< 21 September	23 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goumpologo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Goumpologo

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

Non-notable town with almost nothing by way of third party sources and fails to meet WP:GNG. Asauers (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be one of two WP:POINTY AfDs this user has started, because his/her own article is up for discussion. This has also not been transluded properly.Martin451 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was not included in list of AfDs until 27hours after nomination.Martin451 (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a verified settlement, which by long-standing AfD precedent makes it notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verified town. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to suspect that theses sources are not solid. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 23:22, 27 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). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coroners Act 2006[edit]

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

Delete - Article has no sources and fails to meet WP:GNG. Asauers (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 23:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. gadfium 23:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly meets GNG. Also obviously has sources, though they are not inline. A search for "coroners act 2006 -wiki -govt" produces 330,000 hits. Dubious nomination for Afd. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The editor who nominated this is also involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRANSFER Act of 2013 (which seems to be a Bill rather than an Act unless teminology differs in the US), could this be a case of Wikipedia:POINTY? Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also point out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goumpologo. Martin451 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, essentially per quite aptly put rationale by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important bill that has become law.Martin451 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important work. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anything that looks like a code is inherently notable if verifiable. James500 (talk) 04:43, 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 merge to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Webster[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character from CSI. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not really appropriate for a separate article, but the information should be retained and a redirect made. There's no reason given against merging or redirection. Notability is not required for content, just for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent article or delete. Either is acceptable. Does not seem independently notable, and the lack of references in the article doesn't help any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 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 withdrawn. WP:HEY. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhila Adatia-Sood[edit]

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

This is an otherwise non-notable person who was murdered. No GNews hits from before today and no book hits either. Basically, it's a WP:ONEEVENT. PROD removed by IP without a legit reason. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of sources as "Ruhila Adatia". She recently married. Abductive (reasoning) 00:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not finding many reliable ones, even with that name. Which ones are there that are significant coverage? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable ones from Africa are hard to identify. Nevertheless they are there. One trick is to do a Google Image search; non-notable people don't have so many pictures. I'm sorry you made this bad nomination. You should withdraw it instead of causing disharmony and rancor over a dead girl. Abductive (reasoning) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those go to blogs and the ones that don't go to unsubstantial coverage. Instead of telling me that I made a bad nomination, you should assume good faith and help. Your attitude is not going to improve the article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds rancorous. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person needs to be notable for something other than her death. For example, was she a major media figure in the country, or nationally syndicated? Otherwise I tend to agree, this is a WP:ONEEVENT and should be deleted. I did a custom Google search for any mention of her pre-Sept 10, 2013 and I didn't find anything that really establishes notability. Simply having pictures online does not establish notability, nor does simply being a journalist or radio host. Coinmanj (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in response to Coinmanj, yes she was a major media figure in Kenya. It's hard to find many sources on local African celebrities like her given how internet usage in places like Kenya is still limited relative to fully industrialized countries. All the articles on her death clearly indicate her importance in local news, and there was a newspaper article last year about her marriage. These articles all describe her as a well-known media figure. This is a lengthy interview with her in a major Kenyan newspaper. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does seem like she was a media personality on a par with some of the lesser British and US "celebs". I tend to cut non-English-speaking countries a bit of slack in this respect, because I agree with Lemurbaby. On the other hand, I would say to User:Taylor Trescott that I don't think there is such a thing as a "bad" nomination as long as it's made in good faith. Over the years I've made many deletion nominations that have failed, and I don't run with the group who think in terms of "success rates". Deb (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with the above users. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that a notable Kenyan celebrity should have her article expanded, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyzex (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was the media celebrity in her country of origin...Zboralski (talk) 18:51, 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 List of Decepticons. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straxus[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be another case of "one man's cruft is another man's important matter". Many people are fans of the Transformers scenarios. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a rational to have hundreds of articles that cannot even satisfy WP:N, let alone other relevant guidelines. I would think most people that care would use Wikia anyway. It allows for more information and images than here, so it would be more relevant to both those interested in the fiction and the toylines. TTN (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (perhaps smerge) to List of Decepticons, where the subject is mentioned. Gong show 23:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Character is not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glamourbomb[edit]

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

Non-notable concept/original research. This article, despite existing since 2005, has almost zero reliable sources. I searched and could find almost nothing: only a handful of mentions in books, mostly unrelated to this use, and nothing to suggest it meets the notability guidelines. The article has been tagged for notability issues since 2010 without any significant improvement. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be popular in blogs and other self-published sources, but I don't see any notability stemming from reliable sources. I don't think the article can ever be verifiable. It could also be merged into chaos magic, I suppose. There are also elements of culture jamming and postmodernism, but I don't really see how it could easily be merged into those articles. If someone wanted to try, they're welcome to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have run some searches, can't find any published sources, however this seems to be a real phrase discussed and used. It gets 167,000 hits on google so clearly its a real term worthy of note.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. I suggest going through some of those search results. They are unconnected to the usage here. Also see WP:NEO: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources describing it from an independent perspective. Apparently a term with several meanings, it's a good candidate for Wiktionary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Looks like wikipedia is driving this usage rather than there reverse, see [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 26 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. Withdrawn, and cold showers taken all around. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is It Really Better Than Sex? Cake[edit]

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

It's not, and it's also not notable enough to pass the GNG one way or another. The claims in the article are highly inflated, and as it turns out it's nothing but a Paula Deen-endorsed vehicle designed to kill and maim. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources including coverage on Paula Deen's cooking show. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any evidence of it. (And being mentioned on Deen's show is not very significant.) Drmies (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try a Google News search? Loads of results. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sort of unsure about how to go about notability purposes for food items since most of the time the foodstuffs will be predominantly discussed as flat out recipes. However, I've found several newspapers posting recipes as far back as the 80s, through the 90s, up to current times. I also see where it's mentioned in several, several cookbooks and diet books such as this one. I was going to suggest a merge and redirect to upsidedown cakes, but it appears that many of the recipes don't actually require pineapple specifically and it's not exactly an upsidedown cake in how it's made and served. It's not always turned upsidedown as many recipes call for it to be served inside of the pan, which is pretty much the opposite of "upside down". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn with thanks to Tokyogirl. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who All Over The Place USA[edit]

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

Article based on a single two minute sketch within another show. Lacks any specific or general notability. No references provided and very little available. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been 100s if not 1000s of these throughout the shows history. At least one of them even had the current Doctor appear in the sketch (David Tennent in an episode of Extras.) They do not merit their own article nor are they part of the shows continuity. MarnetteD | Talk 23:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing on this sketch. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a single sketch of not much note to have its own page.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- presumably a 2-minute spin-off or parody of the notable Doctor Who. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE I made this page. I will put it in its own section on the name of the doctor DON'T REMOVE FROM THERE PLEASE!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.13.50 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First this item does not belong on the article for "The Name of the Doctor" as one off sketches like this are not part of the Doctor Who continuity. Next, if you are the editor Rookiepedia it would be a good idea to do your editing from that account. Now I must say that is not a requirement but it does help avoid confusion. Last, in creating new articles it is advisible that you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Starting an article and WP:NOTABILITY as well as the Manual of Style for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television MarnetteD | Talk 15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, no independent indication of notability, not a valid search term. IP, read WP:PLEASEDONT. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It might be suitable for mention in an article on spoofs if it can be referenced and notability proved, but not for an article in its own right. Rankersbo (talk) 12:18, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Hussain Khan[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted. The awards claimed as notability are normal memberships in professional organizations and professional certifications. The Geological Society, for example has 2000 fellows of whom 700 are "Chartered Geologists"

There are currently 1114 "European Geologist title holders" DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a lot more than zero external sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Membership of a professional organisation does not make one notable. The title charted geologist can be bought as mentioned in an AFD for Veli Albert Kallio. The letters EurGeol just mean he has had a peer reviewed exam, and pays an annual fee, nothing special, it is just to raise funds.Martin451 (talk) 02:20, 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. No prejudice towards redirection to a suitable target. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus Locklear[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexus Locklear. The article should probably be expanded, though. Nymf(talk) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. MichaelQSchmidt's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexus Locklear is amongst the most obviously flawed rationale I have seen at AFD! WP:ENT does not apply to this individual as she is not one of the following "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities" but a pornstar! so WP: PORNSTAR. ie Pornbio applies. Finnegas (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Excuse me for addressing your attack, but my argument was not flawed per the guidelines as existed four years ago. Personally, I think Wikipedia would be far better off to censor itself and remove article on ALL porn topics, but your own argument that someone who is an actor should not be consider for their acting is itself flawed. Acting IS acting... no matter the choice of medium... and despite any personal opinion toward that medium. And it is rare the any minor SNG would overule the parent notability guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this time (sorry Nymf)... as possible sources toward article improvement have themselves been found inappropriate. Being unsouracble per revised standards, it is pretty much as if this person does not exist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Side note: Finnegas, if you don't like pornography, it might be best if you stay away from these kinds of discussions because it makes it difficult for you to be objective. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erpert, stop casting aspersions on editors whose positions you disagree with. You've been warned about this, over and over, by multiple editors, and your refusal to stop these NPA/CIVIL/AGF violations is disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only independent two sources are nothing but passing mentions. Not even the birth date is reliably sourced. Nothing useable here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's and FPAS's arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naan Evarukkum Aattathavan[edit]

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

no sources for this film that is supposed to start in October with a release date next year some time, Prod was removed GB fan 15:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a mess. No sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. There is a lot of sockpuppetry going on with the article and related articles, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for now for being TOO SOON. Definitely written by an editor unfamiliar with MOS:FILM, it is purported that audio will have a release later in 2013 and that the film will begin production in 2014. It is strange that the article shares a film length for an unmade film. Until we have sources speaking about this project, it fails WP:NF and sub-guideline WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A complete mess of an article. If this article's subject is notable enough, it would be rewritten after its deletion by someone competent on the topic AND Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, no loss in deleting this. Ithinkicahn (talk) 14:08, 28 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. WP:SNOW, if not speedy of some kind. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 25 promising youngsters of TamilNadu 2013[edit]

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

Apparent original research. List article with vague inclusion criteria, not conforming to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Previously A7 speedied at Top 25 Promising Youngsters Of Tamil Nadu 2013. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, unreferenced, incomplete, pointless. PK T(alk) 15:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an example of WP:OR at it best. Salih (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is a combined WP:CSD#A7. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:47, 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 Withdrawn. GB fan 16:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Clans[edit]

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

In my searches I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article. There are currently 7 sources on the article. #1 mentions CoC once but is about online predators and says that CoC can be used by them in the one mention in the article. #2 does not look like a reliable source and once again mentions CoC but is not what the page is about. #3 is a forum post, not a reliable source. #4 once again is not about CoC but uses it as an example for what it is talking about. #5 again uses CoC as an example for something else, not a discussion of CoC. #6 is about Supercell, the producer of the game with mentions of CoC. #7 says that CoC is worth downloading. None of this provides significant coverage in multiple sources. A redirect to Supercell (video game company) would be appropriate. GB fan 13:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at Google News results? Any comments about all the media coverage of the game including, quite recently, a possible Android launch? And this isn't even an archives search where even more results come up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I did look at that and do not see anything that supports this article. That it "might" come to android or that the Supercell is "mulling" over a move to android does not make it notable. GB fan 15:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't what's relevant here the extent of coverage in reliable independent sources? That the parent company is considering and IPO and that the game may come out in Andriod are getting covered a lot as this is one of the most successfull games of a hugely successful recent startup iOS game maker. The extent of the editing on the article also indicates just how popular it is, anecdotally. But again, isn't all the coverage it's getting what establishes that it is notable and merits inclusion? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is important is the extent of the coverage of this game in reliable sources that discuss the game. If Supercell has an IPO that would speak to the notability of Supercell, not this game. That Supercell might bring the game to android does not speak to the notability of the game, even being released on Android does not say the game is notable. How much editing speaks to the popularity not the notability of the game so it means nothing in this discussion. What coverage is there of this game? GB fan 15:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Supercell is considering an IPO but has only released two games, one of them Clash of Clans, speaks for itself. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 01:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Highly successful game, as reported on in numerous reliable sources.[4][5][6]. Even I know about it, and I don't have a smartphone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - are you serious? This game was once the highest grossing iOS app (until Candy Crush Saga came along). A simple GNews search comes up with more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NVG. The last section seems a bit WP:COATRACKish and can be removed, but the game by itself passes WP:N by a mile. Ansh6 6 6 03:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple google news source that there's enough coverage in RS to support this (particularly in light of being one of the highest grossing apps). --MASEM (t) 15:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google brings up dozens of reliable sources, and it has received sufficient coverage, as it is one of the top selling games on iOS. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 16:18, 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 keep. No prejudice towards a page move. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ersatz[edit]

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

Procedural relisting of previous unlisted nomination; no opinion on it myself. Original rationale from Mtmoore321 was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc - an adjective belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of wartime substitution is notable — see Ersatz in the Confederacy, for example. And notice that, in that title, the word is used as a noun. Words are flexible like that and so such ideas about grammar are not a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Not the greatest nomination - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Edit: or merge per Diego Moya - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As currently written, the article does look like a dictionary definition, which is probably what attracted the notice of Mtmoore321. But, the section "Historical context" as well as the source suggested by Colonel Warden, above, show that there is a concept here to be written about. Keep the article, but clean it up. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with substitute good per WP:NOPAGE. It's essentially the same concept, and describing the English and German words for it would provide better context in the target article. Diego (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a pretty good option too - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not just a definition. It shows examples of this concept being used at various times in history. Quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 10:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking like a Keep. Can it at least be moved to ersatz good as then it would be consistent with substitute good and it would be a noun rather than an adjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtmoore321 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, with a redirect - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 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. by Jimfbleak CSD A7. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Rehmatullah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. VIAF listed in the article is assigned to "Aḥmad, ʻUmairah", not the subject. The only hit I got on Google Books was a dedication to an individual with a matching name. Also, the only ref is this BLP is about a conference the subject attended, not the subject. Ish dar ian 12:45, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Contrived[edit]

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

Book not yet published, no Google hits, author not on Amazon, WP:N, WP:FUTURE —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not this is a self-published book or something run through a publisher is somewhat irrelevant, although my reason for pointing this out is because the complete and total lack of Google hits of any sort (other than links to the WP page) hints quite heavily that it's SP. Publishers typically try to have the book listed as early as possible to drum up sales, at least publishers worth their salt would. In any case, there's absolutely nothing out there to show that this book passes or will pass notability guidelines in the near future. If it ever gets enough coverage to pass GNG then it can be re-added, but the sad fact is that the vast majority of books out there DON'T pass notability guidelines and that's even if you're counting the ones that are published by the mainstream publishers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no information on this book or author anywhere. The contrived. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:15, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tipton blue devils[edit]

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet any notability criteria that I'm aware of. PK T(alk) 15:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typically non-notable high school sports team. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. ~~This would be worth a mention at Tipton High School (Indiana) if sourced~~, but the school article doesn't exist yet. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On closer inspection, I find no encyclopedic content worth merging to a school article. This is just a season report for a high school football team. No significant non-routine coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no encyclopedic content here that is notable and could be either kept or merged to a school article in the future. T C N7JM 03:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete high school football programs typically are not notable and I can see no reason to make an exception for this particular program. Does not meet the notability standards for inclusion in this particular encyclopedia. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:40, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostron[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman 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) 15:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge Not really appropriate for a separate article, but the information should be retained and a redirect made. There's no reason given against merging or redirection. Notability is not required for content, just for a separate article. The form nomination used here does not address these issues, here or in the multiple other occurrences. As usual, I still cannot understand "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary" -- assuming that something sensible is intended, it might mean there is little likelihood for further growth in the article. I don;t see how one can really tell it, but once merged, it can always be re-expanded if the information warrants it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Content may not need to be notable, but it must be encyclopedic. WP:ATD allows for the deletion of non-notable articles, and this topic is neither sourced nor notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 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 merge to World of Eberron. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khorvaire[edit]

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

This fictional continent does not establish notability independent of Eberron 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) 09:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into World of Eberron. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some gamer site that loves this kind of cruft. As for Wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage about the topic by reliable independent sources, and so the options are merge, redirect or delete. Merging primary sourced content to the suggested target article which is already bloated and uses only with primary sources itself would be like shoveling shit from one corner of the stall to the other. It seems like a plausible search term (if Eberron is still one of the actively sourced campaign worlds?) - so redirect is probably the best move. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember "cruft" is not a reason for deletion per WP:NOCRUFT and referring to things as such is uncivil. Web Warlock (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

calling a spade a spade is not uncivil. and while calling something "cruft" alone is not reason for deletion, cruft+policy is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge into World of Eberron. Lacks notability and third party, secondary sources. A redirect/merge is preferable, but deletion is also acceptable. The lack of independent secondary sources will prevent this from overcoming its origins as in-universe plot summary, but it is a major element of the parent article. A very selective merge may recover some plot elements that will not overwhelm the parent with WP:UNDUE coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and the Australian federal election, 2013[edit]

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

An exceptionally minor (basically non-existent) point in the election campaign; total trivia. Basically a random collection of largely unrelated facts drawn together by a tenuous common thread. Frickeg (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - "largely unrelated facts drawn together by a tenuous common thread" is spot on. St Anselm (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly created in good faith, but as this wasn't an important aspect of the election it's not a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably the most telling sentence in the article is the final one in the first paragraph of the lead - "During the election, there was little debate between the major parties over sport policies." So no need for an article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete as all of above. Using synthesis to try to invent a notable topic out of routine announcements such as stadium upgrades and somehow listing announcements during an electoral term."During the period of the Gillard Government (2010-2013), there were several Parliament of Australia inquiries into current sport issues". Listing sportspeople as politicians does not relate to government or opposition policy on sport. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article content does not disclose sufficient grounds for notability. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close per every contribution above. Timeshift (talk) 06:44, 28 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio (rapper)[edit]

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

Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 02:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His body of work is minimal, as is the coverage in reliable sources. Found this interview. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 27 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Great American Adventure[edit]

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

Only affiliated sources; fails WP:N. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The mural exists[7] but I'm not finding any proof of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 27 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Buczek[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:N for academics, authors or businessman. Google search does show he has published some articles in Polish edition of Forbes magazine ([8]), but I think that's about as notable as he gets... and I don't think that cuts it as a journalist/essayist. Given this is the author's first and only contribution (Lech.gladek (talk · contribs)), there's probably some mundane COI floating around, too._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing notability, just a competent professional.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:59, 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln Commission on Study Abroad[edit]

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

Non-notable commission suggested by two Senators. Never passed out of the Senate, much less signed into law. Caffeyw (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Caffeyw. I would argue that, while not particularly notable as a bill, the concepts introduced by the Lincoln Commission changed the entire industry & approach to Study Abroad, catalyzing a shift in focus from Study Abroad as an industry that creates romantic multicultural experiences for students in Western Europe, to a sense that the industry was part of a larger effort to maintain American competitiveness in the global labor market. The two major University-independent players in the industry--Arcadia and IFSA--were inspired to form the Alliance for Global Education, whose emphasis was on sending students to China and India, previously underrepresented low-to-no-traffic areas, in terms of Study Abroad opportunities by this commission. The Alliance, in its turn, inspired a multitude of copycat programs. Since this shift effected the lives of thousands of people who subsequently studied abroad in China and India, and since the bill is likely to become the prototype for future legislation, I think it is worthy of inclusion. I can see your point about the bill's relative obscurity at one level. Can you see mine? It didn't end up changing the law, but it changed the discussion. Does that make sense?ThomasMikael (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Was mentioned in this book and at least three scholarly articles, and was written up in the New York Times and this Associated Press article. Was also described as "influential" by USA Today. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Cerebellum that there are sufficient sources for notability -- the NYT especially. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've included the New York Times reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMikael (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 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 Sam Phillips (musician). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotists in Paris[edit]

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

Non-notable digital EP series Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a series of EPs. NPR did a show on the series, so perhaps a new article that discusses all of the articles is in order, but only if RSes can be found for that, but individually, these are not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The EPs don't appear to be notable, but I think it doesn't to redirect all these articles to Sam Phillips. 和DITOR E tails 00:10, 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 Transformers: Beast Wars. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axalon[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Beast Wars 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) 16:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beast Wars. Not notable enough for its own article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beast Wars. Agree....not notableDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:02, 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 Withdrawn - IMO it should be gone but consensus was to keep it, Clearly I should think before nominating (especially per WP:IDONTLIKEIT which I think was the case). -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus stations in Wales[edit]

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

Unsourced list fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GNG -Davey2010T 03:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite easy to prove these bus stations (generally large, notable transport hubs) exist. However, I'm not sure where the proof is of the size of the bus stations and maybe they should be listed alphabetically instead of by size. There are clean up issues and questions to address about what to include and what to remove, but no reason for deletion in principle. Sionk (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would easier to create an article for each one instead having a list tho?, There's no encyclopedic content here whatsoever, Plus If I needed the "Number of stands" and "Primary Destinations" my first call would be google .... not wp, ~~Also Please don't change content whilst an AfD is ongoing!~~. Thanks! -→Davey2010Talk 13:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article can be improved/edited while the AfD is ongoing! That's often one of the outcomes of AfD. And it is simply lazy/disruptive to revert all changes wholesale, regardless of their perceived merit. Sionk (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I thought they couldn't, In that case I apologize for the revert, Davey2010Talk 15:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we didn't resort to a punch up ;) Sionk (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha so am I :) Davey2010Talk 17:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 21:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 21:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T21:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:LISTPURP as index of articles, complementary to Category:Bus stations in Wales per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have the category so therefore this article is a unencyclopedic duplication & ultimately not needed .... Also it fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE ....Davey2010 T22:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:CLN expressly says at WP:NOTDUP that duplication of a category is not a reason for deleting a list (and I think your assertion to the contrary indicates you should actually take the time to read CLN before responding to a comment that cites it), not to mention the fact that the list obviously has far more information than the category and so is not merely duplicative anyway (and obviously could not be "unencyclopedic" if the category is not). Also, see WP:VAGUEWAVE re: the last two acronyms you've repeated without explanation. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have the category, only roughly a third of the bus stations have their own article, so this list is not a duplication.Martin451 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true it does have more info but not much at all.... It's only informative to those wanting to catch a bus .... We may aswell include real time information on when next bus is due too .., Can be built and maintained by editing a single page- Prior to Sionk updating it & 2 edits before It wasn't maintained since 2011, If each station were notable they'd have there own article? (which some do i know) (As a side note I was trying to prove a point adding notdir but was just repetitive so apologies for that.) Davey2010T 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Postdlf and Sionk above. WP:NOTDIR applies to "indiscriminate" collection of information. This list, specifically of bus stations in Wales, is very discriminate. Frequently I find editors apply WP:NOTDIR to all lists simply because they look like a "directory." --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in some respects it is a directory ..... But that aside this list has no historic / informative infomation whatsoever & as I said above We may aswell include real time information on when next bus is due too. Davey2010T 07:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no good reason to delete this list. It's not of bus stops; it's of bus stations. Since we have actual articles on every railway station, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a list of bus stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 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 merge to Greyhawk. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasserine[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Greyhawk 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) 16:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greyhawk. Not independently notable and more suited by Wikia. I don't see how a well-sourced article could be written on this topic without resorting entirely to in-universe writing from primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that loves this type of trivia. as for wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG and so should be deleted or if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target, merge. however, there being so little content that is sourced, merging bad content to create another bad article is not really helpful to the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to The Shackled City Adventure Path. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not really appropriate for a separate article, but the information should be retained and a redirect made. There's no reason given against merging or redirection. Notability is not required for content, just for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 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 redirect to List of bus stations in Wales. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gorseinon bus station[edit]

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

Non notable bus station, fails GNG -Davey2010T 03:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus stations in Wales (assuming that list isn't deleted). There is probably enough (in the form of mentions in local council documents) to prove the location exists, but not enough to write a meaningful article at present. Judging by online photos it comprises only of a lay-by and two bus shelters. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 21:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T] 21:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the transport section of Gorseinon. Nothing here to make a worthwhile article.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 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 redirect to List of bus stations in Wales. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neath bus station[edit]

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

Non notable bus station, fails GNG -Davey2010T 03:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus stations in Wales (assuming that list isn't deleted). Judging by online photos it seems to be a significantly sized transport hub, but I can't see anything at all online to support a meaningful article. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 21:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 21:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the transport section of Neath which already has more about it than this article. Not notable for its own page.--Charles (talk) 21:48, 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 speedy delete by User:RHaworth (G11, A7). Gong show 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPAGGOI The Musical[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this musical now in production. JNW (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the accuracy of this article, as I am Gregor Reid, composer of the work. I wrote this article, jointly, with Kieran McMath, who (as stated) is a writer and producer of the show. We have provided ample evidence (using the event booking page as a source) to show that the musical will be put into production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunsetRules (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until notability can not be established via WP:RELIABLE sources, accuracy is beside the point. WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION are relevant here. JNW (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you don't get more reliable and accurate than the person who wrote the majority of the work that this article concerns. Deleting this article is unnecessary. You wouldn't ask Steven Sondheim for references about Sweeney Todd. User.SunsetRules — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunsetRules (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith, that your purpose in editing Wikipedia is not solely to promote your production. No sadness would be necessary if WP:RELIABLE sources can be produced that establish WP:NOTABILITY for the musical (seems like I've already said that); likewise, any evidence that the writer and composer of the work are as well recognized as Steven Sondheim will be welcome. WP:ITEXISTS. JNW (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset, notability is established by reliable secondary sources such as news articles and coverage on TV. Anything by the work's creator, its stage crew, or anyone that is directly involved with the production or its creator would be seen as a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources cannot show notability to where an article can be kept. Even if you were to say that the production won an overwhelmingly notable award, we would still need to verify that by way of a secondary source, such as Playbill or the like. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is ultimately not notable at this point in time and the article is borderline promotional in nature. The thing about notability is that it can only be shown by coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Anything that is published by the musical's creator, crew, venue, etc cannot show notability, and at this point that's all that we have. I've nominated it for a speedy, more because this is one of those articles that doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting kept because it hasn't received a lick of coverage anywhere. It'd save more time to speedy it as promotional and a non-notable event than to go through an entire AfD week. When it gets released if it gets coverage then it can get re-created, but not before then. I'd probably recommend going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre rather than creating it yourself in order to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 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 delete

Rampada[edit]

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

Non-notable local "live" dance competition show. Only two episode created. Currently referenced to Broadcast channel's website. Note article is clear COI as it's been created by a company account Mbsentertainmnettv Caffeyw (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could even be speedied IMO, A7 Event perhaps. No indication of notability. Peridon (talk) 15:07, 15 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, KTC (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. - Whpq (talk) 16:29, 27 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) 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity label[edit]

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

The opening of the article invites comparison with the term Vanity press, but the use thereof is quite different. New writers pay for their work to be published by such firms because they have failed to be published by reputable companies who carry the costs of doing so themselves in the expectation of a financial return, and pay the author. The record companies listed were founded mostly by very successful musicians whose commercial worth was by then well established. The article currently has just two citations, and a request for additional references was added nearly six years ago. One of the citations is now a broken link, while the other scarcely lists any of the examples given. While this article is not a complete fabrication, a check of the first 50 or so Google results uncovered articles from the New York Times and the tabloid (non-RS) New York Daily News which use the term, its notability looks questionable. Philip Cross (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The associated category came up for discussion six years ago. The result then was Keep under that name, but the rather better 'Category:Artist-run labels' was rejected. Clearly if the article was renamed to a similar form, and the introduction rewritten, the validity of the piece being on Wikipedia could be easily established. This looks like I am changing my mind in making 'Vanity label' an AfD, but the article under the present name does not have credibility for reasons outlined earlier. Philip Cross (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: The vanity label concept is notable. May have to dig more for best sourcing since the term is used so often in passing, but they are out there.[9][10][11]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve (or should that be improve and keep?): important concept in phonograph record collecting. Starting with the Tetrazinni label produced by Zonophone, and then the Melba and Patti labels by Victor, and then the Paul Whiteman and Ted Lewis labels made by Columbia, the self-produced Miltone/Roy Milton label, and on and on, this has a long, notable history. I can (and will) help re-write the early history (including sources). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes a lot of material and is referenced as "vanity label" by the New York Times. Holdek (talk) 13:52, 29 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.