< 14 January	16 January >

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 International Myeloma Foundation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Myeloma Working Group[edit]

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

This group does not seem to be notable independently of the foundation that established it. As it is, all the references are either to the IMF's website or to peer-reviewed papers this group has published, neither of which are independent sources. I propose that we merge whatever is worth saving into International Myeloma Foundation. Jinkinson talk to me 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. International Myeloma Foundation seems to be the best target. The IMWG issues regular guidance and does seem to be notable, but ideally in context. JFW | T@lk 07:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2014 (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} 03:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer for the Current Financial Situation[edit]

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

This is not notable. It's about a prayer that was on a website some years back. No pages link to it. The only claim to fame is that it pushed up traffic on the website for a while. It doesn't warrant a page of its own and the has probably passed when it could be merged into another page. I'm not convinced it can be improved. Rbreen (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have refreshed the dead citation from an independent news source, but agree that it does not reach the required level of notability. – Fayenatic London 18:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Those who believe in reading prayers, rather than saying them from the heart are always writing new prayers for others to read. This one sounds as if of very temporary notability, i.e. NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Deb. (non-admin closure) ///EuroCarGT 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2jazzstep[edit]

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

Probably made-up. Google search returns 0 hits ([1]). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete (per WP:CSD#A11 and so marked). There is a jazzstep genre, combinging jazz and dubstep, but I fear the author may be trying to have one over on us with this article creation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 15 January 2014 (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} 03:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Loty[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Moonboy54 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage to establish notability. Sources in the article do not meet the standard for reliable sources. In reading the article, this appears to be an artist still trying to establish himself. The best claim for notability is local airplay would still not be enough to meet notability even if it were verified with a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted and salted, created 4 times over the last few days, A7 no indication of importance (no sources either). Fram (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkah Shalit[edit]

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:BIO Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT etc. Number 5 7 21:54, 15 January 2014 (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. Any editorial actions such as merging remain entirely appropriate. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzen Johnson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived AFD back in 2006 as policy back then was a joke. Obvious violation of WP:BLP1E Delete Secret ^account 00:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. She parlayed the affair into several years of publicity, and the debates over the tabloids' tactics and the accompanying litigation were probably more significant than the underlying scandale. GBooks search even turns up coverage in legal reference books. Creating an "event" article would be worse in BLP terms; do we really want Media coverage of Frank Gifford's affair with Suzen Johnson? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be improved but the subject is notable for various aspects of her career including as a cover model for Playboy, as a partner in the gym business, for the affair and tabloid contract etc. Not sure what the BLP issue is supposed to be? We aren't supposed to report on the story she sold? On her posing on the cover of Playboy? Not the most famous, significant or important person in the world, but covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Frank Gifford The only content that isn't about the affair is a bit of WP:OR about a website that apparently nobody cared about— otherwise, it would have been sourced better. Mangoe (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This woman is completely un-important and just because she was on the cover of Playboy once out of the hundreds does not have grounds for notability. I agree with the original poster in that the article is in violation on WP:BLP1E in that she is only known for one event that is not significant and also violates it because she stayed low after the entire scandal. I also believe that it is in violation of WP:NPF. Newsjunky12 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I suggested merger I would not be adverse to a deletion outcome. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this might be worth a statement in the Gifford article, if that. Every source discusses her only in context of the affair -> WP:BLP1E. — Coren ^(talk) 22:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I honestly think that we can make this article better by adding more content. I think just because the Giffords are famous there is more to find about this person that has not been included in the present article. Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IDONTLIKEIT, but this one meets GNG. It's pop-culture fluff, but that's what WP delivers... Carrite (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Frank Gifford#Affair; not independently notable. Most of the article is about the unmasking of the affair, which is relevant to Gifford and can go in his article. Claims about her subsequent fame are poorly referenced (e.g. info about her website is only referenced to the website, which hardly shows it was significant) and she seems to have faded from public consciousness after a couple of years (aside from the occasional mentions in articles on Frank Gifford, which do nothing to establish her independent notability). There's a few mentions online in non-WP:RS websites that chronicle everyone who ever appeared in Playboy, but aside from that, I'm not seeing evidence that her fame goes beyond a single event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frank_Gifford#Affair per User:Coren. When every article on the topic has to remind you that she's the woman who had an affair with Frank Gifford, you're dealing with a clearcut case of WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frank_Gifford#Affair, it doesn't need to have its own article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frank_Gifford#Affair. This is mostly a case of WP:BLP1E, even if the 1E did generate quite a bit of controversy and meta-commentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the kind of thing WP:BLP1E was designed for. Absent the affair and the media hype, this person was just a flight attendant. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (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. Taking the previous AFD into consideration, the arguments for the inclusion of this article have failed to show how this article's subject actually passes WP:GNG. All significant press coverage has been almost entirely local, and so far no other sources have been produced to show how Luckett is notable outside of local sources. Given this, the arguments for this article's removal have the stronger bearing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Luckett (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable local official and unsuccessful candidate for more important office; fails WP:POLITICIAN as I read it. Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at all. blastertalk! see 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE . LibStar (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayor of a small city and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. Unless there's more to this than I see in the article, he's not notable. His name is common enough so that an online search is very difficult. FWIW, I removed what appears to be a bad link to a Chinese-character website that is a redirect of his old gubernatorial campaign website. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with a merge or redirect as suggested below. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep and a trout for the nominator. The same nominator brought this up before and it closed a Keep. Notability is Not Temporary. This was not closed as No Consensus, it was closed as Keep. The nominator apparently didn't like that result and is trying again. It would be an absolutely horrible precedent to allow this sort of shenanigans to be rewarded. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

consensus can change. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For convenience, here is my post from the last time that the nominator nominated this: "A really obnoxious gutting done to this piece which is now a pretty worthless stub. THIS counts towards GNG, for sure, it is beyond typical politician coverage. With due respect to the nominator, I'm gonna weigh in tentatively on the Keep side here... Carrite (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

"THIS is campaign-related coverage, yes, but it includes good biographical material for a reexpansion of this piece if this ends a Keep. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

"THIS from the Jackson Free Press indicates that he owns his blues club in partnership with Mississippi Delta native Morgan Freeman. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

"More, THIS from the Memphis Daily News (not campaign related) details then end of their 10 year partnership as owners of a Clarksdale eatery. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

"And HERE is more coverage from the Memphis Daily News with a photo of attorney Luckett and actor Freeman on the groundbreaking of their Clarksdale blues club. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

Uncertain I said keep last time on the basis of the GNG, but I am uncertain if any of the activities that the references refer to have any bearing on notability. I have become very reluctant to base an argument on the GNG when it refers to very local things of no particular note. But in the past we have often done so, except where the results would be absurd. Whether it is absurd here is a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine campaign coverage for an ultimately unsuccessful candidacy, there's really nothing here that asserts notability for this individual. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, all sources are overly local. Secret ^account 04:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete agree with Tarc's assessment. Routine coverage and does not establish WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2011. It is a common and acceptable practice for a losing candidate of an executive position of a subnational government to redirect to a relevant election page. Otherwise I am in agreement with DGG Enos733 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable (albeit barely) for more than one topic. I have a difference of opinion that the sources are overly local, as coverage spans across multiple States and the Memphis and Jackson papers are widely read. Neither is the coverage WP:ROUTINE. Consensus may change, but I agree that notability is not temporary.. Meets WP:GNG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mayor is a notable post. --Soman (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically, no, otherwise there would be a specific criteria for mayors at WP:POLITICIAN. Refer to part 2 there, which reads "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage...". This person does not meet that threshold. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously there will be coverage for an unsuccessful candidate, but that does not mean he meets the notability thresholds. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Obviously there will be coverage for a defeated candidate" is exactly the reason for keeping the articles. I'm no fan of the using the GNG in all cases, but politics is one of the ones where it works fairly well. In fact, that there will be coverage is such cases for major party nominees in a two party system is the reason we should a as a matter of course accept all articles on them if the office is a national office, or governor or a state or province. It will save a lot of discussion and do no harm--it's the sort of material expected in an encyclopedia.We make our own guidelines by what we decide to do here. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HSenid Software International[edit]

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

None of the sources indicates notability, no indication that company meets WP:CORP. Dewritech (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I can find sales announcement articles with text that they "stand tall as a multinational company" and asserting a status among "the most preferred software solution providers in the world" these appear to be syndicated press copy. The references in the article are about an award to the company founder: notability is not inherited. No evidence that the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company article lacking independent refs to establish notability. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HSenid Outsourcing[edit]

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

CSD contested by SPA. No indication that company meets WP:CORP Dewritech (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can this meets the standards outlined. if so on which areas ? i belive this doesnt have any promotional stuff.Das Beyondm (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to HSenid Software International if that survives its own AfD. No evidence that this subsidiary is in tself notable. AllyD (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds too promotional. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Nothing found as promotional . Keep this Royz78 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Royz78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why are there phrases like "Software Solutions", "supplying high quality software products" and "serving Enterprises of all sizes with their Mobile App needs"? Alexius08 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexius08, According to your comment , i have removed those promotional wordings from page . Kindly Please check .

Hi AllyD , You have mention that there are no evidence for this as subsidiary of hsenid software , but if you check following sites , there they clearly mention it . kindly please refer : http://hsenid.com/about-us/company-profile , and hsenid.com/business-areas , http://hsenidoutsourcing.com/about-us/company-profile

Please advice me . ThanksDas Beyondm (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that there is no evidence that this is a subsidiary of HSenid Software International: I accept that as fact. What I do dispute is whether this subsidiary is of encyclopaedic notability in its own right; of that no evidence is presented, nor can I locate any. AllyD (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2014 (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project 89 Kondor Minesweeper[edit]

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

the article is completely unreferenced and even do not exist on search engines. UBS talk 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Admittedly, the article is a stub, but there is no reason to delete it. The class is notable by itself and the articles in foreign-language editions show there are plenty of sources. (I took the liberty to add the appropriate links) ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The German Wikipedia article is huge and well referenced, and a class of warships is an inherently notable topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, per Yngvadottir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and use the German article as reference - the German article is well referenced. Hafspajen (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are nice pictures of the ship
P-30 ormaggiato a La Valletta
P-31 ormaggiato a La Valletta

Don't know if permitted to post pictures here, if not, just move them to article. Hafspajen (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inherently notable by our rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Being a stub isn't a problem per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references have now been added so WP:V is met, and these ships will have received sufficient coverage in Jane's Fighting Ships and similar publications to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ban the duck!. Wait...oh, sorry, this isn't AN/I at all, my mistake. :-) What I meant to say is, cf Talk:Project_89_Kondor_Minesweeper#books. These may help prove WP:N. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Tsunami". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunamis Man[edit]

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

An unsourced essay, unencyclopedic, original research and also no sources have been provided. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for Sppedy deletion WP:CSD#A10 While undoubtedly a child's homework assignment, ("Tsunamis Thomas Williamson Earth Science Period 6 Mrs. Shaw January 16, 2014") this also duplicate's content at Tsunami. Dlohcierekim 17:52, 15 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Emme[edit]

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

Most likely an insignificant BLP that lacks reliable sources. Also, it's highly possible that there's also a conflict of interest, especially in the Biography and Career section, where there's much of promotional content. So, this article is probably written by the concerning person herself or by someone very close to her. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the publicity? There is an eencyclopedic biographyMat80italy (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The bulk of the article has been copied from her bio. I make no judgment on her notability, but this version of the article cannot be used as the basis of an article due to the copyright issue. Whpq (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - I am authorized to use Silvia's bio. I have sent an email to Wikipedia! Mat80italy (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would be careful with that. Web site content such as what was posted her is promotional in tone and would not be suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2014 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of largest projects in the Macedonian economy[edit]

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

Very likely doesn't pass WP:LISTN, because there are no reliable sources at all. Lists like this should be well covered with sources. Alex^{discussion ★} 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not seem like normal practice on WP, also not needed since the information should be given in other places. Also sources are needed to say any project is among the largest. "List of Macedonian economic projects", where each project is notable and sourced, would be better but still not really needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear established criteria what would qualify as "largest projects" therefore open to WP:POV and original research. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duni, Assam[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. The coordinates are the same as for the town of Mangaldoi. Image in the infobox is made of photos of New York City. Word "Duni" is not mentioned in any of the cited sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article appears to be a hoax and if this article isn't a hoax It needs to be Nuked.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but stubify. There does appear to be a village of that name[2] (without the Washington Monument), and Duni Higher Secondary School exists, though I didn't see the others in a list of schools in the tehsil. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify per Clarityfiend. Verifiable village. The hoax content needs to be removed. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can be kept, hoax information seems to have been removed. Ethically ^(Yours) 12:58, 22 January 2014 (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) 01:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starcadian[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND; Appears not to have any independent, reliable sources --Mdann52talk to me! 15:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shows no proof of nobility fail WP:NMUSIC.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Possibly "move to Draft:" if the rapidly-developing Draft:-namespace policies that are still in development form a consensus to allow for "AFD-to-Draft:" before this AFD expires. I did a little digging and he's not quite there yet notability-wise. Maybe WP:TOOSOON or maybe "never." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find a few sources that did not meet RS: blogs, etc. Nothing to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namkhola[edit]

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

This seems to be a hoax. The coordinates are the same as for the town of Mangaldoi. Image in the infobox is made of photos of Berlin, Copenhagen and Bangkok. Word "Namkhola" is not mentioned in any of the cited sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a hoax.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but stubify. Somebody has delusions of grandeur, but there is a village of that name[3], a Namkhola High School, and (be still my heart) apparently a Central Bank of India branch there[4]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify per Clarityfiend. This is a verifiable village. The hoax content needs to be removed and the coordinates need to be corrected. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; real place, but as Clarityfiend notes most of the content is bogus, including the alleged sources contained in the article. The population of the village appears to be near 3000 persons as of 2010. [5]. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 10:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiclet[edit]

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

There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. None of the sources is independent. (The only one that superficially looks as though it might be, www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk, gives its source as Sputnix, a business collaborating with Multiclet.) At a glance, there appear to be plenty of Google hits, but once one weeds out the company's own site, blogs, forums, mere company listing sites, pages that only briefly mention Multiclet, etc etc, and also pages which refer to a completely different meaning of the word "multiclet", not much is left. Google books gives three hits, two of which refer to the other meaning of "multiclet", and the third is a book made up from Wikipedia content. Google scholar gives 4 hits, of which two refer to this meaning of "multiclet", and both of those are on the web site multiclet.com, so they are not independent sources. The article is also somewhat promotional in character. (Note: The article has previously been deleted twice, once by speedy deletion as promotion, and once by PROD.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional article. Alexius08 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2014 (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) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Film Festival – Shropshire Lesbian and Gay Film Festival[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. created by a single purpose editor. I could find no indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to show notability, reads like an advert. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.LM2000 (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Tahir Mahmood Chahal Jatt[edit]

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

Google search only returns results form Facebook, nothing else. [6] Vanjagenije (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, but he was a member of a national legislature and is therefore notable under WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with Necrothesp. The article is awful, but he is still fairly notable. United States Man (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we have a reliable source for his service in Parliament? Without that it's hard to establish notability. This is also a BLP issue. Lagrange 613 01:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though this article is badly written it still falls under WP:POLITICIAN and need a rewrite not be deleted.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lagrange613 has a valid point. Is this person really a member of parliament? The subject is not listed on the National Assembly website. The only supplied semi-reliable reference lists another person winning the NA-135 constituency. Only the infobox suggests that the subject is anything more than a local politician. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, http://jang.com.pk/election2002/thenews_sp/03-10-2002/sp_edition10.htm doesn't list him as a winner in 1990 election from NA-129 constituency. No evidence that he has been MP. --Soman (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2014 (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} 03:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Westerhoven[edit]

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

Notability not established. One purported source, a webshop, doesn't list this singer at all; the other is a self-published genealogy page, which might be used to establish existence, but not notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she is mentioned here and here as Francesca Stoetz. I have also updated the webshop reference to a subpage that at least mentions her, if only in passing. Quantumobserver (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source with a passing mention and the others appear to be primary sources. Gm545 (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't say anything about what songs she sang or anything. Sources are also not good as mentioned above. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 21:54, 21 January 2014 (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) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Forensic Accounting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability except for having (mediocre) listings in two (equally non-notable) listings. Publisher seems to have gone out of business in 2008, so the journal existed for a mere 8 years. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. Are you sure this doesn't meet WP:NJournals? Google Scholar turns up a few citations. Gm545 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it a bit and giving the same criteria for a journal as other types of articles, I'd say this fails to meet the criteria for notability as there aren't many reliable secondary sources. Gm545 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 15 January 2014 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lathrop & Gage[edit]

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

This law firm article has claims of greatness that would easily establish its notability. However, it cites no third-party sources but only the company's own website, and at least some of the claims, such as "oldest continuously operating law firm west of the Mississippi River", seem dubious or outright wrong (see Rose Law Firm and User:EpiphanyVP/sandbox for other contenders for that title). I have failed to find independent verification for such claims, or any significant third-party coverage. Thus the article seems to be unverifiable spam. Its claims have infiltrated other articles on old law firms west of the Mississippi, without any reliable sources, of course. Huon (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A firm with more than 300 attorneys and one the 200 largest law firms in the United States is defacto notable. The claim of being oldest west of the Mississippi is discussed in the article and it's clearly not that. You can delete that if you want but it's still notable simply on the basis of its size. Americasroof (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be added that is attorneys include a former Kansas governor and Kansas City mayor. All of these things make it notable. A simple google reveals thousands of articles about it.Americasroof (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what makes you believe that the claim of being among the 200 largest law firms in the US, based on their own website, is more accurate than the claim of being the oldest west of the Mississippi, also based on their own website? If you have found thousands of reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail, please go ahead and add some of them to the article. My own searches failed to turn up more than press releases a la "Lathrop & Gage announced today that they hired John Doe", not quite significant coverage. Also, notability is not inherited. Huon (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I only did the article to fill in a red link on the List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers which is sourced from the National Law Journal. You can also find info on http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250/attorneys/desc/3 I also back linked existing articles than had existing references to it and that’s how I ran across the oldest claim. But I clarified that as there is no way Lathrop is the oldest (which is stated in the article) Lathrop & Gage is most famous for its railroad practice and you can see all kinds of links here. https://www.google.com/search?q=lathrop+and+gage+railroad&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22lathrop+%26+gage%22+railroad&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=0 The article definitely needs work but on articles for deletion the debate is not about the quality of the article but rather than the subject is notable. Lathrop & Gage by virtue of its size, railroad work, and notable attorneys clearly meets the critieria.Americasroof (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. I'd say this passes WP:GNG as it has multiple independent and reliable sources referencing the subject, although they aren't included in the article. There is a massive BUT though. None of the content in the article is suitable for inclusion as it almost all refers to primary sources so I'd suggest WP:INCUBATION as the author seems to have expressed a willingness to work on the article. Gm545 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find coverage in sources like The American Lawyer: "Lathrop & Gage is a Kansas City, Missouri-based law firm. It acquired Spillane Shaeffer Aronoff Bandlow LLP on January 1, 2009. According to the National Law Journal's 2011 NLJ 250 rankings of firms based on size, Lathrop & Gage has 281 attorneys and is the 150th largest firm in the United States. According to The American Lawyer's 2011 Am Law 200 rankings of firms based on revenue, Lathrop & Gage, with a 2010 gross revenue of $122,500,000, ranked 177th on the list." Incubation would be a waste of time, as that project is moribund, and, in any case, is contrary to our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. AfD isn't cleanup. Also found: [7] [8]. James500 (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of source coverage, as already noted, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2014 (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} 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Arizona Wildcats football team[edit]

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

Unlike articles on a 2014 season, about which facts can be known, this article is a clear-cut violation of WP:CRYSTAL; general consensus, in the past, has been that it is acceptable to create articles one season ahead ... two seasons ahead, the information is quite simply not verifiable - this article specifically has information predominantly on coaches, who come and go, and schemes that change. Nothing in this article is verifiable information other than the fact they are in the Pac-12 and play at Arizona Stadium; if someone wants to userfy this article to add some information as it becomes available, fine, but for now, it is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Go Phightins! 11:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire article is written in the future tense and every assertion in it is (in varying degree), speculation. JohnInDC (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no guarantee anything on the page will be true one year from now. Recreate after the 2014 season. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL violation, and almost everything in this page might not be real in the future, leaving nothing but useless clutter. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 21:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we discussed this at length some time ago at WP:CFB and my recollection was "next season okay, after that no way." It made sense for a number of reasons, including those mentioned above but also a season two years away will likely fail WP:GNG. I think that's the case here as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2014 (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} 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Alabama Crimson Tide football team[edit]

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

Unlike articles on a 2014 season, about which facts can be known, this article is a clear-cut violation of WP:CRYSTAL; general consensus, in the past, has been that it is acceptable to create articles one season ahead ... two seasons ahead, the information is quite simply not verifiable - Lane Kiffin may not be the offensive coordinator, Kirby Smart my find a head coaching job, Nick Saban may retire. While all this is pure speculation, it is not verifiable that they will be there in the 2015 season, but since they have announced/been hired/are under contract for the 2014 season, it is thus acceptable to have that article. Go Phightins! 11:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire article is written in the future tense and every assertion in it is (in varying degree), speculation. JohnInDC (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no guarantee anything on the page will be true one year from now. Recreate after the 2014 season. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XBALL (which 'bama won't be getting that season anyway). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. It's WP:TOOSOON. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOEARLY. ///EuroCarGT 01:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.LM2000 (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 10:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report and Recommendations of the Scots Spelling Committee[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The creator of this report, the Scots Spelling Committee, doesn't have its own article. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a stub with no indication of importance, and not notable. If there was material on spelling reform proposed by a major body, it could go in Scots language. I can't find evidence online that the committee is notable, or that its report is notable: nothing on scotsman.com, and Google mainly throws up mirrors of this article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Scots quotes John Corbett: "devising a normative orthography for Scots has been one of the greatest linguistic hobbies of the past century" and this could well be just another exercise in that vein. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2014 (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. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Damianides[edit]

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

Reads like an essay - but unfortunately an essay about a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NMUSIC. No references to the entire realm of WP:PUFFERY ES &L 09:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has No prove of notbility under WP:GNG

Why would you call him a non notable? Many of the evidences were in photographs that have since been deleted and appear on other websites as a consequence. He was Australia's only respected Bouzouki player period. That plus he was in the West Australian and Daily News papers almost monthly with plenty of write ups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.183.30 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 58.170.183.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How do you upload pictures? I have one with him on the Channel 9 stage at the Hyde Park festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the image use policy and WP:COPYRIGHT ES &L 09:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a Bot? This article was part of wikipaedea for 15 years. Also what I meant was how do you show info for the references? You say there are no references but there are many they just aren't digital.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim to notability and I can't find any decent sources. Granted, not all references would be digital (as stated above) but I would have expected something to be in the Sydney Morning Herald articles of the times if he was notable.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So by your reasoning we should then delete the reference to the Monarchy of Britain because they do not have notable reference in the Sydney Morning Herald to any lineage to the Byzantine or Roman court? Western Australian and Daily News have articles also the Walkanout magazine did a complete biographic. nuff said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.183.30 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mind reader, but NO, I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is poorly written, but we are not to discuss the MoS or writing in the article but rather the notability of the subject. Based on the information in the "references" section, the subject meets GNG but the information must be clearly associated with the material it's meant to reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sorry, but what "information" in the references section? There are no references at all. The only things we have are vague assertions by Ephestion that there may be some coverage somewhere, but having seen that editor in action elsewhere, I definitely wouldn't take his word for it as long as he doesn't actually cite concrete verifiable instances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png The man was a legend. Appears in numerous credible sources and has many photos circulating on the Web. The last vandal deletion here on Wikipedia left this article without photos and numerous other problems. It requires restoration to the way it appeared here on Wiki for the last 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless concrete, substantial and verifiable sources are brought forward. Having searched extensively on Google, both on Latin and Greek spellings, I'm coming up virtually empty-handed. Even taking into account that this person's heyday was before the online age, and that his area of activity was something of a cultural niche (internationally speaking), one would expect a significantly higher level of presence in online media if his influence on the Greek music scene had been of a lasting kind. What little web presence I could detect of this person seems to a very large extent to be due primarily to the fact that he already was in Wikipedia for so long – virtually all the mentions of him in, for example, lists of people "died on this day" etc. seem to be in pages that are directly or indirectly Wikipedia mirrors or other similar pages of low source value, and biographical texts about him appear to be all copies of just one or two prototypes that get mirrored randomly somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the article infringes the copyright of Australian Walkabout Magazine based on a supposed copy of the article online. I tried to tag it per WP:CSD#G12, but the online site is blacklisted. Assuming the blacklisted site is correct, much of the Wikipedia article is copied word for word.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Could you give some hint as to how to find that page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://tinyurl.com/ny9plwt.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, thanks. But I think that's not so much a copy of that Walkabout Magazine, but simply a mirror of an earlier state of our article, where the line "Australian Walkabout Magazine" (meant as a kind of source reference) was printed just like that, easily to be confused with a signature (e.g. [9]). You can see from the earlier history of our article before that version that the text mirrored on nationmaster was not imported in a single step in Wikipedia but had been the result of successive editing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP comment: On reflection, seeing as not a single word of the article is currently sourced, and we don't have a reliable source even for the claim that the subject is no longer alive, I conclude that we are forced by policy to apply WP:BLP#Recently dead or probably dead, i.e. treat this as a WP:BLP case. For this reason, I am going to remove all questionable claims from the article right now — that is, essentially everything. I'm just going to leave the lead sentence in, which is at least likely to be true. Please note that this will reduce the article to a state where it immediately falls under WP:CSD#A7, because all the statements that could potentially constitute a claim to significance will also be gone, although I will defer on acting under CSD for the moment. However, I expect nobody to reintroduce any material without citing a reliable source for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject seems to have been an interesting but not inherently notable person, from the perspective of an encyclopedia. However, I could not find reliable sources to demonstrate notability or even to verify the basic facts--the sources that I can find all seem to circle back to this WP article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a puff piece about a non-notable musician; everyone else has articulated the reasons why better than I can. As to FPAS' BLP argument, while I get the argument, I don't really buy it in this case and think it's procedurally unfair to gut the article on those grounds during the AfD. Having statements and phrases presently available in the article makes it easier for passersby to go out and find sources for individual statements (since they are useful as keywords). While I don't know how common the name "Stavros Damianides" is, suppose you had a subject named "John Smith" and wanted to find sources; you'd have trouble, to say the least, without some context to use as keywords in constructing a search query. And while the context is still present in the article history, a passerby, especially one not so familiar with Wikipedia, probably wouldn't realize that. We might as well say that, since we don't have sources, we should presume this article is a hoax and delete on those grounds. Nah. Just proceed on notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:57, 26 January 2014 (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} 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilasha Singh Mathuriya[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Just a normal researcher who created page for self publicity. The books and papers authored by her are not significant. Strongly favor of deletion of the page Jussychoulex (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article seems to be the only significant author. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable biography.NehaIndia (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligibe cites in GS. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON to have demonstrated the impact needed for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2014 (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} 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Know Why I Bother With Myself[edit]

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

Song not released as single. Non-charting. Non-notable. Lyrical and production info are pure WP:OR. Fails WP:NMUSIC ES &L 13:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable in any way.TheLongTone (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added all appearances of this track in numerous compilations on the article, and added more sources. -- PogiJmon (talk) 11:16, 03 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SONG.Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2014 (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. Overall consensus within this discussion is for the article to be retained, although more input from other users would have been ideal. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a Stupid Question Day[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Ask a Stupid Question Day"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

AfDs for this article:

A non-notable holiday that is observed by 'some schools in the US'. People ask stupid questions all the time what makes this day notable than any other and the sources are far from reliable, Also the previous AfD was in 2005 and everyone who voted keep gave no real reason why the article should be kept other than WP:Other stuff exists JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also to note that this article was created by a unregistered user (things must have been different in 2005) and judging by the first revision I think this article was ment to be a hoax See Here JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better reason for keeping is that this is an independently and reliably, albeit sparsely, documented thing. Even a mere modicum of research — One doesn't even have to use more specialist tools like the Google News Archive. — turns up documentation of this day in books going back to 1984. There are quite a few preceding the 2005 creation of this article, clearly indicating that this was not made up directly in Wikipedia; and the fact that yet another editor apparently couldn't write an article for toffee is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's a valid rationale for cleanup (and perhaps encouraging that person to learn how to write).
David Larzelere sponsored the second annual ASK A "STUPID" QUESTION DAY on September 30, 1985. People are encouraged to ask questions on this day, no matter how stupid the question. The day is listed in Chases' Annual Events […]
— News Library News: Bulletin of the Newspaper Division of Special Libraries Association. Vol. 7–8. Newspaper Division. 1984. p. 48. ((cite magazine)): Missing or empty |title= (help)

September 30 Friday — ASK A STUPID QUESTION DAY Purpose: To encourage curious people to overcome their timidity and ask the "stupid" question. […]
— Chase, William DeRoy; Chase, Helen M. (1988). Chase's Annual Events. Contemporary Books. p. 220.
In the same vein, JayJay, please learn how to nominate at AFD. Do your research first. It took about 2 minutes with Google Books to turn up documentation of this subject that is clearly not derived from Wikipedia, including some interesting news articles that indicate that newspapers would be profitable places for an actual encyclopaedia writer to explore. You don't serve Wikipedia by not researching the stuff that you think is bogus. Research is how you find out if it actually is bogus, or is genuine and simply written by someone with next to no writing ability. Nominating things because they were created by editors without accounts, and because your personal opinion is that the thing is stupid/worthless, is wrong and damaging. (Imagine if everyone did it! Actually you don't have to. Witness the chaos back in 2005 and before when in fact that's what many people did.) Notability is not subjective. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consecutive criticism. I would take all your points into consideration when nominating new articles for deletion. I have recently took a long break from this website due to being too busy in general, so I'm a bit rusty. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:21, 30 December 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) 04:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has received widespread coverage both geographically (including UK and India) and in time since the 1980s.[10][11][12][13][14][15] Notability isn't clear-cut, as coverage while widespread tends to be quite shallow e.g. "ok there's this day, now here's some stupid questions", but I don't see an obvious merge target, and it fulfils Wikipedia's educational purpose to carry this article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2014 (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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Sakr[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. There is no inherent notability in being an ambassador (this has been discussed at WP:BIO). All I could find is one line mentions confirming his role. I would reconsider if someone can find Arabic non trivial coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 December 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) 04:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tend to believe that ambassadors are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador. This was discussed at talk page of WP:BIO . LibStar (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no consensus was reached. Once again, as I have pointed out to you many times, opinions are perfectly valid in AfDs. I have expressed mine; you have expressed yours. As very senior members of a country's administrative service, I believe ambassadors are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

opinions should refer to how a notability criterion is met. Your own inherent notability criterion that hasn't gained community consensus doesn't really cut it. It would be like me saying in a hotel AfD , all hotels are inherently notable because I believe so. LibStar (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would be entirely within your rights to say so. It would then be up to others to agree or disagree. Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We can express any opinion we desire. We are not obliged to express them simply within the terms of established criteria. We've had this discussion before. Pointless having it again. If others agree with me then that's their right; if they don't then that's their right too. It's not up to you to act as some sort of bureaucrat telling other contributors what opinion they're allowed to express. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it just seems you are using WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. I could turn up to any AfD and simply say I think this is or is not inherently notable based on my opinion. AfDs are discussions on how notability is met against established criteria. your best way to establish notability is to provide sources, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could indeed. And that's fair enough. AfDs are simply discussions on whether something is notable or not. Slavish following of non-existent "rules" is not necessary. As I said, it's up to the closer. I've stated my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "He has served as a diplomat since 1980 in many postings. He was first appointed by Hafez Assad in the early 1980s.", albeit unreferenced, is a good indication of notablity. Googling the name+Canada in Arabic gives quite a few hits. --Soman (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2014 (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. Since no other admin seems willing to close this AfD after nearly a month, it highlights to fact it is impossible to find consensus to delete; I don't like this close, but this has had more than enough time for additional input and has failed to involve enough editors to achieve a consensus for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Feichi[edit]

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

a professional esports player. While there is not really such a thing as a fully professional league as WP:ATHLETE would require, the player has won several fully professional tournaments. However, with e-sports, there is still very little in the way of reporting from traditional reliable sources. I don't think this article is sustainable from the combination of primary sources and less reliable sources currently available. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:08, 28 December 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) 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of this article. The most important tournament of Dota2 is the The International which prize money for champion now is more than $1,400,000 and previous prize money for champion is more than $1,000,000. The most famous tournament of e-sports is World Cyber Games. He was the champion of these two tournaments and was evaluated the best solo player in 2012 by gosugamer and liquid.net. I offer the office website of these two tournaments as the reliable source. Then for dota, the most important international tournaments are SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and World DotA Championship. He was the champion of SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and the runner-up of World DotA Championship. He also got the runner-up of Intel Extreme Masters(I offered the office web page) dota title. I have already offered the office website for these tournaments as the source. I think office website should be the most reliable source. Thank you. Miracle dream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I see that most of e-sports biography articles used the web page as the reference, such as Fredrik Johansson (electronic sports player)， Guillaume Patry,Andy Dinh,Aleksey Krupnyk,Laurens Pluijmaekers, Manuel Schenkhuizen, Danylo Ishutin,Sander Kaasjager,Cannito Giancarlo,Cannito Giancarlo, Chris Loranger and Marcus "Dyrus" Hill. All reference of these famous e-sports player articles are from some websites which are even not the office web page. The problem is if this kind of articles should be deleted, you will probably delete all articles about e-sports player. It is because now all information about e-sports comes from online source. At this moments,there are few books or other materials about the e-sports.Miracle dream (talk) 20:46, 28 December 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) 04:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage in third party, reliable sources. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I add the source from Good Game, GameDaily and Eurogamer which are considered reliable sources per consensus at WikiProject Video Games's Source evaluation page.Then use the official website of wcg (World Cyber Games) as the source of achievement at World Cyber Games tournament which should be reliable. Miracle dream (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the significant coverage about Feichi in these sources. Am I overlooking anything? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with you. For example, yes, a reliable Eurogamer source was added, but the source doesn't even mention Luo in it, its just a source about an event he was part of. If it doesn't actually discuss Luo in any capacity, it doesn't work towards the notability of Luo at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, will you check the articles which I listed above after decision? All of them don't have the reliable sources and most of sources from these articles just described some events (the player join) not the player but some of them are very famous and notable e-sports players.It seems you should also delete these famous e-sports players based on this rule. I think wiki should improve their coverage or make a new rule to determine whether to keep a e-sports player. If not, I am sure probably 80% or 90% articles about e-sports players should be deleted. Maybe only 1 or 2 article will remain. Another problem why not determine notable of an e-sports player based on their achievements if given the evidence of these achievements from reliable source? Then actually there are some of articles about Luo's biography online but the problem is these articles were from other wiki (For example, some game wiki) or from gosugamer.net and teamliquid.net. It seems other wiki, gosu or liquid may not be acknowledged. Miracle dream (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)

We'll have to go case-by-case. From the top of my hat Tastosis are probably notable, but other than that I wouldn't know. It's also quite possible that some of the teams are notable rather than their individual players. That I can't think of any from the top of my hat doesn't mean there aren't any though. Specifically the Korean e-sports scene is unknown to me - and we all know it's pretty large. There might be coverage there for players that may be harder to find. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the lack of third party reliable sources in other articles is not a valid reason to keep this article, it would be a reason to delete all of them. That's really the only way to measure notability in the Wikipedia sense. Anything that doesn't meet that, isn't meeting Wikipedia's standards, and should be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus,the things I want to say is wiki should create a more sufficient rule for e-sports player. I am not trying to convince you delete the articles I listed.I think should find a new way to determine it. Actually, the list I offered above is just a little part of articles which have this problem. I also check other articles about e-sports player (include Korean e-sports players) but none of them satisfy your requirement.I bet you need to delete the whole Categories of e-sports players. In fact, I hope not to delete any of them. Hence the more important thing is to create a more sufficient coverage or rule.I think current rule is not effective for e-sports.I think achievement should be an important criterion for e-sports. Then I think should consider more source. I check WikiProject Video Games's Source evaluation page, most of the sources in this page just describe the video game not e-sports or e-sports tournaments.I can hardly search an article related e-sports in these sources. However, you don't accept the official website as the sources about a tournaments.WP:VG/RS doesn't consider any Korean sources as the reliable sources even you know e-sports in Korea is pretty large. Hence,there is no sufficient way to find sources about e-sports. At last, I think the result is to delete whole Categories of e-sports players. Miracle dream (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly accept Korean sources - as long as they meet WP:RS. If they also give significant coverage about the player, and they are independent of the player, they prove wikiNotability. If you have such Korean sources for this player but thought you couldn't use them because they are Korean, by all means bring them in. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but any special conditions for notability, for example, WP:NSONGS, is still largely rooted in the GNG. It's the premise of the entire Wikipedia Project, you can't just go and make exceptions for its very foundation. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on this a little, specific notability guidelines generally work in the way that they say if conditions x, y and/or z are met, we have found that in those cases the subject will meet the standard of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and as such can be used as a shot-cut for it. They don't intend to set special terms, just shortcuts to evaluating the main one. I'm happy to explain further if you have questions how that works, but this AfD is not the place for that. Feel free to ask on my talkpage for example. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Korean or Chinese sources are also acceptable.Can you tell me which kind of Chinese or Korean online sources is acceptable. For e-sports players, every articles just use the online sources and it is hard to find other sources. Just give me an example of Chinese online sources so that I can find it.Miracle dream (talk)18:19, 9 January 2014‎

I'm personally not familiar in sources of that language, but this link helps with identifying reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From this page, it seems online sources are not acceptable but for e-sports more than 90% sources are from some websites. I need some information about reliable online sources. Miracle dream (talk)18:19, 9 January 2014‎

The same as for all other sources: they must have editorial oversight with a reputation for fact checking. So no user submitted content like wikis and forums, and no self-published content like blogs. They must also be independent, so no press releases. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me whether gosugamers.net is acceptable? Miracle dream (talk)20:44, 9 January 2014

I'm not quite sure there is much editorial control (going by this it seems there isn't much, but quite possibly some), but it certainly is something. If it has an article like this for example on Feichi, that could would definitely help, especially if there are more such articles. Again, they don't have to be written in English, they can be written in Korean. It's a little harder to judge those for non-korean speakers (like myself), but there should be people able to figure things out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if an article like this,[16] or [17] is acceptable. I also find some articles like this but it's an game wiki.Miracle dream (talk)04:54, 10 January 2014‎

Great work, thanks for finding these. The first two are interviews. Interviews are a primary source (it's the subject talking about himself), but at the same time they are not published by the subject itself. I do believe that this counts towards notability - it is a third party taking note of the subject - but that's not a standard interpretation. The third one is a wiki, which is user-generated content and does not count as a reliable source. If there were sources there, we could have maybe used those, but unfortunately, there aren't. In the light of these newly found sources, and with the knowledge that the e-sports scene is centered around Korea, and this player is Chinese where there also is a significant scene, it seems likely (not demonstrated, but still likely) that there is more material out there in Korean or Chinese language sources that further establishes notability for this player that we just haven't found yet. The current combination of reliable primary sources should be sufficient to source a basic article. With that, I currently turn to weak keep (with no prejudice against re-nominating in a few months time), with the understanding that notability hasn't been demonstrated yet, but is likely to exist, and we probably need more time to either unearth it, or find that there turns out to be no notability after all. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this changes your mind again or not, @Martijn Hoekstra:, but all of the sources seem to come from a "gosugamers", which was recently deemed "not reliable" here, where WikiProject Video Games determine reliability of different sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh snap. I'll have to take a look later. one is gosugamers, and the other is itsgosu btw. Whether that helps or not is another point. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just keep with tag about notability problem like this article Kyle Miller or keep with tag additional citations like Ronald Kim and Fatal1ty? Or maybe you can tag like Laurens Pluijmaekers.I think should give me online source about e-sports players so that I can easily find something about players. I see the sources wiki offered are all about game video but you know game video is different with electronic sports.I suggest to list a reliable online sources for e-sports not for video game.Miracle dream (talk)19:24, 10 January 2014‎

It wouldn't really conceptually make sense to close this as "Keep" and then tag the article for notability - this is the place where we're supposed to be determining such a thing. We shouldn't keep the article if we can't prove its notability here. As for starting up a page for reliable sources on e-sports, you'd probably want to propose such a thing at WikiProject Video Games, not a deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confused why the articles I listed tag that and what are these tags for. If these tags exits, they should be used for something. There are so many articles tag this. Is it a mistake to tag these labels for these articles? Then can you help me to propose this thing to WikiProject Video Games? I am not a member of this project and I think this will not invite me to join this project. Hence, I think proposed by a member will be more useful. Another reason is I don't know how to organized this proposal. I think you have known my idea in this page so I hope you can help me to organized it and propose to the project. Another question: Are you the administrator to determine whether delete this article? From your replies, it seems you have the final decision right.Miracle dream (talk)20:16, 10 January 2014‎

Can you also offered some online reliable sources about e-sports players so I can edit for this article? Miracle dream。Also, can I use some Chinese article like this as the sources? (talk)20:32, 10 January 2014‎

If an article is "tagged for notability", it usually used as a signal that it may not meet Wikipedia's standard for having its own article. A common response to that tag is try to delete it, or prove that it meets the requirements. This is why I say it wouldn't make sense to close this discussion as "Keep" - it would be moving backwards considering its already been nominated for deletion, and so far it hasn't found consensus that it meets the requirements.
Yes, Martijn and I are Admin, but in deletions discussions, the final verdict and deletion must be done by an uninvolved Admin - a third party who didn't participate in the discuss, but just review it. Martijn and I lost the ability to delete it ourselves once we joined in on these discussions.
Any person at any time can declare themselves "members of a Wikiproject". You can just as easily declare yourself a member and start a discussion on the talk page. While I'm greatly interested in video games, I don't really have any interest in it as a sport, so I wouldn't be the one to go to for this one. I can only help you with understanding what a reliable source is... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then how to post this proposal in video game project? Can I use some Chinese article like this as the sources? Miracle dream (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2014‎

To ask about it, just go to the talk page of the WikiProject, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games) and start up a new discussion. As far as your source, its hard to tell since can't read any of it. It doesn't especially look professional. Can you verify if they have an editorial staff with a history of fact checking? Can you check their credentials? Can you see how it stacks up with the info at WP:IRS? Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been foiled before by sites that look 'like that'. For Western sources I can get a rough first impression of the reliability of the source by the look of the webdesign alone. For non-western sources that can be quite different. I've had things that 'look' like a promising source at first been just blogs, and things that look like they can't be much be prestigious national newspapers. It's one of those things where systemic bias can put you on the wrong leg. Which is also why I'm sticking with my weak keep. I still don't think that notability has been sufficiently demonstrated, but I still think it at least likely that someone who knows the Korean and/or Chinese sources on e-sports will unearth sufficient to demonstrate notability - and that this likely can't be done during the running time of this AfD. That we have no deadline cuts both ways. There is no rush in getting this into mainspace, nor is there any hurry to source it better - though it has to be done eventually, and can't be put of indefinitely. While it is in mainspace it is likelier to get to an acceptable level of sourcing - if that sourcing turns out to exist - than outside it as a draft or userfied piece, and definitely easier than when we delete it now. What it comes down to is that I think the damage we would do by deleting now if it turns out notable later will be almost irreparable, while the damage we do by keeping while it turns out later it's not notable after all is slight. I think we may be better off to err at the safe side. In the upcoming period we can then take a look at what in general the good sources for e-sports players are, and revisit this and other players notability when we have a better grasp on where to look for sources on this subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, @Martijn Hoekstra:. What exactly are we playing it safe on? What "damage"? We're talking about a person's who's claim to fame is "playing video games good", not a powerful politician or business person or something. I'm having a hard time reconciling your stance like that with things like WP:BLP standards too, what you're proposing is pretty much the opposite of how we handle BLPs... Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern about BLP, but there are plenty reliable primary sources from the tournaments he has taken part in to satisfy WP:V, even for BLP's, it's only notability I'm concerned with for this player. "playing video games good" in this case good enough to be a fully professional player, and frankly, I don't see the difference between "playing video games good", "running quickly", "hitting a ball with a bat real hard", etc. Whether or not you or I acknowledge e-sports as something valuable isn't really relevant as long as sources do. And they do: Korea has entire tv channels devoted to e-sports, and for this game in particular, see DOTA_2#Professional_competition. What I'm not sure of is whether this particular player meets the threshold of notability, but at the same time I'm very aware that it's difficult finding sources in Chinese and Korean through Google, and even more so with a transliterated name. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The part of my message about him being a video game player was merely in reference to "playing it safe" or "avoiding damage" - as in, I don't understand any sort of repercussion for the deletion of this sort of article. There would be huge "damage done" if we deleted Bill Clinton or abortion or something. Not sure I see it happening with an article of this caliber. That's all that part was about - I recognize that it doesn't matter what he does, it ultimately comes down to if there's the third party sources that meet the WP:GNG. And that's why your stance puzzles me - a "well I can't find sources but lets keep anyways". How is that a policy-based keep argument? Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A subject with the importance of Bill Clinton would never have such questionable notability as this biography has. But that notability is questionable doesn't mean it's absent. I don't mind checking if I can get some help with finding sources to do a decent web search, and to find the relevant magazines that would be likely to have coverage, and then see if I can find content of those ( http://issuu.com/dota2magazine/docs/dota2magazine_4_ru is one magazine devoted to DOTA2, which will certainly have player profiles for example, and it's quite possible Fei Chi is among them), but I certainly won't be able to do so before the current AfD relisting expires, and I'm not even sure I will be able to do so if there is another re-listing which is questionable in the first place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you misunderstand my example. I'm listing example articles that would be "damaging" if we deleted them, in an effort to understand why you feel the need to "play it safe" in this instance, something I'm still trying to wrap my head around. Not sure how it would damage the project if a poorly sourced BLP of a barely-more-than-a-stub article that basically serves as a trophy list, was deleted. Seems a lot worst to keep this sort of thing around. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly quite shocked we're still discussing this, there's definitely a precedence for deleting this poorly sourced esports player BLP articles. Past ones have had clear consensus to delete:

All of these very similar articles ended as "Delete". Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb your discussion. After these, I have a question. Did you keep at least one article about e-sports players from the previous deletion nomination? If so, I hope you can give an example of a good article for e-sports player. If not, I think wiki really lack a way to determine notable for e-sports player. You list many articles which were deleted by wiki (Actually I don't know much about these articles). Then in this page I listed more articles above, that means it will delete more articles. Thus, the consensus is if an article is about e-sports player, then it will be deleted when it is nominated. Hence why create a Category Electronic sports players by nationality or Category Electronic sports players . Actually based on these, I think these categories should not exist. Miracle dream (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2014‎

Dan Stemkoski is an example of a fairly well referenced article that I don't think should be any discussion about (but feel free to disagree if you do Sergecross ;) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is a commentator not an e-sports player. Actually he is notable for his commentary not for his performance in any tournaments. It just like someone is not famous when he is a player but become widely known after retirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx2)No need to be shocked about people disagreeing about when content should or shouldn't be kept; it's quite OK to disagree over it. I still think there is a very good chance this person is notable. But it seems like we're not getting any closer to each other in this discussion. Maybe we can look at finding (local) consensus. How about a merge of verifiable information to Invictus Gaming? I'll be happy as we won't be binning stuff I think may be notable (but we don't know that yet, googling Chinese sources is terrible), and we won't have the stand-alone title, which should satisfy you, I think. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Stemkoski is a good example, yes, as far as the type of coverage in sources that an article should have. There's all sorts of sources used that have a prior consensus on their reliability at WP:VG/S. (GameZone, Polygon, Kotaku, etc) Yes, I would be happy with a "Merge" compromise as well as long as it didn't impede on a delete consensus if that somehow managed to arise from all of this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Dan Stemkoski is notable as a commentator not for his performance in any tournaments as a player. There is still no good example for an e-sports player. Another thing is if "Merge", can you create an article like Dota2 or e-sports player and then merge every dota2 or other e-sports player in this article? Some player I listed like Danylo Ishutin which has the same problem can also be merged in this article when you want to delete his article. Even you can merge someone you has deleted but famous.This is just my suggestion.You can choose an applicable way.Miracle dream (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014‎

Well, regardless, Dan Stemkoski is still a good example of the types of sources that are usable/necessary, and the sort of content that should be there. (ie, not just a laundry list of tournaments he's one. There's real substance there.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem I said. For e-sports, it is even hard to find a good example for a player in wiki. When try to find some good article, can just find a commentator from player category (Actually this should be in wrong category). This is why I think maybe wiki need a more sufficient way for e-sports players. I know commentator is important for a tournament but I think players should be the same as commentator especially for these successful players.I feel maybe in electronic player category, you can only find some articles of commentator or online poker and chase players which should not be in electronic sports category. Miracle dream (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2014‎

Sorry, I think its hard to find a good example because so many them either don't meet the WP:GNG, and/or are just terribly written. (Many of them follow the same format of excessive tournament listing and going largely unsourced or poorly sourced. Whoever's writing these things don't tend to be experienced article writer/creators.) Most of them I come across are actually already here at WP:AFD, and end up being deleted, like my collection of links above showed, so I don't usually come across any good ones. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, still surprised this hasn't garnered any more discussion beyond the nominator, an WP:SPA article creator, and myself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the WP:SPA you said is me. If not, I make an apology to say these to you. If so, I wonder why you describe me like that. If there is no this kind of discussion, I will not appear in this page again.Then I have wiki account since 2011 (only used a few times, maybe just 5 or 6 days) but I know I start to edit in 2013 and have 2-year-gap. I also joined many other articles edition which I am familiar.Maybe the area I joined was narrow because of the narrow knowledge limitation. I just vote one time and other contents are all my opinion not votes in this page. I don't know what is the difference in this page between me and you.Then admin Martijn Hoekstra also joined this discussion not just me.At last, I may edited the article we discussed one more time and will never edited it again.If you don't want to discussed with me,I may not join this discussion again.I think I have stated all my opinions.Sorry to write these.I just feel I may not get the respect and even feel a kind of personal attacks (Maybe it is just my illusion). I may not know much about wiki rule like you but I will try to realize. Thank you. If I misunderstand you words,I apologize. If you want to reply something about this, you can write in my talk page. Thank you.Miracle dream (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2014‎

SPA is not an attack or an insult. It just means "single purpose account". As in, every single edit in like the last 100 or 200 edits you've made to the project has been related to Luo Feichi. (Or at least 99% of them.) Its just a description. The prospect is usually just mentioned to note that a user is probably more concerned with the topic of the article than building an encyclopedia. Your arguments have been more about the defense of e-sports and Luo rather than Wikipedia policy, correct? Which is fine, you're new here, and that appears to be your personal interest. But its not supposed to be what deletion stances are supposed to be centered around. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 17 January 2014 (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) 03:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Andrews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable magician lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. A number of awards, but they appear to be local or not major in nature. If the article could provide support for the awards, this AfD might not be necessary. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The awards section has been reorganized and some sources have already been added. Especially the most notable ones. More sources will be added as they are located. Teddyfoyle (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claimed awards are from the oldest magician's organization in the world, and the largest magician's group in the world, so the claim that they are "local or not major" seems incorrect. But verifying the claims seems difficult. I want to see better sourcing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are working on providing additional sources but some of these groups, even the largest ones, do not print this information on their own web sites which is frustrating. How can we provide sources that will make everyone happy and remove this threat of deletion? Photos of the awards themselves seems extreme but if need be can be provided. But how would we link to the photos here and wouldn't that be considered a bit too much? Thank you for your assistance. Teddyfoyle (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Photos of the awards are primary documents which don't show notability, Teddyfoyle. How about newspaper or magazine articles? The burden is on you. Please avoid speaking as "we". Wikipedia accounts are for one individual person only, not for groups. Please say "I" instead, and speak only for yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply My apologies for using "we". Didn't mean to offend the Wiki world with my newness. Not every magazine or newspaper produces an online version that I can link to. I will continue to try to add sources. I am finding the experience of adding content to Wikipedia to be very frustrating and also finding those I am interacting with here so far to be very abrasive and confrontational without cause. It has not been a positive experience thus far, but I will continue to do whatever I need to do to fulfill what's asked of me. Teddyfoyle (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offense taken or intended. There is no need that sources be available online, Teddyfoyle. Paper sources are perfectly acceptable, although they should be cited in complete detail, and it is advisable to quote the most germane sentence or two from the article, for verification purposes. I have tried to be polite to you. I am sorry that you feel that some editors here are confrontational. Please be aware that every single day, literally thousands of new "articles" pour into Wikipedia, the majority of which are nonsense, spam, hoaxes, promotion of unknown people or obscure businesses, crank theories and complete craziness. All of this garbage and the few gems mixed in need to be evaluated by unpaid Wikipedia volunteers, and sometimes some of us get a bit jaded. I apologize for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Comment"" Jason Andrews appeared as a headlining performer at the Crazy Horse Paris at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. http://www.newslincolncounty.com/archives/65781 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeia4osSgoo (shows him performing there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.202.253 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you. Those sources have been added to the page now. Teddyfoyle (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have now added several sources and references to the article. More will be added as well. While reviewing other magician wikipedia pages it is obvious that this article has a substantial amount of notable content and has value to its existence. Jason is a internationally known magician with TV and stage work along with first place awards granted by the oldest and largest magician's group in the world which I have sourced. I can't see how this article should in any way be deleted as it's validity is obvious at this point. Hopefully we can put this deletion issue to rest. Thanks to everyone for their feedback and assistance. Teddyfoyle (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Press releases do not confer notability, and, as expected of an article that relies on them, this article is too promotional. Maybe a neutral rewrite that uses reliable sources could survive, but this looks like it was written by the guy's agent. My own Google searches turn up nothing useful. It looks like it's too soon for an article on this magician. Once he gets a few articles in The New York Times and CNN, he can have an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a magician that has won the highest placed ranking award from the oldest and most respected magician organization in the world and has also toured and headlined worldwide as well as on the Las Vegas strip. All with cited sources. Also, the way the article is written is not different from the way most articles about living people are written here. I think it's very clear that this is a very valid article and I'm not sure why this was re-listed as the original reason it was nominated for deletion has been well disproven at this point. Teddyfoyle (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to Wikipedia′s notability ″Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.″ So I do not agree that he needs to be in the NY Times or on CNN. 1na8ense (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, wide range of awards and sources. However, User:Teddyfoyle may have a conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and try again with a more modest article. Trying to include everything posssiblere in this manner is promotional. There needs to be enough, but that should include only the most important. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of primary sources. he needs more coverage in mainstream press to get over the line to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2014 (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 The Monsters in the Morning withdrawn, no consensus on Songs of The Monsters in the Morning. Only one of the !votes specifies which article they were talking about, of the two that were nominated. I cannot determine a separate consensus for each article on that basis. No prejudice against renominating the "Songs of..." article separately. —Darkwind (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Monsters in the Morning[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Local radio show in Orlando. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Formerly simulcast over one of Clear Channel's leased XM channels (not particularly unique) -- XM has not aired show since Clear Channel sold its stake in the satellite company. Show formerly aired in Tampa; despite claim in article, unable to confirm if show ever aired in other markets. Three of eight sources report on exit of former co-host; one is of questionable reliability; one is on former co-host's career after the show; two I added myself to confirm that show no longer airs on XM. Only other online source I could find reports on host's stepson finding whale bones on a beach. Note that this show is not local TV show of the same name which briefly aired in Chicago. Propose delete, but open to redirecting to WTKS-FM. Levdr1lp / talk 09:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator per anon IP's newly found sources. Note that I am only withdrawing nom for the show -- I still propose deleting the Songs article, but per RadioFan, open to redirecting to the show article. And for the record, I like Lady Gaga. Levdr1lp / talk 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has absolutely no evidence of notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lp / talk 09:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem particularly notable. Not syndicated or anything. Just another routine show that radio is obliged to generate to fill air time.
Songs don't seem to be commercially published. No indication of sales. No WP:RS or any footnotes, for that matter! Student7 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said in the previous nom, this is an average-rated morning show in an average market lucky enough to get on XM; whether that program was popular though on XM...another story with no numbers at all as its channel was far away from XM's prime real estate and wasn't promoted, and CC isn't breaking out iHeartRadio numbers anytime soon either. The unnotable list of promotional CD's/garden variety song parodies also can be deleted. Nate • (chatter) 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the last nomination. The show ~~continues to be~~was simulcast nationally on XM Satellite radio which does not have rating information available so we really have no reliable information on ratings. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources including local newspapers as well as trade papers to demonstrate notability. However Songs of The Monsters in the Morning does not meet notability guidelines and should be merged into Monsters in the Morning RadioFan (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment XM pulled the Clear Channel-programmed stations three months back besides a few highlight stations, which included Extreme Talk; all those services are now iHeartRadio exclusive, giving this show the 'national' reach of any station on IHR, that is you have to specifically find or it has to be promoted to appear. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RadioFan is right (in a way). Nothing has changed since the last nomination -- this show didn't have significant coverage last July, and it still doesn't have significant coverage now. Per WP:SIGCOV, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." -- in this case, the Orlando Sentinel (three sources = one). RadioFan-- if you can find additional sources on the show itself, and not just local coverage on a co-host's departure, then please provide them. Levdr1lp / talk 01:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Nate is absolutely correct. As of October 18, 2013, the show is not simulcast on XM. Levdr1lp / talk 01:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addition to local coverage by the Orlando Sentinel there is regional coverage by the St. Petersburg Times, as well as coverage in industry news sources such as FMQB, RadioInsight and Talkers Magazine. Different articles, different authors, different organizations meeting WP:SIGCOV. Also, the show no longer being simulcast on XM does not impact notability here, notability is not temporary--RadioFan (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source in the article discusses the show in any detail, and it's the very same St. Petersburg Times piece you've referenced. Unfortunately, a single source, no matter how detailed, does not establish notability. The FMQB post isn't credited, and only consists of a few sentences on the show's cancellation in Tampa. There are two mentions of the show at the Talkers site, but both are on charity work and smell like they were lifted from press releases. And no one is suggesting notability is temporary -- length of time on the satellite service, however, as well as the nature of that run, are relevant. Dozens of Clear Channel shows aired on one or more of CC's leased space on XM from 2001 to 2013 -- none of those shows are particularly unique (or notable) for having done so, nor are they in any way on par w/ a Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony. More like on-air filler. Are we even able to verify just how long this show aired on XM? WP:NRVE. Levdr1lp / talk 04:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that amounts to WP:SIGCOV, so the subject appears the fail to meet WP:GNG. The media coverage appears to be almost entirely local, and such coverage as there is typically consists of nothing more than casual mentions. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here to say Delete --Tv's emory (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, survived the first AFD, and as best I can tell nominator is spamming for votes. Jeepday (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC) retract I missed seeing my edits in the history. Jeepday (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Jeepday:-- You edited the article twice in 2008.[18][19]. As such, I contacted you, as well as any other contributor with any edits which weren't marked "minor" as logged by the AFD suggested website. I didn't contact any bots or any editors w/ only minor-marked edits (or any anon IPs). How is that spam? The first nomination resulted in "no consensus" after not one, but two relists. Now this second nomination has been relisted, so in addition to the participants of the first nomination, and only after the relist, I contacted all other non-exclusively-minor contributors... and no one else. If anything, I would expect the majority of contributors to favor keeping the article (I prefer deletion or redirect). Per AFD-- "One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article." I honestly never thought I was violating WP:CAN. Levdr1lp / talk 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show may not be simulcast nationally now or even within its home state but its history is that it was at one time & should be kept.Stereorock (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I really see here -- at least in terms of coverage -- is a local Orlando radio show. There is only one source which covers the subject in any detail -- the St. Petersburg Times article -- but even that does not mention the show's simulcast on XM. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any direct mention of the show's XM simulcast from a reliable source independent of the subject -- and there is nothing inherently notable about a radio show which aired on satellite radio. Clearly The Morning Mash Up on Sirius XM Hits 1 is a much more prominently-featured show on the satellite platform (it's also produced by the satellite company, rather than occupying Clear-Channel-leased space), but in terms of actual coverage from reliable, independent sources, it's no more notable than Monsters. Levdr1lp / talk 10:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only The Monsters (but delete the "Songs of..." stuff) per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and the refs here — Talk:The_Monsters_in_the_Morning#some_additional_WP:RS.2C_to_add_to_the_current_batch. I count four to eight WP:N and about a dozen WP:NOTEWORTHY from 2000 through 2014, not counting the radio-show itself from 1993or5 thru 2014+, which technically *is* itself actually WP:RS even though they're "just" a talk show. Some of us may wish that Lady Gaga were banished from the pages of the 'pedia, and that The Monsters weren't more wikiNotable than The Math, but that's not the way WP:GNG works. If the glove doesn't fit, you must a'keep.

p.s. Because the show was historically called The Monsters in the Mid-day from 1995-2004, and only switched to The Morning from 2005-2013 after Howard Stern battled the FCC, it might be worth moving/renaming the article to simply The Monsters (which is a straight redirect now). But I guess, even though the show is now off EXTREME XM and WXTB, they are still on WTKS, so maybe we should stick with the current name for now, as the one the readership is most likely to want. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((sorry, missed the other thing the first time)) ...update, but delete the "Songs of..." stuff which is pure WP:SPIP, from what I can tell. Do not merge, and even I'd recommend wiping the table of CD releases from the parent article, as well, same reason. WP:NOTPROMOTION is a policy straight from pillar one, and nobody seems to have reviewed their albums, nor commented on any of their songs. We know the songs got radio-airplay, but in this case it was WP:ABOUTSELF airplay, which is not good enough methinks. WP:NOTEWORTHY means somebody independent, i.e. without a financial interest, thought the stuff was worth noting. Most of the cast-members are mentioned in the WP:RS coverage, but none of the parody-songs themselves (nor the albums for that matter) were ever brought up that I saw. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a single market show in a dying medium; sources that cover it are incidental mentions that fail to establish the breadth or depth of coverage required for notability BlueSalix (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator, I would've agreed with you before the anon IP's source dump yesterday. But that was yesterday. Feel free to have a look at Talk:The_Monsters_in_the_Morning#some_additional_WP:RS.2C_to_add_to_the_current_batch. Levdr1lp / talk 23:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did, however, I maintain my support for delete for reasons I stated. BlueSalix (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article now crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds thanks to recent updates. Still not sure my one edit from 5+ years ago made it worth notifying me of this discussion directly. - Dravecky (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were contacted b/c your edit was not marked "minor", as were all other registered contributors w/ any non-minor edits. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the best way to draw in additional input. Levdr1lp / talk 00:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the flagship show on WTKS, one of the few remaining stations of its kind (ie hot talk). It was Clear Channels flagship talk show on the entire XM-platform for many years. You can't find too many of these shows on terrestrial radio anymore on terrestrial radio, Rover in Cleveland, Bubba the love sponge in Tampa and the Monsters in Orlando.ericdxx

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} 03:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Ton Bend[edit]

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

I am opening discussion because i think that this band is not notable. I can't find any reliable sources, but maybe there are some. There are other bands with the same name, so it's hard to search for sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it as unsourced. Jingiby (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't just delete because it's unsourced! They may actually be notable. However, I couldn't find anything. In any case, the article description fails WP:MUSICBIO. You need to have done something quite special as a band to make it. Gm545 (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2014 (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) 00:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:00, 15 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant Opportunities Center[edit]

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

basically promotional DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Great catch. Delete! EDIT: and also WP:CONFLICT DocumentError (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reading WP:NOREASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I thought this nomination was so patently self-evident that WP:RAP would be understood by all GF editors; I have expanded my explanation in view of the contraindication DocumentError (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:ORGDEPTH, and promotional copy and tone can be corrected by copy editing. Source examples include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is so promotional, that it will be easier to start from scratch and have all this promotion deleted from the edit history. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty--if that's your suggestion, then why don't you first create a new article in a sandbox, and we can deliberate section by section on whether/how it's an improvement of the present article. Once we work out the kinks, we can replace the present article with the new improved version.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with reasoning of NorthAmerica1000. Just the fact that NY restaurant workers form an organization that empowers other restaurant workers to struggle against prevailing industry practices makes it a unique organization. The organization then founds a restaurant on a business model that serves to inspire many other such enterprises across the country, which makes it more noteworthy. It's a leading edge of an under-reported national movement for restaurant worker empowerment and non-exploitation. Then, add in the fact that it was started by survivors of 9/11 who worked at the iconic Windows on the World, and the fact that some politicians seem to be targeting COLORS. --NYCJosh (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix article on notable subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established in the above discussion; AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with prior points, and note that the group has been the subject of a major New York Times piece tied to a subject of great contemporary interest. It is easy enough to add third party discussion of ROC, from various perspectives, while removing material that falls below standard. JimmyBoyHiggins (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)JimmyBoyHiggins[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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe Judkins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to have any significant notability outside of an appearance on Survivor. Minor roles on a few episodes of a TV show or two do not add any extra notability, hence the article fails WP:BLP1E. Gloss • talk 07:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of sources available including several interviews, two of which are already on the article. This needs some attention, but is in relatively good condition already. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per GNG. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was one of 7 drive by comments all with the same comment. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] - Gloss • talk 16:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "drive by comment"? The time stamps are close in some cases, not in others. Seems presumptive to assume bad faith ie. that Frietjes did not make an attempt to evaluate before !voting. Also not good etiquette to tag all 7 of his posts as "drive by", even though there is about a 17 minute gap between the first !vote and the last !vote. 7 AfDs in 17 minutes is kinda fast but not bad faith fast. -- GreenC 22:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2014 (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. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirit Room (Fargo, North Dakota)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Article written like advertisement. Cheers AKS 07:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The fact that it reads like an ad can be fixed and is irrelevant for this discussion here. However, the other point remains; I can't find enough sources for this subject to establish notability per WP:GNG. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:ORG at all. Only sources I could find are along the lines of their website, their facebook, listings on sites like foursquare, short mentions in blogs and a bunch of trivial mentions (such as a mention of an exhibit by an artist which happens to take place there) of which most (if not all, have not studied each and every one of them) would not have been useful even if they had been non-trivial as the places these trivial mentions are in tend to fail independent, reliable or both. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to be utterly routine. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:17, 16 January 2014 (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 based on concerns regarding the reliability of sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat hussain[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography. The subject's claim to fame seems to be his past position as Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. A Google search turns up several other Hidayat Hussain's of varying notability. The article fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have held several very senior positions in the Pakistani civil service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we need a relist after just 4 days... this is the second one of these I've come across recently, but I'll leave this one alone as I'm WP:INVOLVED in the discussion. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody seems to be able to come up with sources, so fails WP:GNG and even WP:V. --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, an editor above has opined that this person "appears" to have held senior positions. Unfortunately, we cannot verify this due to lack of reliable sources. It is possible that additional sources exist in Urdu which I cannot find, if such sources are found please disregard this !vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Am I the only person here who bothers to comply with WP:BEFORE? You do not !vote to delete something unless you have looked for sources. Hidayat Hussain, Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan: Annual Report of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, 2003, p 144. Hidayat Hussain, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Law: World of Islam Today, a report of the National Institute of Historical & Cultural Research, 1981, p 54. He (assuming it is the same person) might satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, on either account, as a politician or judge, depending on what "national office" means. James500 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete It could be the case that the subject is notable, but the sources on which to base such an article are elusive. With current material being insufficient, we unfortunately don't have much on which to base the article. ~~Therefore, the current content needs paring down in order to satisfy WP:V.~~ -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revising this to delete because it's unclear who the subject is or whether sources relate to the same subject, e.g. economic-review.com.pk has an article by "Hidayat Hussain is the Head of the Economic Services/ Business Suppport Office of the Pakistan France Business Alliance (PFBA)" published on 02 October 2013, which is after the death date claimed in the current article. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the state it's in, we cannot possibly keep a BLP like that. Strongly support recreating with proper sourcing though. I nearly actually closed this as "Delete but anyone is welcome to recreate an article with sources, but we cannot leave an unsourced BLP sitting there like this", but I realised that no-one had said that so I wasn't really evaluating consensus by doing so! :) Daniel (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the subject (according to what seems to be WP:OR in the current article) is apparently deceased anyway! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLP's of those recently deceased still affect the living relatives and friends of the individual. I believe this exact point is included in the policy. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct about what WP:BDP says, but no contentious or questionable material with implications for others seems to be included in this case. (Sorry for the digression.) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When veriable assertions are made about the biographical content this article (as the subject is no longer living) we can keep. Writings by the subject in their role as a clerk for the court does not encourage me to think this is notable. Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that the 2003 annual report of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was written by Hidayat Hussain. What it contains is a list of former registrars with their dates of appointmentand retirement which includes a person called "Hidayat Hussain". There is no question of suggesting that the Supreme Court do not know who their registrar was or that the report isn't sufficient confirmation. Another list of chief judges, judges and registrars was published by the government in 2010. These documents are available in pdf and come up in Google searches. Whether a registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is thereby ipso facto notable depends on how you construe WP:POLITICIAN, which unfortunately is not written in language that makes intelligible sense. James500 (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete being Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan does not grant automatic notability. There is simply a lack of third party sources about this individual. LibStar (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the post that makes him notable. It's being secretary of four different government ministries. But I agree the lack of sourcing is a concern. Sadly rather common on articles about people from outside Western Europe, North America and Australasia, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with comments above to the effect that, due to inadequate sourcing, this article should, as it stands, be blown up, whether its subject (or subjects) is (or are) notable or not. James500 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam mobile weapons[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, I'm also including:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing that these are all in the same boat would it make sense to place:
List of Gundam Sentinel mobile weapons

List of Advanced Generation mobile weapons and

List of Turn A Gundam mobile units

for deletion as well under one AfD? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These seem to be trivial lists of non-notable weapons, fails WP:N when it comes to lists. I am for moving these to wikia if anyone wants to do that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list I made is actually much better and out of universe than anything over there at Wikia. This is nothing more than a stupid pogrom for the sake of supposed notability issues people like TTN are quite fond of. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is better, moving the content to replace the inferior content would be best. TTN (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be WP:CIVIL here (This goes for both of you). Eagle I understand that you feel the list should be included here on Wikipedia but you have not shown how it is notable in reliable sources. If you can provide some secondary sources about the subject and cite them then feel free to add them during this AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid don't talk to me about civility. well, before the Gundam Sentinel and even the Stardust Memory unit article existed in their current forms the text was copy pasted directly from Wikia. I made the effort to cull as much as I could to make it sound more out of universe. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- entirely unsourced, excessively detailed in-universe trivia. Reyk _YO! 04:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge list into Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam where notability of neither the list nor the list elements is required per WP:NNC. Most of the list is written using WP:Real world wording, but some parts do occasionally fall into in-universe perspective narrative and need a copy edit to put the wording into real world perspective. No redirect needed after merge. The other three should be merged to their related articles, also. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest merging and where would you place it? The list articles for the most part are entirely un-sourced fan included information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, at the risk of repeating myself, merge the entire list as is (correcting in-universe perspective narrative as needed) into Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam as an additional section. Inside the article it is properly sourced per WP:PRIMARY and WP:FICTIONPLOT (yes, I suppose someone should add the primary source citation). I would put it after "Plot summary". VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A merge may be in order, VMS Mosaic I'm prepared to do so in Sentinel and Stardust Memory. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such long lists of pure plot information in articles give them undue weight, so they are almost always removed or cut down to an appropriate amount in ratio to their importance. For a person uninitiated with the series, the most they need to understand is that the characters pilot humanoid robots and whatever background information is relevant, probably limited to a paragraph. The character list can give a single sentence to mention that each character pilots "x robot with y defining characteristic." It is not extremely important that they know that the RX-110 Gabthley's production costs made the Federation favor the RX-139 Hambrabi. That's something suited to Wikia and their ability to go in-depth into such matters without worrying about this site's standards. TTN (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with making it more concise. Doing so would also fix the in-universe perspective issues. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Trivia and non-notable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a valid argument, but "trivia" is WP:AADD (in particular WP:IDONTLIKETHIS). I try to do WP:ENEMY which is why I said Merge because it is unlikely these weapons have been widely discussed as a group by reliable third parties. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we have some articles about fictional weapons (like Lightsaber), but the weapons on that list have zero proof of notability and in fact the whole list doesn't have a single source.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These lists fail WP:LISTN. I agree with TTN that merging this overly detailed information would be a bad idea and overwhelm any article that it was merged into. If someone wants to know this kind of trivia, they can always go to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LISTN and reasonings given by TTN and DragonZero. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:39, 18 January 2014 (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. Sandstein 16:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appota[edit]

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

No indication of significance Ireneshih (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking independent references, apart from a brief mention on an award site, which does not constitute significant RS coverage. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2014 (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) 01:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Loons[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. More to the point, the material supplied in the article was not from WP:RSes. I removed a number of blogs and self-published entries that did not meet the criteria. Allmusic is simply an entry with no accompanying material: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/voodoo-loons-mn0001550880 And nothing at Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/artists/v but that's not to say they haven't charted elsewhere, but the article fails to mention that and Google certainly doesn't support it. They're not signed to a major label so they certainly have not released multiple albums on one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator seems to be spa, more a fan or promo page. Talk page mentions forth coming album as reason for keeping, yet article conatins discography, which lists singles, and ep- none charted. Murry1975 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 03:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planet-4D[edit]

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

I am unable to find any evidence that this topic has been discussed at all in any reliable sources that are independent of its creator Gilles Baroin (also on AfD). So it seems WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this topic, if ever. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's discussed in passing in arXiv:1208.4774, which is not by Baroin. But I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Arxiv paper mentioned above was by Amiot, a collaborator of Baroin, so independence is questionable. I was unable to find independent sources discussing this topic and so it seems to fail general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I agree that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for RS to develop. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least for now, until it gets enough reliable coverage to pass GNG.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Acroterion per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 04:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pryer Twins[edit]

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

No indication of significance and reliable third party references. Itsalleasy (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2014 (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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Screenings[edit]

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

No indication of significance and third party references available. Itsalleasy (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The L.A. Screenings are one of the principal markets for the international television industry, along with MIPCOM, MIPTV, and NATPE. There are numerous reliable sources about this annual event in reliable sources. A HighBeam search, for example, yields more than 400 articles. [27] Some examples of sources that provide basic background: [28][29][30] The article could stand some serious editing (no need to list all the market participants, for example), but the subject's notability is established. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos; international equivalent of the American domestic network upfront presentations. Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE and WP:GNG. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than sourcing within articles. The source examples provided above by User:Arxiloxos demonstrates that this topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:09, 15 January 2014 (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} 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Arturo García Durán[edit]

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

Non-notable person, going by page creator's name likely autobiographical as well. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to this AfD-listing not properly included on template first turn (link remained red), should work now. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 1 January 2014 (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) 04:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Glover[edit]

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

Is this "beauty queen" sufficiently notable? Not where I'm sitting from. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 1 January 2014 (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) 04:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe the usual precedent has been to consider the winners of major state pageants to be notable enough. Coverage exists, although the demise of Google News Archives makes it so much harder than it used to be to find stuff. Some (brief) examples: [31][32][33][34][35]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Winning a state beauty title is not a low bar Special Notability Keep so far as I am aware. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2014 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SENX machine[edit]

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

It appears that this company went defunct without actually selling this product. They generated some buzz with a patent back in 2000, but apparently their web presences disappeared in 2011. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 1 January 2014 (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) 04:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This product meets WP:GNG. Source examples include:

Savannah Morning News
An article that was published in Personal Computer World magazine: here
Computer Shopper
San Francisco Chronicle (short, but beyond passing mentions)

There's also this passing mention I found at: Discovery Channel/Communications Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2014 (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} 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ervin (coach)[edit]

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

There seems to be zero evidence for his notability at least as presented in the article as a coach or an entrepreneur. Can he be considered notable for coming in third in the 18th season of The Amazing Race, or does someone have to actually win that competition to be notable?

the apparently strange listing of Miss America 2010 in the infobox refers to his daughter Mallory Ervin who was Miss Kentucky 2009 (but not Miss America 2010) DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 December 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) 04:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2014 (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) 01:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimwang Kyuchin[edit]

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

This appears to be either part of a hoax, which has now been picked up by some other aggregating sites, as it appears unlikely that a human rights activist could be 12 years old this year. The text is also partially nonsensical (even before it was vandalised), and I'm not seeing clear evidence of notability (bearing in mind, though, i can't read the Korean characters. If this person does exist and is notable, it may in any case be better to delete this until a proper job can be done on it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have a Korean translator look at this article before deletion because the Korean sources may prove notability and Accuracy.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but have you seen the text? How could one determine the "accuracy" of what is unintelligble text? Maybe there is a sane article on the Korean WP, but this one doesn't seem to me to warrant preserving - even assuming the person is real etc. It could always be recreated when someone is able to write something that makes sense. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BLP1E where neither the person nor the event achieved any lasting significance. It is not a hoax; he's a real 11-year-old student whose religious conflicts with his teacher were reported in major South Korean newspapers, but searching in Naver News archive (or looking at the sources cited on the Korean & Chinese versions of the article) makes it clear there was only coverage on for two days in October 2013, and nothing before or after that [36]. Perhaps this incident will inspire him to accomplish notable something in the future, but apparently WP:NOTYET. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm being forced to push this through a translator which is producing only slightly more coherent text, but it's enough to show that the IP editor's remarks immediately above are essentially correct. All links and references given show exactly the same pictures, and I'm inclined to AGF the statement that there isn't any other coverage beyond those links. Mangoe (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just confirming that this is not a hoax. The references used does recycle the same pictures, but there is a tendency on the parts of Korean news articles to recycle the same picture. In any case, searching for news articles give this result here with three pages of results.
Delete I'm actually from Korea and I've seen a tv programme covering this issue. The counterpart of this article in Korean Wikipedia is also under debate for deletion due to lack of prominance of this 'Kimwang Kyu-chin'. He is a alive person, 11 or 12 years old boy who was once accused of perjuring himself before. There were hundreds of other important issues at the point when his story was broadcasted that his story has not even brought out enough attention to bring about a social issue. Moreover, I'm quite sure all of you may see the grammar problems and proofless claims on this page which, I suppose is the evidence suggesting that this page was indeed created by Kimwang Kyu-chin himself or his family(especially his parents who were blamed for forcing their 11-years-old-child to protest alone). Penguin (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2014 (KST)

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} 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City Wide Maintenance[edit]

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

Does not meet guidelines in WP:COMPANY. Orphan x 2 years, supported by SPS material. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some local coverage of local franchisees but a lack of evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete looks like an advert. Lacks indepth coverage in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2014 (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) 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Dzyublo[edit]

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

She was in 1 movie but cannot find any reliable sources about her or her career anywhere else Lady Lotus • talk 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (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. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kuchera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

When I found the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Kuchera&oldid=589157963 it consisted entirely of articles authored by Ben Kuchera (the topic), attempts to fix it found quite a bit of web-references - mostly in the gaming community blog-o-sphere and forums.

However the topic lacks real significant coverage - the only verifyable mentions were a minor twitter argument, and one paragraph articles marking when he started writing for a new company (all but one were published by his new or previous employer). Thus - though there is coverage out there - it doesn't seem to me as meeting significance - a brief lift from obscurity due to an argument on twitter, whilst his main work is un-noted in third party publications. This for example is typical http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2013/04/30/phil-fish-and-ben-kuchera-are-out-of-touch/ where he is referenced as "someone who shouldn't be taken seriously" - this is typical - attacks of vaguely comic nature on websites on the borderline of what is or is not a reliable source.

Summary - coverage exists - but of patchy and/or unconvincing quality. Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note Talk:Ben_Kuchera#Forbes/Twitter - in which another editor questions the validity of many of the sources I did find - whilst I do not totally agree with their view, if those sources were removed it would leave an article virtually in the state as I found it - based on primary sources, written by the topic of the article.Prof.Haddock (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restate my view - this guy is not notable right now - he really has no real coverage apart from some minor blowup about a twitter argument - the sources for which are very borderline in terms of whether they are actually self published, let alone whether or not they are reliable sources.

On the other hand he has a fair record in the video games journalism field ie Ars Technica, Penny Arcade, Polygon (website), and is not a "total-non-entity" -your call .. Prof.Haddock (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – there are a few sources. The guy seems to be well known for his writing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, credited with helming the Penny Arcade Report, which was widely considered (source needed) to be one of the best sources of games Journalism (capital J) in the industry. Broke a lot of stories. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2014 (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) 12:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modular Gateway Interface[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG. Technical 13 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Some articles break so many policies and best practices that trudging through them is like walking in a hall whose ground is littered with broken china. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking independent references. A search revealed no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2014 (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 2012 in literature. —Darkwind (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in Australian literature[edit]

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

Only 2 entry throughout the year; better to get the entry merge in 2012 in literature Awards section. Ninney (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about merge into (or create) 2010s in Australian literature instead? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 December 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, Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please stop discussing here separately, instead lets discuss jointly in similiar article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature~~ - Ninney (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As per discussion result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature, the result was merge to 2011 in literature. Likewise, can we have similiar consensus on 2012 in Australian literature & 2013 in Australian literature? - Ninney (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2012 in literature, as per Ninney, modelled on 2011 in literature. No apparent good reason that recent literature review articles should be divided by nation. Yes, the YYYY in literature series needs work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a month & we are still in discussion or this discussion might have been ignored. Why are we having such a brain storming discussion only for a couple of entries? Or is it related to the country Australia; If it would have been India, my very own country, I would still have marked the page for deletion / tried to update the article. Once a Wikipedian or also once a book reader, we are global citizen & not divided by any boundaries, no regional lock outs. I am a Bibliophile person, a book collector. I love reading books. I also enjoy reading the works of many Australian authors & that is how I reached this article. I cannot update the article since I am busy with some other Wikiprojects & hence I requested to merge those entries. Is it that tough to do so ?

The result of 2011 in literature as well as 2013 in literature was merge. So, humble request to close the discussion as early as possible. - Ninney (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep There will surely be more. The same goes for 2011 and 2013, but fortunately they can be unmerged when we need to. On a national level , there will always be good material for any 21st century year 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (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.