< 23 September	25 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chelle Cordero[edit]

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

Questioning the existence of this article on Wikipedia due to the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines.

This person is an author who is published with only one small press that is itself not noteworthy. The stub bio mentions things that are also not noteworthy, such such as the author being a Pushcart Prize nominee--while the Pushcart Prize is indeed noteworthy, a nomination for the prize isn't. Any publisher can nominated up to six authors per year, with no entry fees or application. Currently, her small-press publisher only HAS seven authors listed, so nominating six authors isn't hard to do. None of the other 'awards' are notable either, many of them simply being non-notable bloggers who do little 'contests' to help promote their blogs and their fellow author friends. I don't believe being published by one small press and never winning any major, notable literary award or having ever received a sizable publishing deal with an advance qualifies one for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Additionally, the only source/citation for this entry is a link to the publisher itself, and that makes this appear more like an attempt to promote the author and publisher than a legitimate page on Wikipedia for information, but even if that weren't important, this stub fails to meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 basic guideline on notoriety that reads: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Under the "Creative Professionals", this author fails to meet any of the four criteria for authors.

With the movement of 'indie authors' proliferating the internet, if Wikipedia doesn't maintain its usual high standards in vetting inclusion, every indie author who publishes is going to think just having a book warrants inclusion, and we'll start to see them spouting off notability citations to include being A #1 Top Amazon Best Selling author in the zoology peanut butter category. Thank you for consideration.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LilahHard (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:AUTHOR #3, no book reviews in multiple reliable sources. Furthermore most of her honors are non-notable. The exception being Pushcart Prize but it was a nominee not winner. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage about this author or her books. - Whpq (talk) 16:10, 30 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FriesenPress[edit]

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

Non-notable self publishing company (WP:GNG/WP:OR fail) i.e no sources. Looks a lot like an advertisement .... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. There seems to be a fair number of books published by this company, but the few reliable sources I find that mention FriesenPress state nothing more than them as the publisher. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable self-publisher. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this imprint is notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge-redirect It may inherit notability from its parent company Friesens, a major publisher in Canada. Just as the dozens of Amazon.com related articles inherit notability. If no Keep consensus I'd recommend merge and redirect to Friesens. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, and with no independent sources I don't think anything should be merged. Comparing an obscure company to a 61 billion dollar multinational isn't the best comparison to make and I'm not convinced by the claims on the Friesens article either about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:NOTINHERITED. Have you read it? It's not so simple as "all inheritance is disallowed". I would not label Friesens an "obscure company" with 600 employees and 74 million in revenue. The Canadian government in Manitoba says they are "recognized world-wide" and "is Canada’s largest hardcover book printer".[1] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company with revenue 1000 times smaller than Amazon and with 150 times less employees, the comparison that it's sub divisions are notable because Amazon's are does not hold. On the claims by Manitoba gov; have you ever heard of a regional government that didn't make indigenous businesses or businesses who operate in the area sound great? "recognized world-wide", I've never heard of them and I don't buy it (their website says they are only in the North American market ...). Besides, "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities"; everything a notable company does is not inherently notable, you need to demonstrate that independent of Friesens. The exceptions NOTINHERITED talks about are in relation to established guidelines surrounding books, films and music, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does Amazon have to do with Friesens? I brought up Amazon as an example of how inheritance is used on Wikipedia, not that Friesens is comparable to Amazon which is a strawman argument. Companies are either notable or not and Friesens is notable. Apparently because you have never heard of Friesens, they must be "obscure"? Another logical fallacy for a multitude of reasons. It's also a logical fallacy to say that the Manitoba government is acting in bad faith - that's a very large claim that requires large evidence. NOTINHERITED extends beyond books, films and music, as the Amazon example shows, and there are other organizations. Finally, NOTINHERITED is an essay. We have freedom and leeway to make separate articles when it makes sense to do so. If it makes sense here or not is what we should be discussing, not a blind slavish discussion about the NOTINHERITED essay. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is that it must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and this certainly isn't the case here. The topic does not have that significant coverage. The Amazon subarticles are notable in their own right due to meeting GNG, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to move back to the more specific: This is a division (their website description) of Friesens, who have an article and whose notability is not disputed here. The question is whether this division has notability in its own right, evidenced in reliable sources? In that respect I could find one article, on the overall self/vanity-publishing landscape, which I have now referenced into the article. That does indicate that this division say they have published 1200 works in 3-4 years; that could be regarded as a substantial number, but personally I still think notability requires a depth of articles about this division in its own right. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: FriesenPress don't publish material, they allow others to self publish (i.e they don't vet the material). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (rap) @ 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastlewest F.C.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Semi pro/amature team Newcastlewest F.C. does not meet notability guidelines as they have not received significant media coverage and have not advanced further than the 1st round of the FAI Cup, although they may technically pass WP:NFOOTY, this does not make them notable as no detailed reliable sources like match reports can be found. They have received no major honours other than finishing 9th in the league. JMHamo (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Club does meet the generally accepted notability guidelines for football clubs as it has played in the national second tier and also in a national cup. Unsurprising that it's difficult to find sources as the club played in the national leagues in the 1980s, but a modern-day club in the LOI First Division would certaibly never be considered for deletion. Number 5 7 21:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An odd nomination. Club was one of the six brought into the newly formed second division of the League of Ireland in 1985 in an attempt to broaden its reach, so it played a minor but notable part in the history of soccer in Ireland. They played at that level for five seasons, and their best finish was 6th, not 9th as suggested above.[2] And, again contrary to nominator's claim that they never got past the first round of the FAI Cup, they did in fact reach the quarter final, twice, in 1988 and 1990.[3] As to sources, try the archives of Irish newspapers. The Irish Times archive is paywalled, but some UK and academic libraries have subscriptions that are free to their members. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per research from Number 57 and Struway2. Giant Snowman 16:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concur with Number 57 and Struway2. Finnegas (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral per WP:NRVE. Yes this club apparently played at the second level for a short time many years ago but where is the coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions in lists and tables? Also compare comments here at the AfD for 1974 WFA Cup semi-finalists Swindon Spitfires. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in the second-level would have made them notable. And notability is not temporary. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how can it be notable if there are no sources? If there's sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources surely it shouldn't be impossible to produce one example here. Saying there might be some coverage behind behind a paywall or in a library is the wikipedia equivalent of "Sir, a dog ate my homework"! Anyone could trot that line out in any deletion discussion. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a team in a league in the 1980's. It's simply WP:COMMON that the sources do exist - it was a league team in the 1980s, so there would be write ups on games, previews of games, etc., which is what the large portion of all sports coverage is. There has never been a Wikipedia requirement that the sources be available on the Internet. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of references have now been provided from the Irish Times. Number 5 7 13:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have played in both national league and national cup, which passes WP:NFOOTY. Murry1975 (talk) 23:38, 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) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heartstone (artifact)[edit]

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

A relic from the days when IPs could create pages, this is a BURO nom as apparently previous PRODs have been removed and so someone wants to go through the official process because it is the official process. Subject fails WP:GNG, and has since its creation. A search reveals no sources about Heartstones- artifacts or not- in fiction, although it is an extremely common name for fantasy novels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of works on dragons in literature. See the the WorldCat subject listing. Have you made any attempt ourself to find any of them and see if they cover this., or are you relying on the Googles? I've read Petty's book, & I think it's covered, but it would be a while for me to find it again. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i did searches for heartstone in fiction, heartstone in novels, heartstone in fantasy, heartstone in videogames, and heartstone in the Clute Encyclopedia of Fantasy. I did not look for heartstone and dragon as in all of my fiction and video gaming, i could not think of one instance where the heartstone actually had anything to do with a dragon and so it seemed needlessly limiting the scope of potential hits. but a search now has resulted in the same, nothing about heartstone and dragons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision of Escaflowne is one work I can think of that features heartstones in relation to dragons. The heartstones in that show are basically just like what is described in the article. That doesn't help in any way to show notability, but I just wanted to point out that they are used in that way in some fictional works. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I mentioned on TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page, the article describes this as a real belief from the Middle Ages. I think the best chance of finding sources for this would come from works on medieval beliefs (such as belief in wizards and alchemy), rather than from works discussing tropes in modern fantasy fiction. I'm not personally planning to look for sources (I don't have the time, and wouldn't know where to start), and think this should be deleted if no good sources are found. Calathan (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I dropped a note at User talk:Drmies#Blatant canvassing. LadyofShalott 01:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find no evidence of medieval or alchemical lore concerning heartstones, although I note modern usage for interior rock or for a heart-shaped stone, and one self-help book developing that concept. That leaves the fantasy and gaming uses, and for those I found only primary sources (including a game manual in MS Word that came closest to the article content, and some bad Anglo-Saxon). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can come up with something I haven't, I don't think this meets the notability requirement. I've searched through google, google books, and JSTOR using both "Heartstone" and "heart stone" and also checking for works that contained both heartstone and wizard, or heartstone and dragon. I found nothing that supported this. Ryan Vesey 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet - I pulled out my reprint of The Curious Lore of Precious Stones by George Frederick Kunz and can find no reference in it to either heartstones or dragons. LadyofShalott 03:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything in critical works about fantasy that covers the concept either, and per the article itself there's no claim the usage is anything other than fictional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dragons have frequently been thought to bear magical or medicinal stones in their heads (see here, for instance), but I can find no reference to these "heartstones" in any ancient or medieval authors. Seems to be a nonnotable creation in modern fantasy. Deor (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is probably a Fantasy tropes and conventions related to Medievalism. Since there is no evidence it appears in anything but two minor works, The Vision of Escaflowne and Skeleton Warriors. If commonality can be shown across a lot of works including some more central it would be a redirect, perhaps justifying one or two sentences as a trope. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a common element in fantasy. It appears in the title of Dungeons and Dragons games from the 1980s. Did it exist before then? Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 1978 pulp fiction book has a quest for a heartstone as its main plot with a dragon-like creature on the cover.[4]"A changeling and her comrades seek the legendary heartstone." I am having trouble finding a lot which makes me think it's not that popular outside a few works. Nothing before 1978 I can find for the exact term, but as Deor points out the concept is very old, medieval. The problem is nobody has written about it, only mentions and uses. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while fairly commonly appearing, there is no commonality to any of the many appearances other than the name and the fact that there is something like a stone associated with something like a heart and it may have some type of mystical properties except when it doesnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almor[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) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about an intermediate merge target, like Flanaess? bd2412 T 20:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
transwiki to a gamer site that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, subject fails WP:GNG with only primary, non independent sourcing and so the options are delete, redirect or merge. I fail to see any content worth merging to the already bloated proposed target of the merge that would add value there. If there is an argument that it might be a potential search term, then redirect might be an option, but based on the prior history of these types of articles, the redirect should should be locked to prevent indiscriminate recreation. without clear evidence of the search term validity, delete is a good option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Article is not based on independent sourcing. It's permissible to use primary and licensed sources for articles, but it is not permitted to base articles upon them.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is impossible to verify notability due to the lack of independent sources, as Kww pointed out. Also, this is plot-only coverage, which is inappropriate. Simone 17:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman King[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman 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) 17:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ultraman King got some press because of who played him. For example: TIME, The Telegraph, and Reuters. I don't know if this conclusively establishes notability, as these articles are more about the actor than the character, but it's something to consider. I'm leaning toward keep on this one, but I'd be curious to hear further debate on the matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered in the casting section of Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy, and it seems more relevant to that overall, especially with some of the quotes in those links. If there is other information unrelated to that one film available, it could potentially be viable, but the current info seems to be more suited to the film. TTN (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true; it does seem debatable for whom/what those articles have established notability: the film, the acting credentials of the PM, or the character. I guess it's more the case of the first two than the character itself. If that's the case, then maybe the character isn't independently notable of the series or the actor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:23, 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, KTC (talk) 19:19, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zofia Szydłowiecka[edit]

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

Absolutely no information could be found about this person. It is simply not possible that Polish Wikipedia would not have an entry on a Polish saint yet she isn't there. Google search 'Święta Zofia Szydłowiecka' ('Saint Zofia Szydłowiecka') shows just nothing besides en-wiki article. Whereas Zofia Szydłowiecka certainly existed, she was not a saint. The article contains information about her alleged sainthood and a rather strange description of consequences of marriage decision made specifically on 18th of November. The article was written on February the 16th, 2005 by a user that is inactive since 2005. It has hardly been edited since its creation. It has a tag since December 2009 that it lacks references. Besides her alleged sainthood, there are no signs of notability. If not a hoax, the article is most probably a mistake. Maksymilian Sielicki (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sure about this one. There are hits on Google books for that very person (mostly Polish sources), through what I see are rather brief mentions, mostly discussing genealogy or related topics. She has not been deemed important enough to warrant an entry on pl wiki, through it not a notability criteria in itself. According to Dorota Żołądź-Strzelczyk; Dorota Żołądź (2002). Dziecko w dawnej Polsce. Wydawn. Poznańskie. p. 206. ISBN 978-83-7177-038-8. Retrieved 15 September 2013. she might have been the governess of Polish royalty, which could contribute to her notability. Our article suggests some kind of legend associated with her, if I read the half-gibberish paragraph correctly, but I am not seeing any sources to confirm that... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 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) 19:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched some commercial news databases and found nothing. Seems of dubious importance.

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaCom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This unsourced article was taken to AFD in 2006, and was somehow kept. I'm bringing it here again because in the intervening 7 years, it still has not had a single reference added. I searched for sources and was not able to find any, so I think this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. In your searches, do note that there are several companies and products called 'AlphaCom' - we're looking for the terminal emulator. MrOllie (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would try to merge somewhere, such as Terminal emulator which needs help of its own, but not much to merge. There is also List of terminal emulators which is just a list of links without any citations to speak of. Also thought perhaps widening to the company, but again if you search for the company named "Omnicom" you get all sorts of hits for the large advertising holding company Omnicom Group but do not think they are related. I was especially amused by one of the bullets: "OEM ready". Saying something is "X ready" of course is a euphemism in the industry saying it is not X yet. But the one press release from the company on its web site says there was an OEM agreement in 2005. So perhaps this might have been thought to be on the verge of notability back in 2006, but it does not meet the requirements now. W Nowicki (talk) 17:07, 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, KTC (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage of this software product. There's lots of terminal emulators out there. This is just another one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (banter) @ 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ATOM Project[edit]

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

While IMO a good intention project it's not-notable at this time. It's one of any number of stop ATOM bomb building alliances/projects. Formed in 2012 by Kazakhstan President. References all seem to lead back to the President's policy center. Caffeyw (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being one of a number of projects does not mean it isn;t notable. It seems a major foreign policy initiative of the government sponsoring it. A proper effort should be made to get other refs, though there will be language difficulties. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kazakhstan has been a world leader on anti-nuclear issues. For example they initiated, through the United Nations, International Day Against Nuclear Testing. They are not just any anti-nuke group. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:26, 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) 19:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close comment: you guys know this whole thing was a copyright violation right? sigh. Wizardman 17:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramhorn[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) 16:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and turn into a disambiguation page. Apparently, two characters by this name existed: a Predacon (which could be redirected to List of Predacons) and an Autobot (which could be redirected to List of Autobots). One solution is to delete this page and create a disambiguation page at this title. Another solution is to simply turn this into a disambiguation page without deleting it. A third solution would be to pick one character (Autobot or Predacon) and redirect to the appropriate list. I favor deletion and disambiguation, as it reduces the risk that the page will be reverted/recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot the most obvious solution: pure deletion with no redirects or disambiguation. That'd be fine, too, but I think a courtesy redirect/disambiguation might be useful for fans. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep...and turn into a disambiguation page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:20, 24 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) 10:34, 14 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) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has notable citations. Mathewignash (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dinobots. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magmatron[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Beast Wars Neo 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) 09:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dinobots. Does not seem notable, and I can not find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:07, 14 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) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has notable citations, and covers the main villain of a major Japanese anime series. Mathewignash (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LIME Magazine[edit]

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

Questionable notability, created by an editor with possible conflict of interest Lesion (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICT4Autism
Note Not to be confused with The Lime Magazine (news organization) and Lime Magazine (culture in London) — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The magazine is part of a campaign run by ICT4Autism which is also non notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:20, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICT4Autism[edit]

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

Regional charity of minor notability and very small size (5 staff). Only one source currently which is the entry on the list of charities. Lesion (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article's creator was a user called Andyhuggett, whilst I note the founding trustee is listed as Sally Huggett. WP:conflict of interest (see especially WP:conflicts of interest (medicine)). This user also created the article The LIME Magazine which is linked to this org. Nominated both. Lesion (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note The provided source is now a broken link. I also don't think this organization even exists anymore – not cause for deletion, but nonetheless an interesting note. Their website is now an available domain, and the most reliable source I found is almost three years old. This source does however show that they worked with Sony. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A worthwhile cause, but not notable. LT90001 (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability per WP:NGO and WP:GNG. The number of non profits in the USA has doubled in the past 10 years, there are now nearly a million in the US. The UK has probably seen a similar surge. Most of them are small charities who do good work. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley Pipe Band[edit]

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

Another non-notable band. James^x1 2345 17:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:14, 7 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) 05:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, having won a world championship and attracted some press coverage. Warden (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winning novice juvenile is not especially prestigious - the big one for under-18 bands is the juvenile grade. Pipe bands typically get a lot of routine coverage from playing at parades and such - my pipe band, definitely not notable, also has similar coverage. George Watson's College Pipes and Drums is a massively more successful band in the juvenile grade, but still wasn't regarded as notable at AFD. James^x1 2345 14:43, 14 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) 18:57, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy and District Pipe Band[edit]

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

Another non-notable band. James^x1 2345 17:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:14, 7 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) 05:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial coverage or awards to meet WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 18 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) 18:56, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Aliff[edit]

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

This article has too many problems, and has not enough information to be useful for wikipedia Peter1007 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Expanded some. Could use help finding sources. She has a lot of guest appearances on late 80s TV shows though how significant the roles were for WP:NACTOR purposes is unclear, might be, maybe not. Also in some well known movies, and some not well known ones, again uncertain how significant her roles were. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 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) 05:02, 14 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) 18:55, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mista Mahaj J[edit]

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

Non-notable. Was created with the reason "his pro-gay stance makes him notable". Caffeyw (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as his pro gay stance does indeed make him notable, as he is the only member of the Rastafari movement to have released a pro LGBT album, thta in itself makes him certainly notable given the generally hostile attitude towards LGBT of many Rastas. ~~no reason for deletion has been given by the nominator so not even sure why this afd exists, can the nominator please give a reason or withdraw the afd.~~ Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 7 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) 04:58, 14 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) 18:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His gay pro stance would make him notable if there was sufficient coverage. [5], and [6] was all I could find, and they were from Aug 2011 with nothing since. I could find no other significant coverage about this singer. Note that the name of the article is wrong. It should be Mista Majah P. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 30 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) 02:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context Network[edit]

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

Article concerns a temporary installation at the 2001 Venice Biennale. The work did not win any awards and did not receive enough coverage to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 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) 04:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a group of transitory importance at best, with no indication through reliable sources that it may have had more lasting notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:05, 17 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) 18:52, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Ostadian-Binai[edit]

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

Looks and reads like a resumé of a non-notable person trying to blend in so nobody notices. There are no references about him, just profiles; the article's creator tried unsuccessfully to create an article about the spouse, so it's possible it's an autobiography. Krakatoa Katie 04:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I really cannot see anything notiable in this article. Even his "angel" investment cannot be correctly described: angels are not people who invest in their own company. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 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) 04:34, 14 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) 18:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the plethora of green links in the footnotes, I am not seeing substantial coverage of this subject in independently published sources, and thus a failure to meet GNG. I don't doubt that there is a possibility that such sources may emerge over time and that this may well be a TOOSOON situation. Delete without bias to future recreation should such sources appear. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 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) 02:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knee bone football[edit]

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

An article on a game that was invented yesterday. Cannot possibly be notable yet. Psychonaut (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds like fun but Fall 2013, when it is said to have been invented, only started 3 days ago. It needs to get some secondary coverage in reliable sources before it passes WP:Notable.BayShrimp (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not received any media coverage and as such is not notable – though it does sound fun . Go Phightins! 21:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds like fun, but not notable, as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Zappa O Mati 00:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEDAY. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 08:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party coverage and appears to be self-promotion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry, it's not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just some people mucking about, not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 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) 02:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something Else![edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article references are either unrelated to the article subject, blog mentions, press releases, or trivial mentions of the site. References are not independent or verifiable references. Fails WP:WEB. reddogsix (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as de-speedier. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 6 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) 04:29, 14 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) 18:49, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of HTML5 Remote Desktop projects[edit]

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

More specific fork of Comparison of remote desktop software - but /all/ of the entries on the HTML5 list are nonnotable software that has either never had an article or had it deleted. I think the HTML5 variant is not notable and this comparison should be deleted. I initally PRODed this, but an IP disputes deletion. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete— WP:TOOSOON. If these desktops take off then comparisons in reliable sources will follow. For now, sources just aren't there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about http://www.admin-magazine.com/Articles/Guacamole-Remote-Desktop (an article in a magazine)? Searching on Google Scholar also reveals several papers discussing the software: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vnc+guacamole+web&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.250.44 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 14 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) 18:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lund[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. This was once a stub with a single source offering little to support the significance of the subject. The article is now a jumbled mess of unencyclopedic material. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, rambling mess. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and unencyclopedic personal reminiscence with no sources and no evidence of passing WP:GNG nor any other notability guideline. The WP:OWN behavior of its anonymous editor is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with David Eppstein's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More suited to facebook than an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 30 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 Union J#Books. v/r - T P 15:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Story (Union J Book)[edit]

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

Notability of this book can't be established till after the book has been released. Right now I'm not finding anything written about the book except sellers' listings and publicity, other than the one Digital Spy mention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is scheduled for release on September 26. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Being scheduled for release doesn't make a book notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Union_J#Books with history. The problem is that ultimately we don't have any coverage for this book to show that it's notable in the here and now. I'll also have to add that I've found that most books of this nature never really gain the notability needed to pass WP:NBOOK. A case in point: I remember trying to help write the article for My Crazy Beautiful Life when it was up for AfD. She was wildly well known at that point, far more than Union J is, yet for the longest time during the AfD I was pretty concerned about its lack of notability. Eventually I managed to get enough sources to merit a keep, but the AfD had stretched out for an extra 2-3 weeks since sources kept coming in. The reason I mention this is because at the start of the AfD there were a lot of mentions in the press, but they were all based off of the same press release. This band doesn't have that. It'll release tomorrow and hopefully it'll get coverage, but that it's releasing tomorrow and there's no coverage in the mainstream press is fairly telling. In any case, I'd recommend redirecting with the history intact just in case it does gain future coverage, but until that point it should be a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (and probably won't be). –anemone projectors– 16:36, 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) 02:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Privo[edit]

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

Non-notable company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current references are only mentions in passing and are far from supporting any notability. And I can't find any reliable sources with in-depth coverage either. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wand of Watoomb[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or redirect) to Features of the Marvel Universe, in which this item is listed. Gong show 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in detail in sources such as the The Encyclopedia of Super Villains. Warden (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is significant coverage as required per WP:N, it is not a source that can be of any value to this article. TTN (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source satisfies WP:SIGCOV so we're good. Warden (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Unless you show that it has a significant section rather than a passing mention in a plot summary, it fails to meet that guideline. That doesn't even include the fact that it isn't going to contain real world information, meaning that it will be useless to the article anyway. TTN (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source and article are fine. You're the one making a proposition here and as, so far, it seems to totally lack consensus, you're the one with work to do. Warden (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The source that you have presented has no proof of actually being able to cover anything significant or relevant to the article. I doubt "The Wand of Watoomb was mentioned as a part of a plot description of [character] in The Encyclopedia of Super Villains" is going to be able to establish anything. As usual, you just ignore NOTPLOT, WAF, and N without even addressing them, so there is no point in arguing with you. TTN (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a purely in-universe plot article with no substantial non-plot coverage to form an article from.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:35, 30 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) 02:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Ziguras[edit]

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

Poet. The claim to notability rests on " He was a finalist in the Newcastle Poetry Prize in 2011 and 2012, and won the 2011 Harri Jones Memorial Prize" per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: "The person's work (or works)... has won significant critical attention." But 1) I am not seeing any independent, reliable coverage of that person outside a little bit about this award, nothing seems to be in any major media outlet and 2) while Newcastle Poetry Prize has a Wikipedia article, which claims "Today the Prize is one of the major events of the literary calendar in Australia", that claim is unreferenced, that article has no inline cites, and gets little coverage (through there's at least one mainstream mention: [7]). Still, so far I am having serious doubts whether the Prize is notable, and even if it is, whether it would warrant classification as "significant critical attention" - which in turns puts serious doubts about notability of Mr. Ziguras. Thoughts?. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a finalist not a winner and we don't know how many other finalists. For the Harri Jones Prize, he won in 2011 and the last time anyone won was in 2001. It's very intermittent and doesn't look like a big recognition. The GNG sourcing is not great. Suggest not yet notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 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) 15:20, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paralyzed Veterans Golf Open[edit]

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

Contested PROD: Non-notable golf tournament, scarce coverage in reliable, independent sources. Tewapack (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable sporting event....William 10:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, some coverage in local independent sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:32, 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) 03:01, 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) 15:16, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Eivind Hall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Problematic BLP created by a long-term disruptive editor. This page has been deleted thrice and survived an AfD as "no consensus" last year. The AfD didn't take the long term disruption into account though (since they probably weren't aware of it). The page has been created by an editor User:J341933, now blocked, and further enhanced by a sock of his, User:Wariswronggodisfaith, also blocked.

The background to and evidence of this disruption has been explained at WP:AN#Very slow but long-term disruption. The BLP currently up for deletion has a few specific problems, apart from a general lock of notability: for starters, I can't find a reliable source that actually gives his middle name, Eivind, so we don't even know if Bill Hall and William Eivind Hall are the same person. Further: his Bronze Star was sourced to usarmyregistry.org, but that is a user-submitted site, not an official army or government site. His entry has since been blanked. There seems to be no further evidence for this Bronze Star. In light of the dubious origins of this BLP, his limited notability, and the ongoing harassment and vandalism, I propose that we again delete this article. Fram (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep CEO of Parsons is notable, & we need an article on the company also. . That the article may be difficult to maintain is not a reason for deletion. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 10 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) 03:02, 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) 15:14, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mithun Roy Chowdhury[edit]

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

CSD contested. Stub with 5 campaign pics, many refs do not mention subject, article citing unreferenced warnings against some building project promoting protest. Chowdhury himself does mot meet WP:BIO. Dewritech (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 10 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) 03:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The detail description of the pictures are updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the picture that you uploaded as "own work" which is clearly carrying a Bangla News watermark? AllyD (talk) 18:43, 24 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) 15:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i did not understood and I mistakenly uploaded that picture. i downloaded that picture from the website and when i uploaded, i uploaded the wrong picture. Now i deleted the said picture from the article. And the rest of the pictures are my own work. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been a lot of editing of the subject's name into various articles; perhaps the most blatant is the sellotaping onto the end of Environmentalism#Organizations_and_conferences: from world organisations to... Mithun Roy Chowdhury in one fell swoop; contributed by User:Mithun Roy Chowdhury, who contributed a previously deleted autobiography. Fundamentally, this is a promotional page on an individual associated with an organisation which is not itself notable. The photo from Bangla News even shows the original caption which doesn't mention the subject, along with the caption on its upload to Commons which does. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page. mithun Roy Chowdhury is a environmental activist of Bangladesh. There are few organizations in Bangladesh who works to protect the nature and wildlife and he is the president of the organization Save Nature & Wildlife(SNW). the said organization is one of the leading environment based organization in Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alok Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet WP:GNG. WP:COI is apparently also an issue here. The creator of the article even entered the name of the subject alongside the images of prominent Bengalis such as Rabindra Nath Tagore, Ravi Shankar and Satyajit Ray on the Bengali people page on 20 September. That says it all! As the revision history of that article shows, this was reverted by another editor.- Zananiri (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrkul[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms 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) 15:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. Though he appears in several different media, this character is not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this kind of trivia. as for Wikipedia, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG as none of the sources are independent of the company that holds the IP for the character and so the options here are to delete or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target. Given that the suggested target is already bloated with only primary sourced material, a merge seems to be only moving all of the issues from this page to another. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:40, 19 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) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as redirect/merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged to the above target by User:Neelix subsequent to discussion in October 2010; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor just over a year later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after trimming) into List of Forgotten Realms deities or Delete, per TRPoD, NinjaRobotPirate, Vulcan's Forge. Only primary sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (orate) @ 09:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kraj potoka bistre vode[edit]

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

Article consists principally of the lyrics of this song (see WP:NOTLYRICS), which itself may be a copyright violation. All references (of which there are far too many) are in a foreign language, so are next to impossible to verify. Notability indeterminate. Might be suitable for inclusion on the Bosnian Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 08:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might actually very well be a notable sevdalinka song, but the article needs to use sources that clearly demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. I didn't click through the whole bunch, but all that I did were simple mentions of the song. An actual secondary source about the song would be preferred. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 10 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 | 20:45, 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) 15:07, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grey dwarf[edit]

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

Declined PROD Per the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis. This article is about a specific type of 'star' wholly in terms of the fringe stellar metamorphosis theory. The only source provided is on vixra, and is very much a non-mainstream publication, and not peer-reviewed. No apparent usage by outside sources. (By analogy, this is like a song where the band has no article.) Chris857 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor element of an extremely marginal fringe theory that has itself been deleted at AFD. Nothing approaching reliable sources exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is non-notable pseudoscience. Its only source is self-published. Cardamon (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/KeepIt does not matter if page is deleted or kept. All these records are being posted to my blog as well as the deleting administrator to show my students how new ideas are treated and why wikipedia can not be trusted as a reliable source for unbiased information. Wavyinfinity (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)wavyinfinityWavyinfinity (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This shouldn't even be a conversation given previous AfDs. Article creator seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT on his blog. jps (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and previous AFD. Agree this is pointy disruption. Begoon ^talk 03:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fringe theory and non-notable element of the theory. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as non-notable WP:FRINGE with no WP:RS. -- 101.119.14.102 (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE as all of the above. PianoDan (talk) 15:45, 30 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 [8], [9], [10]) 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 ([11]) and rugby ([12]). 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 #3 at WP:NOQUORUM. The argument that the story is notable because the one review in the article gives the overall show 4.5 stars is a synthesis. Credible case presented that the article fails WP:GNG. - Euryalus (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The house on the lake[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. reason was "Non notable vocal recording" Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded at newsound studios, Gloucestershire 2006. First released 2006. Re-released 2013. available to buy via iTunes, Amazon and direct from the web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknewton1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive coverage in secondary sources. The one review cited is a review of a show in which this story was only a part. Maybe when the movie comes out it might get some reviews, but there is not enough to pass WP:Notable now. Borock (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the above comment, The show was a collection of pieces, carefully selected and directed to form a single stage production. Without any one of the acts the overall production would not have received the many 4 out of 5 star reviews it has currently received. These reviews are easily found online, with a little research Borock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.237.203 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hull Bus Routes[edit]

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

There is nothing notable or encyclopaedic about this laundry list. It's not WP's vocation to be a directory of cities' bus routes. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. One list that got missed from the recent cull.--Charles (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oh shit we missed this one! As per fails every policy on Wikipedia. Davey2010Talk 02:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. aycliffe^talk 19:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto modified wheat mystery[edit]

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

This is a POV fork of text from Genetically_modified_food_controversies, see Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Editing_down_GM_wheat_section so as to be used as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. This is WP:NOT#NEWS material and a summary of it is already given in the main article at Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Escape_of_GM_crops. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a crock of crap, IRWolfie. It is a split resulting from the above consensus that a new article was needed to not bloat the other one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very odd reading of that discussion. You created the fork without discussion after it was decided that giving it more weight at Genetically modified food controversies was undue. I wasn't involved in the discussion, but that's what it looks like to me, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your term fork is incorrect. It is a split of material that consensus found added too much bloat to the article. Wikipedia:WEIGHT has nothing to do with sourced content additions. It has to do with balancing neutrality. This article is very neutral with no weight added to any side. It simply states the facts without any opinions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a bad faith AfD to keep sourced and relevant material from our readers. Consensus in the above article agreed that a split would be needed to keep the bloat down in the original article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the sourcing is adequate to meet WP:N. I'd like to see the several uncited sentences in a row covered by a source or two. (However, I'd be equally happy if, due to ~~WP:ONEEVENT~~ WP:EVENT this was merged back into the original article, condensed quite a bit. People can read the refs for more details.) --Lexein (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (Modified 00:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information back to Genetically modified food controversies. This was created solely because there wasn't consensus to have the information there, and, while the consensus amount of information that exists is worthwhile, this is not enough to sustain an article. Delete is my second choice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The creation of this article did not require agreement at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies although it is relevant whether the material is also covered at Genetically modified food controversies or whether it should be. To me the present balance between the articles looks about right but this is not a concern for AfD. The topic seems to me to readily pass the WP:GNG threshold and seems a suitable and viable basis for an article. If there are legitimate POV concerns (and the article looks OK to me) these should be dealt with by normal editing. With this amount of responsible media coverage the topic shouldn't be inherently POV. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident seemed to have received a lot of media attention, which probably puts it past WP:Not news. Of course this is one of those areas where there is a lot of agenda-pushing on all sides, but the article seems neutral enough to be informative to people interested in learning about the incident/~~controversy~~event. Borock (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With press coverage like
According to a New York Times article, the discovery could have threatened U.S. wheat exports, which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012; the US is the world's largest wheat exporter
this would appear to be a notable incident that can stand on its own.

Also, the titled reads "mystery", not "controversy".--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no real controversy involved. It does not belong in any "GMO controversies" article. Borock (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not a controversy, maybe List of unexpected GMO seed detections or List of unexpected modified seed detections should be an article containing this class of news items. I fully expect there to be more than one per year from now on. I pity the USDA. --Lexein (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"could have", but didn't. It would seem odd to hinge notability on what could have happened, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough mainstream press coverage that the page clearly passes WP:GNG; it may flirt with failing ~~WP:ONEEVENT~~WP:EVENT, in terms of enduring coverage over time, but I think it comes out on the right side of it. Although the discussion that led to it being split off from the other page was marred by the unconstructive attitude of the editor who made the split, the page is not inherently a POV fork, because the content can be presented neutrally with some editing, and it follows a consensus at the other page to treat the material per WP:Summary style. The page title is a cause of concern, partly because of the strange word "mystery", but a page move can be discussed without a need to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bah, someone can speedy close this if they want, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a six days left, so let's not close without more of us discussing WP:EVENT. I brought it up in my Keep !vote, hoping to stimulate discussion. Although it has a number of RS news articles, over several months, and it involved a huge multinational company and local, state and federal agencies, it is a single event. How do these WP:N requirements (mult RS over time vs one event) balance out for this article? In my opinion, this very early occurrence of surprise, unwanted GMO contamination will be of historical significance in 50 years. I'm still fine keeping, but would like to know that more other editors have thought about it. --Lexein (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About EVENT, I agree with you that one can argue it quite reasonably either way. My parsing of it is that it is indeed a specific event but that there has been ongoing interest in that event, continuing over a period of time. We are, of course, dealing with the fact that it was an event this year, and consequently the picture may change over time, and my current opinion may change in the future. We may, in the future, want to make it more about escapes of GMO wheat in general, covering multiple events instead of this single one in Oregon 2013. Then again, maybe not, WP:CRYSTAL. One thing I'm quite convinced of, having followed the editing at Genetically modified food controversies, is that there are good reasons not to merge the material back there, but rather to treat it in WP:Summary style there and have the page discussed here as a standalone page, in some form – perhaps not its present form, but revised and not deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In re closure: From WP:AfD#How an AFD is closed, "The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as Speedy Keep #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for "keep", and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." In other words, I read this as IRWolfie can close it themselves, but IMHO highly partisan involved editors should not pounce while other editors want to discuss. --Lexein (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are generally along the same lines but I think the merge/delete !vote above precludes speedy closure. Also, my feeling is that the personal attacks have not derailed the discussion. Regarding the article, there is indeed a case to be made for this to fall into the WP:EVENT category but, like you, I thought the topic is quite possibly enduring. If I had thought the topic fitted well into "controversies" I would editorially have favoured a merge. However, the target article is long and this aspect is not directly a controversy though it probably generally contributes to a controversial GMO situation. There have been several GMO "mishaps" over the years and so a single article covering these could be constructed although it would be wide open to the criticism that it was only covering bad news. It is unfortunate (and inevitable) that our WP:NPOV policy only deals with balance within articles and does not concern itself with whether our articles as a whole present a balanced view of the world. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my position precludes early closure, then I'll be glad to strike it. It's clear this won't get deleted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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 speedy closed as wrong forum. It is now at WP:RFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of polyglots[edit]

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

It seems to me that List of polyglots and Polyglot (person), the name to which "List of" was moved in 2007, ought to have the same target. Or, if they don't, then "List of" should have the list and Polyglotism the rest of the content.

At some point in their history, each pointed to Multilingualism, which seems like a reasonable target, but that might be a bigger discussion, involving the disposition of "Polyglotism" as a separate page. Cnilep (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wrong forum. This should probably be at RfD. Sorry. Cnilep (talk) 06:42, 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 withdrawn because I somehow didn't notice it was still in progress. Sorry, folks! (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ovo[edit]

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

Not convinced this can pass beyond a WP:DICDEF, though seems to be WP:Notable enough. Not opposed to transwiki-ing to wikt:In ovo. Ansh6 6 6 05:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was just created at 0358 24 September 2013. Ansh666 put a deletion tag on it at 0520. All stubs are essentially definitions until they get developed. See Viral pathogenesis. In Ovo is notable in the medical field. The article is well-sourced and is undergoing expansion. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Malke. It is wiki policy to allow development time and I'm sure Malke and others can expand this. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is wp:snow. The article is not even a day old and already has suitable types and depth of sourcing to establish wp:notability multiple times over, and is already a well written encyclopedic article on an encyclopedic topic. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 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 as essentially a content fork from Mona the Vampire. Arguments were advanced for merging this back into the main article - nothing in this discussion prejudices this occurring but it would be a matter requiring consensus at Talk:Mona the Vampire. The text can easily be found in the main article's history, though there are issues with referencing and style which might usefully be considered along the way. Euryalus (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mona the Vampire characters[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is an unreferenced article that fails to establish notability of the subject.It was recently split out from the main article but should never have been split.The article provides no real-world treatment of the subject and should be redirected back to the main article, where the content that was removed should be restored. AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question : I prefer this page is there, lets give a chance and I think users are welcome to add some characters exists in the series, if they connaissont topics on other characters, such as : a short biography of the Scarecrow living, Nicole, the vampire hunter, the little gaston or Frankensteinasaurus. Do not delete this page, and soon I have a book that will be published in French, Pétunia le vampire, as based on Mona the Vampire, I change name because to copyright, of the edition Baico in Ottawa. Godinpédia (T) 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Content can't be split out without references or third party sources establishing notability. 117Avenue (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed since the main article should introduce the important characters. BayShrimp (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete : I agree BayShrimp, it is not necessary of Delete, and these characters I took in Characters in Mona the Vampire. Do not delete, after my book Pétunia le vampire came out and the talk in the new service gives a chance. Godinpédia (T) 25 September 2013 (UTC)

BayShrimp has actually said delete and your book is not relevant here, although it implies there may be conflict of interest issues here. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know my book is not yet published, I'm not talking about putting on the page Mona the Vampire on this information. For now, I want the page List of Mona the Vampire characters is there, okay. Godinpédia (T) 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back with the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely redundant, fancruft. Simone 17:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mona the Vampire, the article itself fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ziplines in the Philippines[edit]

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

Ziplines aren't notable, and this list of ziplines (I have to admit, there's a first time for everything) is nothing more than a kind of directory--or, worse, spam. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that the person who made this is a sock of User:Jeb2003. I agree this should be deleted. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suspect HIAB may well be right but I can't see how this doesn't fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY either way. None of them would seem to be individually notable. Would be good to see articles for one or two of the parks themselves and having a more-than-1-km zipline might have helped generate some coverage to make a couple at the end of the list notable. But this isn't the way to do it. Stalwart111 15:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ziplines are awesome but there should be something unique about them to make them notable for inclusion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could easily build a zipline in a park near my house. Whether it is notable is another story. So is this list. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:03, 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 New York City Council elections, 2013. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Rosenthal[edit]

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

Article about an as yet unelected candidate in the New York City Council elections, 2013, which is sourced entirely to coverage of her campaign. As per WP:POLITICIAN, merely being a candidate is not a sufficient claim of notability to merit a Wikipedia article by itself, but the article makes no substantive or properly sourced claim that she's notable for anything else. As always, she can have an article if she wins on election day, but she is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to New York City Council elections, 2013 per the precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Guerriero. The associated issues have been hashed out and discussed in detail. Unless they are otherwise notable for something other than their council run, candidates should be redirected to the article for the election for which they are a candidate. In this case, New York City Council elections, 2013. Stalwart111 04:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 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 by nominator with no additional discussion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestlers in WWE video games[edit]

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

This entire page violates WP:FANCRUFT and it must be removed. JC · History · Talk · Contributions 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. That's not a valid reason to delete a page. I understand your frustration with the amount of pop culture trivia that is on Wikipedia, but we shouldn't go around deleting pages simply because we don't like them. I haven't done anything but skim through the first half of this article, but you might be able to make an argument based on WP:NOT or WP:N that this is an indiscriminate collection of information based on a non-notable topic, but that's just my gut feeling, and it's not based on any informed research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close/speed keep No policy-based argument for deletion was presented; only an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. The WWE video games are very notable at the very least. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:04, 24 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) 01:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Generally, per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, lists of rosters in video games are generally not included. If there was however noted interest from secondary sources in the breadth or general inclusion of wrestles in the series, that would be reason to keep. If this is kept, I would argue to revise the approach to the list, as to use a table format, putting the wrestles in rows and games in columns and showing what games they are in; that would cut down the size and be a bit more useful to follow. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing as per discussion. Using my knowledge of the subject, I will revise the article and seek appropriate references. JC · History · Talk · Contributions 07:18, 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 keep. Article needs cleanup, not deletion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California Basic Educational Skills Test[edit]

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

I have nominated the California Basic Educational Skills Test because of its reliability on useless references and its abnormal structure. JC · History · Talk · Contributions 02:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. There is no question that this is an actual institution that effects tend of thousands of people. Finding good references should not be hard at all. bd2412 T 03:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A GScholar search shows about 260 hits for the topic, GBooks shows dozens of books on CBEST and a GNews search shows many articles in the LA Times, the San Jose Mercury and the Sacramento Bee newspapers about this controversial test. A New York Times article indicates that CBEST is of national significance. It appears that this topic is highly significant. The article does have problems with some how-to sections and even a catalog of prices, but fixing these is a matter of editing; they are surmountable problems per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP please. Wincent77 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, emphatically. This test is well beyond the requirements for meeting WP:N. There are a multitude of references available, and the proper approach would have been to add new reliable sources and reorganize it as opposed to attempting a deletion. Transmissionelement (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 21:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Torres[edit]

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

Article about a candidate in the New York City Council elections, 2013, created as soon as he won the Democratic primary in his council district and making no substantive claim that he's notable enough to already have an encyclopedia article. Per WP:POLITICIAN, a candidate is generally not entitled to an article until he wins the election, unless you can provide properly sourced evidence that he's already notable for something more (e.g. as a writer, as an athlete, etc.) than just his candidacy itself — while you might be able to make a legitimate case that a candidate for a statewide office, such as senator or governor, would be notable enough for an article just for being a candidate, that's not true of candidates for city council seats, and no real evidence has been provided that he's notable for anything more than his candidacy itself. Delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation on November 5 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the existing coverage is sufficient for a stub article per WP:GNG. There's enough coverage of him as a person outside of discussing the race he's running. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that's true; every single source in the article is specifically about his candidacy. If you can add other sources which prove that he's gotten substantial coverage for other things, the article might certainly become more keepable — but in the current version of the article, there's not a single source which suggests anything other than his candidacy itself as a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this! Ritchie is HISTORIC. He is very likely to be the first openly gay elected official in the Bronx. He will continue to make headlines when elected. This article should be expanded, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdirk (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the news coverage that he has already received, Torres won the primary, which means he will get the City Council seat. In all, given the size of the city, I think he squeaks through WP:POLITICIAN. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 09:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andrew Kissel[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT and WP:VICTIM. just another murder. and theere is only speculation not fact about motive for murder. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a one time news event. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick search of Andrew Kissel under general and news turns up many articles (also book treatment in a book devoted to the family murders--A Family Cursed: The Kissell Dynasty, a Gilded Fortune, and Two Brutal Murders, and another book treatment in a book about the family--Never Enough: A Shocking True Story of Greed, Jealousy and Murder), including many devoted to his murder (one event) and the related trial (another event), spanning a few years. Where we have that, it generally is seen as passing GNG -- it is the coverage, not the motive, that qualifies it. Events that have sufficient coverage of this nature and pass gng are generally fine, even if one event. RS media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets our guidelines. Is there another reason you have in mind?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

almost all murders will pass WP:GNG as media coverage is usually intense around period of murder and conviction of murderer. if we apply that rule, almost every murder will get a WP article. needs to more WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the above links? Read the articles and books devoted to not only the murder, but the trial? Noted that the articles and books were written over the course of a number of years? I'm not sure that, as you suggest, most murders have books about them, and hundreds (thousands?) of articles that are about them in their entirety or refer to them.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Epeefleche has drawn our attention to two books on the individual and his murder. Hence, and also bearing in mind the references in the article, WP:GNG is met. This is merely a guideline and so only suggests we might presume that the topic warrants a separate article. In this case I think an article is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two books dealing with the event in a substantial way. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG (the two books on the topic). MrScorch6200 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the above comments, above keeps, myriad sources from many years, the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity, and reliability of the coverage, and gng, all of which reflect that this should be kept per wp:event. Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just another irresponsible and unjustifiable deletion nomination for an article backed by multiple reliable sources for an enduring event that has been the subject of multiple published works. Did the nominator bother to review the subject or is this just another knee-jerk deletion nomination? Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. I found this nomination, by an editor with over 30,000 edits and ample experience, to be quite surprising as well. If one looks at the sources, and at the actual guidelines, it's not even a close question.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of massive news coverage for an extended period of time. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:48, 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.