:AUTOBIO COI. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. autobio. Almost CSD A7 material. jni (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disclosure - placed one of PRODs on the article. GregJackP Boomer! 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:41, 22 September 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 retarget to List of Fate/stay night characters#Main characters. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archer (Fate/stay night)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Archer (Fate/stay night)

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

Your average unreferenced fictional character bio. Tagged as such for ~2 years. Current sources are primary sources - there's no indication of coverage of this character by independent, reliable mainstream media. No reason why this needs a standalone article when we have List of Fate/stay night characters, and most people would probably find the wikia article on the inuniverse topics better anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fate/stay night characters per nom. Does not seem independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the moment, though I believe a Shiro+Archer article is likely able to support itself on GNG. --erachima talk 06:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fate/stay night characters. No notability outside of the series. Plus there's already his Wikia article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 18 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubljana derby[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that playing on average once every two years did constitute a rivalry. Unfortunately, I still see nothing in this article to suggest that there has been any significant coverage of the rivalry itself in sources. Essentially this is a fully unreferenced article conatining little in the way of sourced prose. As the sourced prose is unreffed, it is essentially OR, the rest of the article is essentially a contravention of WP:NOT#STATS. The article then gets into the realm of WP:SYNTH towards the end as firstly, new clubs were formed in 2005 and editors have made the POV presumption that this is an automatic continuation of this rivalry and secondly there is a confusing OR attempt to establish other minor rivalries within the city that doesn't really make a great deal of sense. Clearly there are two teams here who have played each other on a number of occasions, but that in itself does not indicate a rivalry as per WP:NSEASONS let alone WP:GNG as there is no indication of discussion of the rivalry in any detail in any significant source. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to: unreferenced, so currently clearly fails WP:V and may be WP:OR. Ping me if this changes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thirtyfive matches in 60 years is a match on less than two years, I really see no reason, why that would be any problem. The coverage of the derby was big, for Slovenia of course. It had much more space in newspapers than others matches and it was allways refered to as the Ljubljana derby. The matches also broke some records of the Ljubljana' stadia at the time. It's not original research, it is just facts put together. And it is just normal that the derby article uses statistics, they all do, then you should also delete El clasico article. The last part is also not personal point of view, but it is the view of Ljubljana football public and fans of both clubs, as it is clearly stated. If you wish, the last post 2005 part can be removed, but the first part certainly not. It was a classic slovenian derby, right behind Eternal derby Olimpija - Maribor. It is still metioned in interwievs and even in dictionary of slovenian languege. What sort of other indication would you need, I cannot recreate the derby atmosphere from the fifties? Linhart (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some form of reference is required. At the moment it is wholly unreferenced and therefore is OR by definition until sources are added. I am not doubting that this is a derby or that the fans of the two clubs may dislike each other or whatever, what I am saying is that I can't see anything that indicates that the rivalry itself (and not just match reports confirming the two teams played each other) has received anywhere near the level of coverage required by WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. Not every "rivalry" needs its own article (and personally I would suggest a record of around one match every other year indicates that there was not really the frequency of games to warrant a specific article). Have a look at this article. Although not the best article, it contains a number of sources that discuss the rivalry between the two clubs in depth, not just as part of routine match report coverage, these are the sort of sources that this article needs. The matches may have been termed "The Ljubljana Derby" but if sources cannot be shown to have discussed the rivalry in depth then it does not warrant its own article. Fenix down (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I understand that. But there is some backgorund explained and the in-depth rivalry is no less discused or sourced than for many othar Balkans derbies that have articles. The main problem is, that it was on the peak in the fifties (and then early nineties) and that there are no internet sources from back then. There were however old articles in newspapers, when a reporter visited some training camp in Ajdovščina and intervieved players of both teams before the match. Then there were articles in style: "Much debate was going on in Ljubljana, whether who will will win the next Ljubljana derby. Most of them tipped on Olimpija or on the draw, while the home fans...", including managers views etc. So I should find the newspapers article hadlines from that time or how? There was an interwiev with Odred/Olimpija player Berginc, where it said: "Slišal sem za povojne tekme med Odredom in Železničarjem, na katerih se je menda zbralo tudi po 15.000 gledalcev. Toliko ne, kakih 10.000 pa res. Da, veliko rivalstvo je bilo to. Oba ljubljanska kluba sta igrala v drugi jugoslovanski ligi." (I herad for postwqar derbies between Odred and Železničar, on which there was appearently also up to 15.00 spectators? So much not, but 10.000 there was. Yes, a great rivalry was that, both clubs played in Yugoslav Second League), but the former Olimpija webpage along with the link for the interview is dead now. Linhart (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The short answer - yes, you should find the newspaper articles (or any other source) that discussed the derby. Although ones that you mention above thatdiscuss who will win or predict results seem to me to be more WP:ROUTINE journalism about a football match rather than discussions about the histroy and nature of the rivalry. You could try finding a copy of the interview on the Wayback Machine Internet archive, but to be honest an interview with a player playing for one of the two clubs is going to be difficult to use as a reilable source as it is hard to call him objective. If there is genuinely a case for a separate article on the subject then there should be similar sources to this which actually talk about the rivalry itself and are written by people unconnected with either club. Fenix down (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it wasn't just routine work, as this were the only matches thex did that for. The history of the derby was mostly discused statistical, that's true, but again those statistics weren't there for other matches. The nature of derby was mentioned here and there, bourgeoisie vs workers as stated in the article, but the whole article about that...I don't know, slovenian sociology about sport is (and especially was) not that well developed. Even if you chech the other (probably bigger) Eternal derby of Slovenian football (1962–2004) there are mostly statistics and match reports as sources, i see no in-depth derby nature articles. However, I will try to find additional articles about that. So far I added some basic sources... still more than many other articles about derbies from around here have. Linhart (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would be more useful if you could add the references so that there were inline citations, particularly as they are not in English, so it could be seen what elements of the article are supported. As it stands the non-web based references are of little use as there is no indication to what part of the article they refer and to what page/s in the source parts of the article are drawn from. I would still question the validity of an interview on a club website as a reliable source for the rivalry as well. I would have the same opinion about Eternal derby of Slovenian football (1962–2004) and many other derbies which are just stat dumps, but in this discussion WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Fenix down (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable rivalry i.e. one that has received significant coverage in independent souces. Simply "playing lots of matches" isn't good enough. Giant Snowman 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark abegg de boucherville[edit]

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

Subject is a fashion industry entrepreneur and former CEO. Claims that his company dressed Kate Middleton and his relationship are a case of notability ain't inherited. Current sources are a LinkedIn profile and some celebrity website with a comment from someone boldly asserting his relationship status. I found his name mentioned in The Telegraph here, but it's only a passing mention. Recommending deletion per lack of notability per the general notability guideline. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources have been added. This gentleman did dress Kate Middleton for her engagement which is a significant part of British History. Please see new source added. ^[1] He has been mentioned in WWD as well ^[2] Mark is also pictured with her on wire image attending Carine Roitfeld's event in Paris for the Launch of her new magazine CR. ^[3] User:James Percivalz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You've put those links in ref tags so they won't work within the AFD itself but I've extracted them and had a look. I can't see where any of them mention the subject at all, certainly not with regard to the claim that he "dressed" the Duchess of Cambridge (prior to her becoming so). That's the sort of claim that would need very solid sourcing for verification. And obviously the articles would need to at least mention him to possibly be considered significant coverage of him. Stalwart111 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a distinct lack of significant or substantial coverage here. Lots of passing mentions, photos of him at various social events and the usual, "x and y attended z high society party". There are plenty of "socialites" that are notable enough to be covered on WP, but for Mr Abegg de Doucherville, I think this article has jumped the gun. Happy to accept this is a case of WP:TOOSOON but there's not enough, in my view, to meet WP:GNG at this stage. Stalwart111 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can expand this to make it clear he is notable, with referneces and a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2012. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Duval[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. The only claim to notability is the run for Congress she made in 2012, and that was not for a competitive seat and only received token coverage in the media. So, a clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. LtNOWIS (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2012. A redirect to an election page is a common outcome for losing candidates for a national legislature. Any information about the subject can be added to the election page. Enos733 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Everything considered, including the advertisment by the paid entior using this article as an example of their work, deltion as G11 entirely promotional seems the most direct course. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel de Lion[edit]

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

I started pruning this (supposedly it was made by someone writing Wikipedia articles for money) but it's becoming clear to me now that this is nothing but a puff piece for a non-notable person, with disparate parts of the resume pulled in from all over to add up to notability in a failing effort. There's no sources that discusses this subject in any kind of depth: he's not notable as a musician, a producer, a multi-media industrialist, or a protestor. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree - no notability, just a few passing industry and PR mentions.--Korruski^Talk 11:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Birds[edit]

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

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

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

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

Purported baseball rivalry with no reliable sources attesting to such a rivalry. PROD was contested. Whpq (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though its not as attractive and well documented as Yankees-Red Sox or Giants-Dodgers, these teams do play eachother, especially given the Orioles and Blue Jays both at in the AL East. The two teams have played hundreds of games between eachother, so I feel it should be kept. 174.236.104.166 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also the three teams will be playing interleague games between eachother, so this rivalry is not as trivial as you think.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a three-way rivalry where (according to the article), "the only real history is between the Orioles and the Cardinals". The article contradicts its own premise. As for coverage, there are a handful of passing mentions in various ESPN blogs and articles but nothing rising to the level of "significant coverage". Interestingly, there are other references to "Battle[s] of the Birds" in various sporting contexts - basically wherever a "bird team" plays another. Stalwart111 03:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because these teams occasionally play each other doesn't make it a rivalry.. Article has no sources, and a google search doesnt turn up anything on this term "Battle of the Birds" as relating to these three teams. Article, what there is of it, is entirely original research. Spanneraol (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and original research. jni (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it look like the article doesn't stand a chance. I've started a discussion on the tAlk:Major League Baseball rivalries page to discuss how to handle this in peace. Zoozle102 (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given an informal talk page discussion is unlikely to trump a formal AFD, you're probably best having that discussion here. I, for one, would be happy to discuss it with you in greater detail. For a start, I can certainly accept that the concept isn't something you made up one day, but we still need more than a handful of passing mentions to establish notability. Stalwart111 10:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems interesting. Have there been any notable games between the Os and Jays? 15:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC) 174.255.113.170 (talk)
- Comment - What reliable sources have documented this rivalry. There's a lot of books written about baseball. I was unable to find a single one that even mentioned this rivalry. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - maybe we can improve the article and make it notable. Just find a couple of good sources. 174.255.113.170 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've already looked and found none. I would not have submitted this for deletion if I were able to find sources. Are you able to provide any? -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of notable players, we have Pat Hentgen who played for all three teams. Not much to go on but this could be a start. 208.54.87.167 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of players have played for multiple teams... that doesn't make the teams rivals and it doesnt make this term meaningful. Spanneraol (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need are sources which cover the rivalry in signficant detail. Providing Pat Hentgen's stats just proves that Hentgen pitched for the Jays, Cardinals, and Orioles. It makes no statements about any rivalry. To pick an obvious example, you can find plenty of significant coverage about the Yankees vs. Red Sox rivalry. In fact, entire books are devoted to it. We don't need entire books to establish notability, but it must be something more than passing mentions and blogs. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orioles/Jays is one of the lesser AL East rivalries, while O's/Cardinals hasn't really happened; the Orioles pretty much downplay their history as the St. Louis Browns and that 'rivalry' is mainly notable as a nostalgic curiosity for older fans and history buffs, while Jays/Cardinals is about as routine a interleague series as you can get, interesting for a bit, but like a Marlins/Royals series, nobody but the teams and local fans really care about that one. Not really much here but WP:OR. Nate • (chatter) 20:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Major League Baseball rivalries. Article seems too trivial to have its own page. 174.226.128.161 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What sources exists to even show that a rivalry exists to justify a merge? -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Humorous Keep. Some editors take this notability stuff too seriously. The page is clearly harmless and besides, there are many obscure people that have survived this deletion forum. The rivalry exists because the clubs are birds of a different feather. 64.134.242.172 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what do you think about writing about the Red Sox-White Sox rivalry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.242.172 (talk)

I'm starting to think that all these IP users who keep commenting are the same person.Spanneraol (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, which is why I added the template at the top. Doesn't matter, though, because none of them are making policy-based arguments and AFD is determined by consensus and strength of argument, not a vote-count. So he/she/they are wasting their time. Stalwart111 00:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how about this game? 67.217.136.210 (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What of it? -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you want sources right? if we find enough mlb coverge in the matchups it should be okay. MLB.com is a reliable source. 67.217.136.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just random articles about random games involving two of the three teams. We need significant coverage of the rivalry itself - it's origins, history, social and cultural impact, etc. Links to rutine coverage of regular games is fairly pointless. Stalwart111 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:MADEUP. Although the term is often used when the mentioned teams play each other or are otherwise compared (see [6], [7], [8]) but there is no longstanding, notable rivalry as claimed by the article. The term has also been used to describe games in Australian rules football ([9]) and rugby ([10]). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhat does the source above have to do with a rivalry? The person who made this article is trying to make excuses why this is a "rivalry".Clecol99 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources seem to support the notion that any such rivalries exist, or that the title term is used to indicate any such rivalry. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. In sports a battle of the birds refers to a match between two teams named after birds. In the NFL this can refer to a game between the Ravens, Seahwaks, Eagles and Falcons. In the NBA you have the Pelicans and Hawks. 70.208.67.58 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The phrase is indeed used as pointed above in another comment. But is there anything more than a dictionary definition? Sport journalists like to add a bit of colorful language, but this phrase does not represent anat actual topic with significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not actual rivalries recognized by any major reliable sources. Just because teams play each other does not make them rivals. Besides, "battles of the birds" would merit just as much notability as an "Indian Rivalry" (Braves vs. Indians?). Zappa O Mati 01:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 174.226.64.91 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the article was edited in the meantime is not a valid relisting rationale in the face of fairly overwhelming consensus. I've asked that this AFD be closed. Stalwart111 14:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced Original research. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reminds me of topical collecting of postage stamps... Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW, no need to leave this open a full week. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cerys Cooksammy-Parnell[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. If Cooksammy-Parnell receives coverage for more than her performance in a single IQ test she may become notable, but she isn't yet. Huon (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to some suitable list article (List of children with tested IQ over NNN% or List of children recognized for extreme intelligence?). Essentially for me this breaches the spirit of WP:NOT –specifically WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. It also probably goes against BLP1E and protection of minors where there is doubt. Essentially this article's existence asserts that "being a precociously bright child" without anything else, would make anyone inherently notable, since one must presume the same arguments could be made of any child of the same IQ, and only by chance is it this child and their childhood wishes for their future career which gained attention and not some other of similar mental prowess. By themselves, and lacking other evidence of anything, its just asserting that every child with IQ >XYZ is inherently notable if they get transient wide human interest coverage in the news, and I don't agree. (Similar reasons explain why a high profile crime witness who got lots of coverage because they were "the witness noticed by the news", is not normally considered notable however much coverage: see WP:BLP1E)). I'd rather see a redirect to a suitable list article, then those where it isn't RECENTISM and isn't just transient attention, can be developed into full articles independently. But so far there is no evidence this will not just be brief transient attention, like many events and topics in the news (WP:NOT#NEWS). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree; delete (or redirect, whichever), but don't keep as an independent article. DS (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect but no separate article. WP:BLP1E. jni (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E, meets all three points. I hope she skips the finance and politics. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We must be very cautious indeed when creating BLPs for minors. This is a clear case of a single event, the result of a test which proportionately few children take at that age, the results of which are usually confidential, and which is not necessarily predictive of her future. She would be very unlikely to thank us later for letting this stay. I wish her well, hope that she can be encouraged to delight in the world, and that she can find suitable outlets for her talents, like editing Wikipedia. --AJHingston (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One event. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've asked at this point for an uninvolved admin to consider - exceptionally - whether early closure is sensible here. due to apparent lack of dissent and sensitivity of a minor's BLP. See WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FCerys_Cooksammy-Parnell FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note: the above request has been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_7#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FCerys_Cooksammy-Parnell. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Clearly NN as yet. Perhaps she will be notable in 10-15 years, but not now. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 17 September 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 and redirected by the nominator. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Audio Footage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The album is unreleased and from very early in their careers, so there is no real lasting significance to pass WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I saw that the last AfD closed as a merge, which was done. Since nothing has changed since then I restored the redirect. If someone close close this now I would appreciate it. STATic message me! 00:44, 17 September 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 (non-admin closure). Please instead file a proposed move. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Stadium[edit]

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

Move turned out to be contraversial. Many Cowboy fans are upset. Should we delete the move.

Name is too similar to SF Giants Park.

Sorry if you're offended but we need to discuss this. Zoozle102 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 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 September 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cleaning up a problem page move is more a job for WP:Requested moves than AfD. Anyhow, JonRidinger (talk · contribs) has tagged the relevant article and redirects for speedy admin action. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 September 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, unsourced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jitender Chaudhary[edit]

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

Even if the information in this article is true (there are no sources), this person is not notable as they are the "president" of a tiny part of a much larger organisation, which itself is somewhat notable. Even the national vice president doesnt have an article, and this guy is like 4 or 5 levels below that. Benboy00 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantail coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage by independent, reliable sources. No reason to keep ministub as just mentioning him in the relavant orgazations article is sufficient. jni (talk) 06:18, 17 September 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.