Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 22 April	24 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Wizardman 15:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R2C2 (Phillies)

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

Non-notable neologism. No lasting notability. Does not appear to have the level of usage in the media that would make M&M Boys, Whiz Kids (baseball), Core Four, or other similar group nicknames worth keeping. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Spanneraol (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andromeda star systems

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

Much as I loved Andromeda, I feel this list is nothing more than fancruft. Most of the systems themselves were not even notable within the series (the only exceptions I expect being Seefa, Tarn Vedra and Hephaistros), and certainly are not notable outside the series. There are no external sources, nor are there likely to be. Fails on notability grounds, synthesis grounds, fancruft grounds and original research grounds. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stars in Andromeda (which is what a user who types this in the search box is probably looking for), but add a hatnote pointing back to Andromeda (TV series)#Major star systems.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it does not satisfy WP:GNG; all references are to the show episodes. A hatnote in List of stars in Andromeda may be WP:NAMB. I don't think that is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of not-individually notable fictional elements belonging to a notable fictional franchise are fine, and we have plenty of precedent for keeping them. The nomination is fatally flawed by the non-policy-based arguments and assumptions about notability ("not even notable within the series"). Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contrary to what the above user would have us believe, lists are not exempt from notability requirements: per WP:NLIST, "...a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which is not the case here since the only sources are primary and thus not independent. Also, random fictional elements do not magically become notable just because they belong to a notable work, per WP:NRVE. Also, WP:otherstuffexists is not a valid argument in AfD. The nomination is thus perfectly grounded in policy, and it's actually the "keep" comment above which appears fatally flawed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, it needs to be renamed, since it is not about the real-life topic of star systems in the Andromeda Galaxy or Andromeda Constellation. So it should be called List of Andromeda (TV series) star systems. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement that all articles are subject to the notability criteria that they must both make a valid assertion to notability and that be supported by independent and reliable sources. The article has no sources, and the argument that we have other similar articles is not very strong. Certainly not enough for us to ignore that fact that it does not appear that this particular subject has gained the attention of any major publications where it has been the focus. Lastly a redirect seems inappropriate here since it makes no distinction that it's a television series and if it were to actually redirect it should redirect to List of stars in Andromeda. Mkdw ^talk 07:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 21:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Is Forever(Film)

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

Contested prod. Plot description of a film. No mention of production or critical review, or cast and crew. No indication that the film actually exists. In fact, no references whatsoever. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by Wikipedia:Notability (films). In fact, a quick search returned no relevant results at all. The article itself states "Friendship is Forever is a Future Romantic - Drama created and written by Daniel Pinto. Pinto hopes to direct the film, since he already knows what actors to be in the film." which is not only unsourced, but also conflicts with WP:NFF as: "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have ommenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." MJ94 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Possible hoax. Article cast list makes it appear this one is still in pre-production. Thus, fails WP:NFF. Another clue is that while the purported actors are notable enough, there is nothing to connect them to any project entitled Friendship is Forever. Lacking any verifiable information, this one needs to go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to say that it is definitely a hoax, or just a video by two giggling best friends made in their grandmother's shack. No, this won't do. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious article. Why not add Emma Stone or Jennifer Lawrence in the cast? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wishful thinking or hoax. Michael appears to be working, only eight + 'a few' months from when he started at 12. Made up one day. Peridon (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, smells like a hoax. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Star

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

All refs including the official link are dead links, thus notability has not been established. My Google search came up empty too. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DEADLINK, the nominator's rationale for deletion is not valid because just because a publication is not on the Internet does not mean that its assertions no longer meet reliable source criteria. However, I created this article some time ago and in the process wrote the newspaper and asked them for other sources reviewing them. It seems to have been a small newspaper with a weak foundation and which has now gone defunct. In retrospect, I do not think this newspaper was ever notable by Wikipedia standards. Irrespective of the official link and references being dead, I say delete because the article's subject would not be notable even if the links were live. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blue Rasberry. I haven't been able to find sufficient coverage to justify notability. Andrew³²⁷ 20:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Due to low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goo Demos

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

not able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley 23:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 April 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, J04n(talk page) 22:04, 23 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vince's Market

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

No sources to indicate that this grocery store is notable William Avery (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non notable business. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or as an alternative redirect to Atwater Village, Los Angeles, did not find significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources. Subject has been mentioned in reliable source(s) but none of them give in depth information of subject. Therefore, although it has been around for over 50 years, and may be locally significant, it is not yet notable enough for the subject the be independently notable. Now if someone argues that the subject is locally notable, than a redirect to the community it is in is an option, but I am not convinced that it is notably locally at this time, and am willing to read reasoning towards that alternate outcome.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source I could find was the one I put into the article and a capsule review in the LA Weekly. Neither had any substantial discussion of the place. I don't think it's even worth a redirect.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flett Exchange

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

A needlessly promotional piece about a SREC auction company. Blocked user Srecmarketplace (talk · contribs) attempted to use this article as a justification for his own puff piece, which is how I stumbled across this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprising to find a piece from an editor here since 2006 looking rather promo. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flett exchange is not just another SREC auction company. As far as justification to delete or not. It is a keep. Flett is used by the US government as one of a couple of companies as the references for the SREC analysis (example here). National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducted detailed analysis of SREC and Flett is one of the only two companies with detailed analysis (the other is SRECTrade, a company in CA). See here. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in its President's Budget 2012 had Flett as one of the 23 "Exempt Commercial Markets" with Flett being active between 2007 and 2009. In research, Flett settlement price is used as the benchmark such as by Center for Energy, Economic, and Environmental Policy, Rutgers, PennState, Pace Environmental Law Review, Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering, Princeton, Solar Alliance, etc. Also some examples of discussion related to Flett Exchange in the press Philly Inquirer, Star-Ledgers, NJ Spotlight, NJBIZ, NYTimes

All of the above clearly demonstrate notability by coverage from multiple reliable and independent secondary sources.

If the article "sounds" promotional, help edit it. Tone it down or something. There is no justification to delete an article just because it sounds promotional. The thing to do is to improve it to make it a good article. Z22 (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reviewing blocked user's comment, it has that the Flett Exchange also provides service to conduct auctions to sell SRECs. Unlike its competitor, SRECTrade, which conducts an auction once a month on a specific date part is promotional. The only reason was to differentiate their business models. When I reread it again, I also agree that it makes it like a promotional. So we should remove that part or change the wording. Also the user clearly missed the counter-promotional part: However, the value had still been limited due to low transaction levels. Other editors with fresh eyes are encouraged to edit and improve the article. Z22 (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not Wikipedia's finest, but a credible claim of notability, backed by coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just edited to improve article in regard to WP:BALANCE and addressed the concerns on the appearance of being WP:PROMOTION. Another editor to look at it again won't hurt. Z22 (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That looks way better. I've made one minor change - 'sales' replacing 'sellers' following 'facilitates'. You can't facilitate a seller... Probably something got changed and left the wrong object. Peridon (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 16:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Smith (sociologist)

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

This article has been proposed for deletion, because it is a stub biography article and the only source is a broken link to the University of Notre Dame's website. Additionally, the article does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.96.153 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong with a stub biography - have to start somewhere. The article does need references. The UND link was dated and has been removed. The other external links, at U Pitt, are current, and have been confirmed. Subject is a prominent American sociologist. In addition to being the author of multiple books, she currently serves as the editor of the scholarly, peer-reviewed journal, Journal of World-Systems Research, an official journal of the American Sociological Association. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added few links. She is a notable scholar, with several published books. That should make her pas WRITER/PROF test, I am pretty sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD discussion was not properly created or transcluded on the log. I have fixed this page and will transclude it momentarily. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High cites on GS pass WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should carry out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This person clearly meets notability requirements for academics, with a large number of citations by other people in the field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. This AfD was initiated by an IP, as above, not me. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs development, not deletion. Meclee (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no references to anything suggesting nevermind confirming notability. Technical 13 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many cites to her work did you find on Google scholar? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, based on high cites she looks like a notable person. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does this make me a counter-sexolutionary? --BDD (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex 3.0

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

I deleted this as a G11, but it was challenged. Rather than argue, I bring it here, as usual for anything written in good faith; I think the author really believes this to be an encyclopedia-worthy article, though it's clear to me that the intent is to promote his book and blog. The nature of the sources with the references to the editors own book was by basis for the decision to use Speedy. There are a few scattered uses to various possible meanings of the term on Google, but almost all of the hits are to the editor's blog and reader posted reviews of his self-published book. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the speedy should really have succeeded. Straightforward promotion/advertising, an abuse of Wikipedia by an SPA with no intention other than selling. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the movement becomes more widespread (and gets more reliable sources), then an article on it should be created. In addition, Wikipedia is not the place to seek promotion. ALH (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry, Mr Gray, but this is not what Wikipedia's for. You'll need to wait until there are reliable, independent sources.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sales spam. OR. and tosh. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I challenged the deletion for a number of reasons

1.An open source movement and a book are two different things. Just like the apache webserver software and the famous book "Apache: The Definitive Guide" are two different things. This page makes no metion or reference to the book. The external links at the bottom to the blog and the book were added by a wiki admin, not myself. They can easily be removed.

2.References in this discussion in other comments to "sales spam" are not accurate. There is no product. This is an open source sexual revolution movement with some notable members including Dossie Easton who has been working in this field since 1960s in San Francisco and who is a qualified family therapist with several decades of experience as well as other notable sex educators and sex positive speakers.

3.When you ask reliable third party sources, sorry but this is my first wiki page, for point number two above, if I produced say a video clip of Dossie saying that she is a member of this movement, would that be an example of a reliable third party source?

4. This movement is not only the world's first open source sexual revolutionary movement, it is also crowd sourced. This is the exact same model as wikipedia only within the sex positve realm. I am hoping for support from people like yourselves who truly understand the value of open source and crowd funding. Thank you. Pizza Lord (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this paragraph from the article makes the point:

A person who is for example a sex educator who is sex positive and whose work is Sex 3.0 compatible is considered a sexolutionary (a contraction of the words 'sexual revolutionary'). A person who has read the book or even just the wiki page and follows the blog posts on the official site and helps to spread the word is a sexolutionary. A person who learns Sex 3.0 and talks to only their primary partner about it is still spreading the 3.0 revolution and is therefore considered a sexolutionary.

The article is trying to be part of this "sexolutionary" movement. Therefore it is promoting the ideas. You seem to be stuck on the notion that you can only promote something tangible, but the article is clearly promoting the movement. In addition there is no evidence that this movement has attained notability by Wikipedia standards. In conclusion, delete. LadyofShalott 02:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@LadyofShalott, No that paragraph simply explains the non-hierarchical nature of the movement. Real change has to start at the grass roots level and has to be energised by an army of empowered curators. As someone who is part of the wikipedia movemnt, I am suprised that I need to point this out. You are arguing against your own model. Pizza Lord (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteeeee as OR promo material. Ansh666 03:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no significant 3rd party coverage. As the subject itself is "real", no prejudice against recreation at some further date AFTER reliable sources have been found, but recreation would NOT be based on this article, but would begin as a stub using only info covered by sources.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhinta Verma

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and the sources are not WP:RS. Although YouTube can be used as a reference in certain cases, these links only show commercials or brief appearances of the subject. They fall well short of establishing notability. The remaining references do not support the content for which they are inlined for and all of the information simply does not come from reliable sources. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Note - Same editor voted "Keep" Below): - I believe that she follows GNG guidelines. She worked in many commercial. and top companies choose top notable models to perform in their commercials. I have added many references will search more and add. Dr Adil (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have evidence that she is a working model, but not necessarily one meeting wikipedia's inclusion criteria. This profile is the most substantial material available that cold be found. Other news sources just turn up passsing mentions like this one. [1] would seem to indicate she really hasn't developed much of a film career yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the provided references clearly mention her role and reputation he is the winner of elite model look India 2004(This profile) and Wikipedia is not just for Film actresses. So if she doesn't have much career in films yet, she has a wonderful career in modeling, She also represented India in international Competitions. Dr Adil (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sources are passing mentions. The profile is part of a series called "Model of the Day" which just churns out a profile of a model every day. See [2], and [3] for the prior two days entries. That makes it a rather weak source for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (More References Added)- Many new references has been added. I hope to have a positive comment now. Thanks you for helping me in order to make the article more acceptable.Dr Adil (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one !vote per editor please. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Damn this lady is fine. But Youtube links and an IMDb profile do not notability make. See WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: Why not, you tube links shows his commercials and short films and media interviews. New other references besides YouTube have also been added.and I have read the notability guidelines. Dr Adil (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to disagree but understand that there is only one vote per editor; continuously arguing with each other individual editor isn't going to bolster your case. As for Youtube and the other "references" you've added, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to understand why they're weak. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I have stated my point of view. No personal offence. I am sorry if you didn't like it or taken it as offensive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candicell (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about your specific point of view, it's about what appears to both myself and another editor to be some sort of multi-voting in addition to a somewhat aggressive nature in constantly responding and posting new comments with an asterisk as though something pressing has come up, when that clearly isn't the case. Also, please remember to sign. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment: - I have put forward my reasons. Do Wikipedia forbid to reply to comments? Dr Adil (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You put forward the same reasons over and over again, and have used the asterisk heading every single time as though you're adding some pressing new comment to the discussion. It clutters the discussion as well as comes off as a pestering annoyance. You said your piece, now let the discussion run its course while others chime in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Kevin Roy

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

As with the other articles created by this editor, there is no coverage to establish notability and falls short of WP:GNG. The sources are brief mentions or simply do not meet the guidelines for WP:RS. Even is you assume that the included sources were reliable, they do not support the content as written in the article. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - He is now one of the top model of Bangalore. I hope wikipedia admins will keep him in their database. I will add more references too. Dr Adil (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seen this before, especially with biographies about Indian actors/public figures written by relatively new accounts. The sources seem like an attempt to pass the subject off as notable when even if twice as many sources of this nature were provided, they still don't provide anything other than passing mentions and thus the subject fails WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - He is one of the top models of Bangalore India Dr Adil (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With Wikipedia, is not about the person is or isn't, it is about reliable sources say the person is or isn't. These sources need to be reliable which you have been informed of on numerous occasions but still seem to overlook. Please find references that meet the WP:RS guidelines to establish notability. If "he is one of the top models," then there will be reliable sources talking about it. As it is, the sources fall short of the guidelines and many of them do not support the content that they are listed to support. It looks like you shotgunned a bunch of passing mentions and press releases anywhere in the article to make it look like the sources support the information you created. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes I will add them soon. Thanks for being polite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candicell (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to establish notability. As an actor, there is only one film role, and some stage work which has not garnered a lot of attention. The claim for being a top model the needs to beacked with reliable sources. Of the references in the article, the Baangalore Mirror article is an interview which is focused on "the Sketches". That constitutes the best sourcing for notability. The only other reliable source is the Deccan Chronicle which is a passing mention. My own searches turn up only more passing mentions like this which confirms he is a model, but fails to be anything more than a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhanth K.S.

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

Another non-notable article created by the same account. As with the others, there is no reliable coverage to establish notability and subject falls well short of WP:GNG. Some references are self-promotion as they come from his website while others are only brief mentions. I cannot find any sources outside of what was already placed in the article to establish notability. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: -All these links clearly state his roles in production and direction. Dr Adil (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I'm happy to help improve this article as I think the subject has merit as a Wikipedia entry. I am conducting a wider search for additional references that will help satisfy the notability criteria.G2003 (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My God, what is it with India and random biographies of non-notable people? It seems disproportionate. The sources are all passing mentions which don't actually establish the article's subject as an individual of note. His name being mentioned isn't enough for WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assumed good faith in the beginning, but this is ultimately SPAM. Creator removed my comments from their talk page advising them to add reliable sources and giving them time to do it. Instead, they created additional SPAM pages without addressing the issues with the first ones. Not sure what else I could have done other than taking them to AfD. Hope it sorts itself out here. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Ghosh

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

One of many non-notable articles created by same account. There is not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. There is one good reference, but there is no depth to the coverage and I would not consider the source reliable. The rest are either brief mentions, a press release, and an article written by a relative of the individual. The sources in the article simply cannot show notability and I cannot find sources that can. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: -According to my personal opinion, this is not a non-notable person. You might have found the sources unsatisfactory, but all these links mention his role in production. He has produced many stage drama and he is the producer of Bangalore's First Hindi Film Station. I have added few references to that film and i will add lot more latter. And i have plans to write other articles to support their roles. I have plans to write articles about places and other notable personalities of Pakistan too that are not yet present in wikipedia. I have read the GNG of Wikipedia. I have provided references too. If Wiki admin want me to add more references kindly let me know i will add more. Thanks Dr Adil (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What the...? The same account has created like, what, half a dozen of these? The sources are only passing mentions and do not establish notability for this individual per WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although this one is borderline.Deb (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Theme to Neighbours. Will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Angelini

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

Non-notable singer. She doesn't appear to have had a song released (outside of her website/YouTube) or chart and hasn't won any major awards. I suspect that if it wasn't for her appearance in the competition to sing the Neighbours theme tune, this article wouldn't have been created. I think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. - JuneGloom Talk 16:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning. True this event is the biggest event to happen to Stephanie, though it is definitely an event worth merit. She is also becoming well-known and has a massive following. I myself have not added any other information/events about her as references are hard to found for these previous notable appearances/previous work she has undertaken. Example. Working with Jamie Redfern and appearing as a regular on his Television showcase on Foxtel. I believe the public would be very interested in finding further information about Stephanie Angelini especially on Wikipedia, as this information does not exist on her webpage or anywhere else on the internet at present. Only time will tell how noble she will become. Mick ang (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that she won the competition and will be heard every time Neighbours is shown, I would have thought that keeping something on her would make sense. If there isn't much beyond this competition/theme tune then perhaps merge somewhere else (e.g. here) until there's more to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 April 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, —Darkwind (talk) 21:05, 16 April 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, czar · · 16:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete - Her having an award has nothing to do with establishing basic notability. That is the first thing that needs to be looked at. If she fails WP:GNG, then there is no need to find out if she has other music or if she won any awards. When looking for references, there are few that are WP:RS and they are all about her singing the theme song. If we assume that there is enough coverage, this would still make her notable for one event. As such, I would recommend including a sentence or two in the Neighbours article with a redirect. If that doesn't gain consensus, then simply delete as she fails general notability guidelines. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In addition John Ziegler (guitarist) will be redirected to Pigmy Love Circus and Volto! redirected to Danny Carey. J04n(talk page) 23:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Morrison

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

This is going to be a tricky nomination. I'm lumping three pages together because the notability for one will have a great effect on whether or not the others go as well. Here's the issue:

A few days ago I declined a PROD on John Ziegler (guitarist) because I noticed that he was a member of two bands that currently have articles on Wikipedia. Both articles were fairly rough and there was a question of notability for both of them. The bands in question are Pygmy Love Circus and Volto!. I managed to establish notability for PLC, but there was a serious question of notability for Volto!. They've performed and they're supposed to be releasing a CD, but I don't see where that's actually happened. Other than Carey being a member of the band, the group has largely flown under the radar. It'd be an easy delete, except that Morrison has a slight claim to notability in that he's performed in the background of several albums. I haven't really found any coverage for him or for Volto! in general other than trivial mentions at best. So rather than try to nominate these separately, I'm bringing them here to have it all straightened out. If we can establish that Morrison and Volto! have no notability, then Ziegler's article would be deletable since he wouldn't have the "a member of two notable bands" criteria of WP:MUSBIO. I'm open to suggestions, but this is such a mess of a group of articles that really, AfD is the only way to really sort out whether or not they should be kept or deleted. My argument is that while Morrison is somewhat prolific, he hasn't really received any coverage for his efforts and is pretty much a background player. Since I don't see him as independently notable enough for his own article, this means that Volto! would be deleted, which means that Ziegler would be as well. If someone can argue notability for Morrison, then Volto! and Ziegler would be kept by default because Volto! would then have two notable members (thus being notable) and Ziegler would be kept since he's technically a member of two notable bands, despite neither he nor Volto! gaining much or any independent coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:

If anyone can establish firm notability then I'm willing to work with you, but I had such a hard time finding RS for these pages that I'm honestly not sure they're really all that notable or would be kept on anything other than a technicality. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Volto! is already mentioned in the Danny Carey article, and while not meriting a separate article I think that should be redirected there. I can't find anything to suggest that Lance Morrison or John Ziegler should have encyclopedia articles, but Ziegler could be redirected to Pigmy Love Circus or deleted, with the entry at the John Ziegler disambiguation page sufficing. Lance Morrison should be deleted. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was sort of what I was initially leaning towards and I like that as a solution. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 April 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, Courcelles 05:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect bandmembers, delete Volto!; I have not found non-primary significant coverage regarding the band Volto! therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. As for bandmembers, if the individuals do not receive significant coverage outside of the band, then the band is notable and the individual is not, which appears to be the case with the two individuals here. However, per WP:OUTCOMES#Music, the common outcome is a redirect to the notable band for non-notable bandmembers. If those individuals by themselves receive significant coverage then the redirects can be recreated as articles when those reliable sources are created by non-primary reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the band members if they have relevant and notable contributions to any band (obviously the ones other than Danny Carey). However I think that "Volto!" article also can be redirected to Danny Carey or Pigmy Love Circus article. User:Michig's proposal seems to be the best so far. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: there is a consensus that some or all of these titles should redirect to somewhere else, but no real consensus on the specifics of which should redirect where, so additional input on that would be beneficial.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Farrell (artist)

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

Does not meet WP:Notability. No third-party sources found. Only sources are from artist's website or artlyst which is sort of like a Craigslist for art where artists post their work and talk to people. Copyvio speedy deletion tag placed before but was then removed from article by creator and reworded differently. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 13:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a passing mention in the Belfast Newsletter from 1999, relating to a group show, but that was all. Fails to meet WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak delete I'm erring towards 'delete' but this Real Estate news source suggests he was given a vacant studio, as a "celebrity artist" and he had starred in Real Housewives of New York. I'm surprised I can't find any better news coverage, all things considered. Sionk (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going for 'delete' because this artist's claim to fame is unproven. Considering the size of New York and the number of publications that could've spotted Farrell, I think it is telling that only one reliable source has been found, in a real estate magazine. The long list of exhibitions is questionable - for example Zach Feuer Gallery has no mention of him, while the "exhibition" at Chelsea Museum seems to be a silent auction of one of his donated artworks. All seems 'smoke and mirrors', very tenuous! Maybe he's on the verge of success, but I don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST at the moment. Sionk (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More references are added since the article was created last week. Brian Farrell is not as well known as Leonardo Da Vinci for sure but he is quite well known in contemporary circles and his art is striking while making a social contribution. Meets WP:Notability. Third-party sources are included. Meets WP:ARTIST criteria

Note: Comment by IPS who's only edits are to this AFD.

Comment Yes it is surprising that there are not that many print references to the artist despite the fact that he has been on such an active scene. Perhaps partly it is explained by the fact that he is a shy artist who has kept to his own world rather than interact with the press much. he is quite active on the social media where he has a large following but even there it is his fans who are commenting more than him. I am quite certain in time he would be more widely described in print but I tend to wish his page is kept because he is working to highlight social causes and he does seem to have a little more than the minimum required at least for the WP criteria. However I am relatively new to wikipedia and you veterans would do what is best I am certain to keep or delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.231.234 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Comment by IPS who's only edits are to this AFD. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 12:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see that this person meets WP:CREATIVE in any way, and I also don't think there's enough independent coverage to get him over the WP:GNG line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:22, 23 April 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, Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to look up some of his other alleged solo exhibits, and found absolutely nothing. The Chelsea Art Museum has no record of a solo exhibit by Farrell. There's no such thing as the "Deutche Bank Collection", and a look on The Artists of the Deutsche Bank Collection shows nothing by this artist. Fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not listed at the Zach Feuer gallery, nor the Michail-Lombardo gallery (again, misspelled), nor any collection of the Neuberger Berman Foundation. I can't verify crucial pieces of information -- any solo art shows -- that would prove his notability. Why would that be? I am afraid that (a) it's completely made up, or (b) original research. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the conclusion that much of the article may be a hoax. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Concerned Comment: The exhibition record of Brian Farrell is listed by him on his linkedin profile, http://linkedin.com/in/brianfarrellart, and also at the public websites that are mentioned in the wikipedia article. If this is a made up hoax it is most tragic and sad and undoubtedly the page should be deleted. I shall see if I can find someone to send the artist a message on the social media at linkedin or Facebook where he is likely to find the message quick to explain himself if he wishes to and considers it appropriate. If the exhibition record is a hoax it is most surprising especially coming from a Public TV figure and a very sad commentary on the state of morality in the world today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.228.75 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Comment made by IP who's only edits are to this AfD. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he seems to be a hard-working artist, with a flair for social media, but there are just not enough prizes and accolades in his background at this time. New York City is replete with non-Notable artists. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think even if an artist has many awards, even a Rembrandt or Leonardo da Vinci like artist, if he puts up a hoax exhibition record his page deserves deletion, but I still tend to think that there must be another explanation and that the record of exhibitions is not a falsehood. Let us hope the artist clarifies himself.This guy is not non-notable. He is on TV in a famous serial as already pointed out in earlier comments. Since the same note by Ramaksoud2000-superscript-talktome has been repeating after my every comment he may please do the favor again in case he considers it is needed.

Note same as above. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 12:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the IPs have devolved into concern trolling. Bearian (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am the artist. My CV is not a hoax or have hoax entries. I do not need that attention nor am I insecure to do something that unethical. The CV has been edited and shortened several times with many of my shows from earlier in the career and work in collections being deleted. Events, shows and awards from the present day that have been deemed "not relevant or important enough" have been deleted. Works that were in collections in the past may no longer be documented nor in the collection. Publications, press, interviews and a significant amount information has been and continues to be removed from the internet in order to update my present art career. The CV, as with the art itself, is an ever-changing work in progress. I do participate in several, worthy, charitable events. I do not give many interviews. I do not generally comment on public opinion. I do not enter into discussions. I do use the tools of social media as does any other well informed person of the community in which I reside. The present artworks and information are available on my site, which I will decline to promote here. I am not certain how I came to be on Wikipedia or how this discussion even generated, but at this present moment, I agree that I do not yet meet the standard for being here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfarrellart (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) housekeeping non-admin closure. czar · · 16:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tears of a Tiger (film)

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

While the book by Sharon Draper does exists there is no evidence that this film was ever made. None of the actors mention have this on their CVE. This is clearly a hoax and we have had one very like this sometime in the last 16 months. If anyone can remember what that one was you might add a link to the AFD here and the person who created this article might be a sock who nneds an SPI MarnetteD | Talk 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this is part of the same hoax:

Speedy Delete G3 for both - I am not finding any evidence of the existence of these films. I went ahead and tagged both. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Concur with the previous editor. Safiel (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Dewayne Johns jr

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

Appears to be an undrafted player who played in the NBA Development League and in the USBL. Appears to fail all three points of WP:NHOOPS. No other indication of notability. PROD declined without explanation by an IP that is likely the article creator. Safiel (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:56, 23 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NHOOPS. Dea db eef 04:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was undrafted and his highest level of play was in the United States Basketball League, this in insufficient for WP:NHOOPS. J04n(talk page) 13:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Secret ^account 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's My Sister

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

It is beyond belief that a TV show that has been on for six years has no info about it anywhere on the internet. This is clearly a hoax article. I do not know whether any Speedy criteria apply which is why I got the ball rolling here. Created by a new user who is clearly NOT a new editor< This may be a sock of a previous problematic editor so if it is familiar to anyone please leave info so that we can start a SPI MarnetteD | Talk 14:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this is a elaborate (almost have to admire the amount of time put in) list of nonexistent episodes of the series already nominated above:

Speedy delete as a very elaborate and well done hoax. I checked the Black Entertainment Television website in particular and Google in general and absolutely NOTHING at all on this supposed show. I will go ahead and tag for G3. Safiel (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Nothing on BET.com about this show which is allegedly still running. Note also the existence of List of That's My Sister episodes, also tagged as a hoax. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Butterflies (play)

Nomination Withdrawn: Someone found sources and it's in line with the rules now. Someone close this thing? MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 09:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources and judging by what the article says there's nothing notable about it. The Notability tag has been up since August 2011 and I think about a year and two thirds (a year and seven twelthfs if my math serves me correctly) is long enough to wait. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 14:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 sources now. deletion should not be used as a "motivator" to spur editing, especially for inactive editors. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the now well-sourced stub. Diego (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Westwood

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

I feel this page is mainly full of articles with no credibility. The claims are not facts, they have never been confirmed by the individual. They could all be made up as far as the public know. I think the page should either be stripped down to the facts only or deleted. Creating deletion discussion for Tim Westwood Officialmm82 (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's lots of coverage down there, all there is to be done is to remove the unsourced claims. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then can the unsourced claims please be removed. For example the article that backs the age & background is all speculation. The article actual says 'according to accounts', these are obviously just been made up by the journalist as they had no confirmatino of age & background in the interview. If they did have confirmation it would have come direct from the individual the page represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialmm82 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Any more feedback? Can we remove the speculative articles? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialmm82 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speeedy keep Most claims in the article are sourced. Deleting an article is not the way to correct a few errors if they exist. Westwood is one of the best known radio DJs in the UK. The Daily Telegraph calls him "one of the most influential figures in hip hop this side of the Atlantic, as well as a pioneer of the UK urban scene"[4], the Independent says "For nearly 20 years he has been the undisputed figurehead of UK rap"[5]. More refs[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]... --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination does not state a ground for deletion, and notability is obvious. Specifically addressing the nominator's expressed concern, the subject's age and background seem to be reasonably sourced; but if there are bona fide issues about certain points, those should be addressed on the article's talk page, not here at AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, very true. I'm not for one second contesting Westwood's legacy, can we keep the page but can we only keep confirmed facts. Its a fact he's done a show on Radio since 1994, its a fact he has been DJin since the mid 80's, he himself has confirmed all this. But things like his age and background are not public knowledge, all the articles speculate on these matters. How can we edit the page to remove the un-sourced claims like suggested above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialmm82 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated above, the article's talk page is the place to raise such concerns. As you'll see there, the subject's age was discussed extensively in 2007, and the consensus at that time appears to have been that the 1957 birth year is well-supported. I would also suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability to better understand Wikipedia's criteria for substantiating content.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Westwood is a well-known DJ and media personality. Whilst it might be useful to check some of the facts, there's no obvious reason to delete this article. RomanSpa (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man is the senior DJ on the oldest pop radio station in the UK BBCR1 and has been of considerable influence to British popular culture. To not have a page for him would be silly and it would only be remade almost instantly. DSQ (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Schöffski

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

There are no independent sources cited, and the article provides no evidence that the subject satisfies either the general notability guidelines or the guidelines on notability of academics. My general web searches produced Wikipedia, Twitter, pages on the web sites of various organisations that he has worked for or with (such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and University Hospitals Leuven), papers by him not about him, etc. Google Scholar found papers by him, but nothing about him. The nearest thing I found to independent coverage was an interview which appears to have been part of the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which someone has uploaded to YouTube. The author of the article, User:Patrick Schöffski, removed a PROD without any explanation. (Note: User:Patrick Schöffski tells me that he/she is not Patrick Schöffski in person, but his medical secretary.) Substantially, this is use of Wikipedia to publish a CV/resume. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see that User:Patrick Schöffski has now been renamed to User:Lieve Ons. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as autobiography, but without prejudice to recreation if someon can prove notability. He does seem to be slightly notable although whether he falls above or below the line is unclear. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H-index of 36 is probably a few standard deviations above the subset of academic-types that have WP articles. WP:AUTO is certainly frowned upon, but not grounds for deletion. Any problematic text can be fixed-up with disinterested editing. Agricola44 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 30. Please will nominator carry out WP:before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- That was unnecessarily snippy and also less helpful than it could have been. There's nothing "clear" about that at all. The PROF criteria are dreadfully complex and you've presented no evidence that the index score you give is in line with the PROF guidelines on what to exclude. Furthermore, PROF is a guideline and is trumped by policy, such the daddy of them all, V. So if you'd like to persuade people to agree with you, please will you expand on your comment without taking a pop at the nominator, who has acted in good faith and has explicitly said that they have fulfilled BEFORE. It would be nice if you'd apologise to James. --Dweller (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to James if James wants an apology. The WP:Prof guidelines have been extensively debated by many people in the past on its talk page, particularly WP:Prof#C1, see also Citation index and h-index. I have contributed to those debates. The guidelines seem clear to those who use them regularly. The nominator says "Google Scholar found papers by him, but nothing about him". This indicates a lack of understanding of the requirements of WP:Prof which says "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Google Scholar shows how many scientists have cited a person's papers. It shows that the subject's first paper in the list has been cited by 332 other workers. If all the other cites are added it will come to thousands. Based on past precedent in this field on the numbers establishing precedent for notability (which appears to have provoked little dissent), [19] there is here a distinctly clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. If people find the PROF criteria to be dreadfully complex then perhaps they should postpone editing in the area until they have had the time to develop a greater understanding of them. Sorry to sound "snippy" but this misunderstanding of the WP:Prof policy guidelines is one that comes up repeatedly in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. WoS concurs with GS, with a citation list of 331, 260, 232, .... (h-index 36, "National Academy" territory, according to Hirsch) and MS-academic shows >1000 total citations. It is true that those of us who lurk here regularly have a roughly consensus view of the commonly-used test WP:PROF #1: either having solved individual high-profile problems (like ones that have their own WP pages) or having a general body of research that is highly cited collectively, i.e. hundreds of citations or a bibliometric indicator of such, e.g. h-index of at least 10 to 15. There is a subtle context regarding WP:V here in that, even if no other sources about a subject can be found, the published papers themselves have enough WP:V to at least stub an article, e.g. place of employment, title, professional area, etc. – this caveat is in the "notes" of WP:PROF. Schöffski very obviously passes the notability test. In cases like this, it is not uncommon for nom to withdraw the AfD, so that it can be closed quickly. Agricola44 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- per Xxanthippe and Agricola's careful research on citation counts and overall significance to the field. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Foreign relations of the Philippines. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Philippines relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this article hinges on one source and one meeting between foreign ministers. Even the source admits “nothing has moved between us for about 20 years.” He said that for 20 years, trade between the Philippines and Armenia was “miniscule” and that there were no investments LibStar (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of the Philippines, article falls within the scope of the article Foreign relations of the Philippines, and thus if the subject is not independently notable than it should be redirected to its parent subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of the Philippines per above. There's simply not enough significant reliable coverage about relations between the Philippines and Armenia, which isn't surprising since "nothing has moved in 20 years". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. Page is now at User:Psyc452-GGeorge/Evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions

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

WP:OR content fork of reciprocal altruism written for a class. Note that this article and related articles have very recently been the subject of a thread at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork of reciprocal altruism per nominator. This is not a likely search term and deletion would seem preferable to redirection. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the apparently related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of Personality AfD has just closed as userfy. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article would serve well as the main page for topic of non-kin group interactions as it pertains to reciprocity and under an evolutionary psychology standpoint. While the research provided in this article is not as extensive as perhaps other evolutionary psychology articles on wikipedia, it does manage to file out a good amount of substantial research information on the subject. There is not a huge amount of research on this topic to begin with. I vote the article remains standing and that as users approach it in the future, they simply add to it to increase its credibility as the main page for the topic. Comment added by User:LochNess14. —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) (Copied from the talk page Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Userify In hindsight, our time would have been better spent improving the Reciprocal Altruism article. Like most of the Psyc-452 articles, ours is just a collection of research on a specific subtopic. Not up to Wikipedia standards, it's unfocused. Psyc452-GGeorge (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Wikipedia:Articles for creation may be better than userfication, since there's a framework for on-going support, but it's your choice. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Warner

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY,WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with With the same name (Jlswarner (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to Joe Warner. Has links but Relies on references to press releases, promotional book sellers and merely trivial coverage. Its nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The person hasn't won an award, nor has the person been cited by other notable individuals re: WP:Notability criterium.92.19.219.41 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--File Éireann 12:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to merge this with similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Buffalo State Bengals football team

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of Buffalo State Bengals football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main Buffalo State Bengals football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, EJ, and maybe he should have, but it's not required. Arguably, that dialogue takes place during the AfD, and in the case of CFB articles and lists, it's usually refereed by other regular CFB editors. In this case, I would urge you to consider creating a season-decade article or something similar to combine these Buffalo State seasons per WP:CFBSEASON. I would support keeping that per established WikiProject CFB policy and precedent. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgreen77, I understand your concerns, and I also agree with much of Dirtlawyer's comments. I did not intend to "rush" through the deletion process; indeed, roughly three months have passed since the first AfD. The closing admin for the first AfD invited re-nomination of individual articles, which I did here. The AfD discussions are open to all, including WikiProject CFB, yourself, and other interested users. Here we can discuss a wide variety of options, not only deletion. Even if some of the discussions result in deletion, that won't stop you from creating new articles that combine individual seasons (by decade, for example, as per WP:CFBSEASON). Edge3 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about a non-notable single season of a minor college football program, and there is insufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. In such event, the only alternative to deletion is to combine this season with others for the same team by decade, coaching tenure, or other logical grouping, per WP:CFBSEASON. I respectfully request the article creator propose some combination/merge consistent with the practices of WP:CFBSEASON; otherwise, the only alternative is deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1. A 4-6 season is even less notable than the 2011 season above. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to merge this with similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010 St. Norbert Green Knights football team

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on my search of Google news archive. See results here. St. Norbert is a Division III program (the lowest level in the NCAA hierarchy), and such teams generally do not get a lot of coverage in mainstream, independent media sources. A search of google news archive indicates that the St. Norbert football program does get some coverage in Milwaukee (and, to a lesser extent, Chicago) newspapers. If someone could demonstrate that there is substantial coverage of the 2010 team, I'd reconsider my "delete" vote. Separately, the article in its current form is more in the nature of an almanac entry than an encyclopedia article. The article merely repeats the information already published at the on-line sports almanac, college football reference.com. Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of St. Norbert Green Knights football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main St. Norbert Green Knights football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with Cbl62's analysis above; this article about a non-notable single season about a minor college football program, and there is insufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. In such event, the only alternative is to combine this season with others for the same team by decade, coaching tenure, or other logical grouping, per WP:CFBSEASON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Buffalo State Bengals football team

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of Buffalo State Bengals football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main Buffalo State Bengals football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP: ROUTINE. Seems to have been a relatively average football season, in that it made no particular impression outside of normal sports reporting. Chri$topher —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article's subject is a non-notable single season about a minor college football program, and there is insufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. In such event, the only alternative is to combine this season with others for the same team by decade, coaching tenure, or other logical grouping, per WP:CFBSEASON. I respectfully ask that the article creator propose some form of merge/combination during this AfD per WP:CFBSEASON; otherwise, I expect the content will be deleted pursuant to standard WP:CFB practice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1. Blech! A 2-8 Division III season just doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to merge this with similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 St. Norbert Green Knights football team

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on my search of Google news archive. See results here. St. Norbert is a Division III program (the lowest level in the NCAA hierarchy), and such teams generally do not get a lot of coverage in mainstream, independent media sources. A search of google news archive indicates that the St. Norbert football program does get some coverage in Milwaukee (and, to a lesser extent, Chicago) newspapers. If someone could demonstrate that there is substantial coverage of the 2009 team, I'd reconsider my "delete" vote. Separately, the article in its current form is more in the nature of an almanac entry than an encyclopedia article. The article merely repeats the information already published at the on-line sports almanac, college football reference.com. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, I endorse Cbl62's comments immediately above. This is a non-notable season for a minor college football program. The WP:CFB precedent and WP:CFBSEASON WikiProject policy are clear: in the absence of meaningful coverage (i.e. not routine, not trivial) in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG, single CFB seasons for minor programs do not get anything like an "automatic pass." Frankly, it's not supposed to be automatic for Division I FBS programs, either. We do make exceptions for non-notable seasons when they are combined with other seasons by decade, coaching tenure or some other logical and coherent grouping. If the article creator wants to have this article userfied so that he can work on expanding to a full decade of seasons (e.g. 2000-09), I would support that in keeping with established WP:CFB precedent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of St. Norbert Green Knights football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main St. Norbert Green Knights football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to merge this with similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 St. Norbert Green Knights football team

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on my search of Google news archive. See results here. St. Norbert is a Division III program (the lowest level in the NCAA hierarchy), and such teams generally do not get a lot of coverage in mainstream, independent media sources. A search of google news archive indicates that the St. Norbert football program does get some coverage in Milwaukee (and, to a lesser extent, Chicago) newspapers. If someone could demonstrate that there is substantial coverage of the 2011 team, I'd reconsider my "delete" vote. Separately, the article in its current form is more in the nature of an almanac entry than an encyclopedia article. The article merely repeats the information already published at the on-line sports almanac, college football reference.com. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This a non-notable season for a minor college football program. The WP:CFB precedents are clear: in the absence of meaningful coverage (i.e. not routine, not trivial) in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG, single CFB seasons for minor programs do not get anything like an "automatic pass." Frankly, it's not supposed to be automatic for Division I FBS programs, either. We do make exceptions for non-notable seasons when they are combined with other seasons by decade, coaching tenure or some other logical and coherent grouping. If the article creator wants to have this article userfied so that he can work on expanding to a full decade of seasons (e.g. 2000-09), I would support that in keeping with established WP:CFB precedent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of St. Norbert Green Knights football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main St. Norbert Green Knights football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge somewhere. What I see here (other than a lot of personal acrimony that has no place in such a discussion) is a consensus that this probably does not merit a stand-alone article. However, there does not seem to be a consensus on how to deal with that issue as several different options are presented and none of them seems to have broad support. (no offense, but I would also note that "delete and merge" doesn't make a lot of sense, how can you merge something that's already been deleted?) I will tag the article as needing a merge and open the relevant talk page discussion so that this discrepancy can be resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global James Bond Day

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

A one-off day, which in itself wasn't notable for much more than being a PR exercise by the Bond franchise owners. SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very insignificant news event with no lasting significance. Might be mentioned in one of the many existing Bond articles, but I'm not sure which one. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is briefly mentioned in "Skyfall (song)‎", as the song was released at 0:07 on that day, which is appropriate, but you're right: there's not much point in including it in any of the other Bond articles. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James_Bond_in_film#Global_James_Bond_Day. I waffled between redirecting this to a subsection in the main film series page or specifically to Skyfall (since this was a rather obvious way of promoting the film since it released the following month), but since this focused on the series as a whole I added it to the film page. Worth noting on the film page? Sure. Worthy of its own article? At this point, no. If it's held again this year and if it gets enough coverage, I'd argue it could merit its own article at that point. But not until then. Until that point this is just a marketing event that got a small amount of coverage, but not enough to show that it was a major event. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry TokyoGirl, but it doesn't belong in the James Bond in film article at all, not even as a passing reference, let alone a sub section in its own right. As per above, it is mentioned on the Skyfall song page: it doesn't even make it as far as the film page, as it all very separate. - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a promotional event pending the release of Skyfall. Maybe noteworthy enough to be added to the legacy section of Dr. No (film), since it was tied in to the release of that film. Betty Logan (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related AfD material has been removed from the encyclopedia by the nominator, including five references, at [20] with the explanation "not worth adding at all!". Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've mentioned it all above. It's got nothing to do with the James Bond in film article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that the relationship is "nothing" shows that you lack objectivity on this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comment. I'm afraid I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain your statement that Global James Bond Day and James Bond in film have "nothing to do" with each other? Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I glanced at the cleveland.com source and the telegraph.co.uk source and both mention the film Everything Or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007. This review calls the film a "50th anniversary doc", and dated 4 October 2012 says, "It's the Bond movies' 50th birthday..." Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film Everything Or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 is already mentioned twice in the encyclopedia, once at Gun barrel sequence and once at 25th Tokyo International Film Festival. Unscintillating (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source was removed from the article one hour after the start of the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source makes the point that, "...[Eon] first announced in January that this would be the year of Bond..." Unscintillating (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is an article with a picture and a paragraph of information specifically about the auction in London, which was part of the Global James Bond Day. Unscintillating (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This ref which discusses Bond films being shown at MOMA in October 2012, and this ref which reports a Goldfinger exhibit in October 2012, also show that the 25th anniversary of the release of Dr. No was observed, and that the events of the 50th anniversary were more than promotion by Eon. Unscintillating (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing a few things here (as much as some of the sources did). Yes, it was the anniversary year, but 99% of what you have mentioned has nothing to do with global JB day. Global JB day was one part of the anniversary. It was unconnected to MOMA, the documentary or the Christie's auction. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The reliable sources say otherwise. Your statistic of "99%" shows your continuing lack of objectivity. There is a kernel of truth in what you say in that the WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "James Bond Day" rather than "Global James Bond Day". Unscintillating (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps. James Bond in film is about the background to the production of the films, rather than a history of EON Productions marketing moves. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And is that supposed to prove that Global James Bond Day and James Bond in film have "nothing to do" with each other? Unscintillating (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy-arsed journalism using an incorrect short-hand term does not make for a reliable source. Do either MOMA or Christie's refer to their events being part of "Global JB Day"? Your lack of perspective, objectivity and subject-knowledge is concerning. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if the source doesn't use the exact term, "Global James Bond Day" they are either not reliable, or they are talking about an unrelated 50th James Bond anniversary event or film release occurring on 5 October 2012? Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a couple of reliable sources from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences:

"The music of Bond: The first 50 years. Events presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences". Retrieved 2013-04-26.
"Nobody Does It Better than Bond at the Academy". Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 2013-04-26. The sounds of intrigue, danger and excitement filled the Samuel Goldwyn Theater on the night of October 5, 2012, officially declared Global James Bond Day in honor of the opening of the first 007 film, "Dr. No" in the United Kingdom, fifty years ago to the day.

Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the exact term, "Global James Bond Day" they are either not reliable, or they are talking about an unrelated 50th James Bond anniversary event or film release occurring on 5 October 2012?" Again, you're mixing up the overall fiftieth anniversary over the course of the year and one specific day on which a small number of events happened. Thise included the Academy music event and a few others, but have nothing to do with the documentary, auction, MOMA event etc, etc. I'm not sure if you're accidentally confusing the two or not, but we are not talking about the overall fiftieth anniversary, but whether an article called "Global James Bond Day" should exist or not. "Global James Bond Day" was a on-off day, a PR exercise by the Bond franchise owners. Does that, in itself, need an article? (Please try not to introduce more material related to the general course of events over the year, but simply matters relating to that day. - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the four references remaining in the article is [21] . As per our article on NY Daily News, this paper is the 4th most-circulated paper in the US and has won ten Pulitzer prizes. The title of this article (emphasis added) is "Global James Bond Day: Worldwide 007 celebration set for October 5th" and the subtitle is "Bond events include a film retrospective from the Museum of Modern Art in New York and a music night from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences." According to you, the events of this article "have nothing to do with...MOMA event..." And above you say, "Global JB day was one part of the anniversary. It was unconnected to MOMA..." The NY Daily News goes on to say (emphasis added) "Other Global James Bond Day events will include the release of a new documentary “Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007,” a Bond memorabilia auction for twelve charities, a worldwide survey to determine favorite Bond films by country and an exhibition “Designing 007: 50 Years of Bond Style” at the Toronto International Film Festival." Unscintillating (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does MOMA or Christies state that they are part of the day? (A clue on Christies is that the auction took place in September, with G JB Day in October). No. Neither of them do. Is a one-off PR exercise sufficient cause for an encyclopaedic article? No. It isn't. If you think that it is, then you have a very different idea as to what constitutes an encyclopaedia than I do. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided above a short article from telegraph.co.uk that tells that the online auction took place from 28 September to 8 October. It goes on to say, "[T]he remaining ten lots are offered by invitation-only at the auction house on 5 October." Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source from Christies, that says that the auction brought in €2,034,999. Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So no mention of Global JB Day then. There's absolutely no mention of the day at all in the auction catalogue. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per the post I made at 19:23 on 27 April 2013 above, the source lists the auction as associated with the day, and your point that the auction catalog does not in turn list the day doesn't mean that a reliable source has not already made the connection. Unscintillating (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore Christie's own site, and the auction catalogue if you really want to, but they appear not to be stepping into a free advertising portal in their actions. Perhaps you should consider their reasons, as nothing anyone else is saying seems to be shaking your convictions on this point. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main concerns raised in this AfD are notability, WP:PROMOTE, and unclear topic. This diff establishes by WP:CONSENSUS that the topic is notable, so to the extent that this AfD was brought to look at notability, it is an end-run around discussion which is required by WP:CONSENSUS. I agree with the existing consensus at the article that this topic passes WP:GNG. There is also the issue of WP:EVENT notability, but this is refuted by several avenues. (1) The MOMA has identified that this event was previously recognized on the 25th anniversary. (2) Even if we stipulate that WP:EVENT fails, James Bond in film currently has more than 380 references, so a spin-off article would be proper. (3) Thirdly, the film release as part of this event is not itself an event, and IMO this is the proper place in the encyclopedia to provide more detail about the film. Regarding unclear topic, the argument that this topic is only the promotional parts of the events that occurred on this day merely serves the effort to argue this topic is part of WP:NOT under WP:PROMOTE. In fact, I see no good reason not to at least consider the event at the Macau Gaming Lounge and Bar in Jamaica as reported in the Jamaica Gleaner, where Jamaica is historically significant to James Bond, and where the article reports, "...October 5 is being celebrated globally as James Bond Day." I recommend that the topic be retitled "James Bond Day", as per the Jamaica article, to clarify the topic. As for WP:PROMOTE, the many organizations and media that participated or reported; such as MOMA, Christies, the Oscar academy, telegraph.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, and the NY Daily News; did not do so to promote Eon. Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you have way too many steps in false logic here. I'm even more concerned about your lack of objectivity, subject knowledge and grasp of what consensus is. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want false steps in logic. And no one has stopped you from listing them. But a claim of such without documentation of such shows a continuing problem with your objectivity. Unscintillating (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not want them, but you introduced them. Please stop with your bad faith mud-slinging. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Concur with SchroCat. The article is nowhere near notable enough to keep. I think we have to be careful not to tire the reader. Bond is widely covered on WP, and having non-notable articles such as this will over expose Bond as a topic. --Cassianto ^Talk 20:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "concur with SchroCat" creates a puzzle because the editor you cite for support has had difficulty in making a coherent argument. More information is found in this editor interaction analyzer. In addition to numerous overlaps in articles edited, each of these two editors has made substantial contributions in the sandbox of the other editor. In this circumstance, your !vote is lacking. Unscintillating (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to be pedantic about things, then I shall say this: Concur with SchroCat in his "incoherent argument" (which is your opinion by the way). -- Cassianto ^Talk 12:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to vote delete, because it is promotional and an advertisement shouldn't have a day named after it. This article doesn't deserve its own page, but it may have notability. [Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING]. While this may not count: it may be notable, but it's not notable enough to have its own day named after it. The article subject is only notable, because of the production company behind it. ~~It is also improper to remove citations from an article, to push deletion.~~ This article should be deleted or merged, regardless of notability. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no-one has removed citations to "push for deletion", and I resent the implication here. To clarify, Tokyogirl79 tweaked the article to include the following:

"Global James Bond Day was an event held on October 5, 2012 by Eon Productions at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.[1]"

This is utterly erroneous and misleading, so I tweaked the wording to read

"Global James Bond Day was a global event held on 5 October 2012 by Eon Productions."

The citation was taken out in the process because what was written was supported by the next citation, from the NY Daily News and the edit summary of "It was not a one-off in one location" was the rationale behind it. It should be unneccessary to remind you of WP:AGF in the actions of others, especially when removing errors. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SchroCat, and Tokyogirl79. Someone mentioned that sources were removed. I did notice, on my own, that sources got moved into the text from the references section, which is fine. The article should still be deleted regardless of notability, on grounds that it is promotional. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 09:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for clearing that bit up so quickly: it is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do the math, the article had six sources when nominated, and it now has four. Unscintillating (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you do the maths properly, and try and assume just a little bit of good faith along the lines, there were six unconnected sources which had been dropped into the sources section: there were no inline citations to connect the text with those sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs), in this edit reduced it to four inline citations, having ensured that what was in the text was properly supported, and then added a fifth in a subsequent edit. As I have already pointed out, in order to correct an error that Tokyogirl79 introduced, I edited the first sentence to ensure what was there was correct. As the dispute here is not over the fact that there are no sources, but on entirely different grounds, your constant bad faith attitude and snide accusations here are crossing any normal or rational lines of interaction. Please do not introduce further slurs against other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 10:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge into a James Bond related article, because of WP:PROMOTION. It is notable, but not important enough to get its own page with a day named after a fictional character. Its notability is because of the production company, and this is that company's promotional material day. Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then where should the film Everything Or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007 be covered? Unscintillating (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that belong in James Bond in film or its own page? And this article belongs under James Bond.

It is interesting enough to be a subsection of another article, but its too arrogant for it to have its own page. I added back a reference. There are 3 others, I didn't add back because 2 were not so good, and one was a deadlink to forbes. http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20121008/ent/ent2.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/10/bond-day-vote.html Sidelight 12 ^Talk

I'm not sure about having this in James Bond, but there is a good argument for having it in Eon Productions, as it is their advertising initiative. As for Everything Or Nothing, I'm not entirely sure where a documentary would go. It would probably rate passing mention in a couple of places, but not much more than that. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per SchroCat and others. Non-notable and misleading. The article claims the date coincides with Skyfall's release. Skyfall would not be released for several more weeks. The celebrations appear to have been New York, Los Angeles and London centric. Hardly worldwide. - Fantr (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted Skyfall was not released on 5 October 2012 and the article could be more clear, but the release of Skyfall was scheduled (probably most of a year in advance as per the source removed from the article) in association with the day and released later in the month. What this boils down to is that you are emphasizing correctable defects, and such is not a valid deletion argument as per our WP:Editing policy, WP:IMPERFECT. Also, the editor you mention for support has had difficulty in making a coherent argument, which creates a puzzle as to why you would do so. Looking more, I see that you have a relationship with the nominator on your talk page. In this sequence of two posts, the nominator gives you a Barnstar and then does a WP:CANVASS for an article he/she nominated for deletion. In this circumstance, your !vote is lacking. Unscintillating (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw the snide little accusation there. There was no canvassing whatsoever, as you can see. Bringing a thread to someone's attention in a neutrally worded way is entirely appropriate. Your hounding and insulting of other editors will ensure people read more about you into your comments than they do about the argument. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources on the page constitute significant coverage from reliable sources on 2 continents. It was a publicity stunt but it received significant coverage and marked a major anniversary for a very significant film franchise. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into James Bond. As such, is an article about promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Suwon Samsung Bluewings. (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maetan High School FC

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

PROD challenged without a specific reason, deletion rationale was "No indication this school football club meets guidelines including WP:ORG", which holds true. High school football clubs are generally not notable. C 679 06:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Curios that there isn't a school article that is could be merged into. scope_creep (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Suwon Samsung Bluewings. Giant Snowman 20:15, 15 April 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suwon Samsung Bluewings. Does not meet the general notability guideline for stand-alone articles. I don't think there is much information in this article that is worth merging with the parent article, so I believe a redirect is sufficient. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to merge this with similar pages I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 St. Norbert Green Knights football team

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

See first nomination. Non-notable sports season, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:CFBSEASON. Edge3 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator. I did not find convincing evidence of notability. It is not listed as an award-winning season.[22] Praemonitus (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the page for the team, or (if there are a large number of seasons) into a single page on all seasons of this team. bd2412 T 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on my search of google news archive. See results here. St. Norbert is a Division III program (the lowest level in the NCAA hierarchy), and such teams generally do not get a lot of coverage in mainstream, independent media sources. A search of google news archive indicates that the St. Norbert football program does get some coverage in Milwaukee (and, to a lesser extent, Chicago) newspapers. If someone could demonstrate that there is substantial coverage of the 2008 team, I'd reconsider my "delete" vote. Separately, the article in its current form is more in the nature of an almanac entry than an encyclopedia article. The article merely repeats the information already published on the on-line sports almanac, college football reference.com. The existing article on St. Norbert Green Knights football is also in poor shape and could use substantial work. Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Cbl's comment immediately above: this is a non-notable season for a minor college football program. The WP:CFB precedents are clear: in the absence of meaningful coverage (i.e. not routine, not trivial) in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG, single CFB seasons for minor programs do not get anything like an "automatic pass." And it's not supposed to be automatic for Division I FBS programs, either. We do make exceptions for non-notable seasons when they are combined with other seasons by decade, coaching tenure or some other logical and coherent grouping. If the article creator wants to have this article userfied so that he can work on expanding to a full decade of seasons (e.g. 2000-09), I would support that in keeping with established WP:CFB precedent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per failed first nomination, and lack of good faith on the part of the nominator for failing to attempt to find alternative solutions to deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EJ, the first nomination "failed" because the nominator submitted multiple season article from multiple teams in a single AfD, and multiple AfD participants felt that the articles should be considered individually, not en masse. That sort of "no consensus" situation practically invites a resubmission of the articles individually; this is not a "bad faith" AfD given the circumstances. I urge you to reconsider your choice of words: the AfD nominator has done absolutely nothing wrong in resubmitting this article individually.

FYI, it's not up to the nominator to "find alternative solutions to deletion," but rather to the article creator and those AfD participants who seek to retain the article content, in whole or in part. In the case of non-notable CFB seasons, the alternatives are well known and widely understood among WP:CFB participants; please see WP:CFBSEASON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, my main complaint here is that the nominator has continued to rush to AfD without attempting to dialogue at either my talk page, WP:CFB, or on any of the talk pages of the individual articles. I would be willing to consider a merge to a List of St. Norbert Green Knights football seasons article, or as sub-sections of the main St. Norbert Green Knights football article. The nominator has made no attempt to explore any other alternative solutions besides deletion. Certainly between the first and second nominations, there should have been an attempt to dialogue about finding an alternative solution to these articles. That's just common courtesy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may be interested in participating in the following deletion discussions. Each article was submitted individually, as per the recommendation of the closing admin at the first nomination. I apologize for not mentioning this at the beginning of the discussion.
Best, -- Edge3 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bush (businessman)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO, in particular, 3d party coverage of the individual. PROD declined. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it seems to me that based on the coverage the individual has received over time, he does make it past the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are at least two newspaper sources that cover the individual and other newspaper sources that mention him. Passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions and interview-based journalism with no obvious independent research or adversarial questioning. This is not the in-depth coverage by independent third party sources that we're looking for. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions. that merely confirm his existence. don't see anything indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major newspapers cover the individual both as the topic since as early as 2005 and as part of a coporate team that have been managing a major debt crisis in the past year. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Castlemate (talk) 13:14, 20 April 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:42, 16 April 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's just a bloke with a career. A load of people have had those. I was a CEO once. I was an expert once. I run a business today. None of these make me notable, nor do they make him notable, not even the sporting thing he headed up. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When you were a CEO Fiddle Faddle, did The Age run a major article on your appointment as they did on Bush's appointment? Did you propose a debt-for-equity deal that caught the attention of The Herald-Sun in a major news article. When the "sporting thing he headed up" was in the news the The 7.30 Report thought it was notable enough to interview him on a nationally broadcast program. The Australian Financial Review is the nearest we come to in this country of the "independent third party source" that Stuart Yeates is looking for in journalism and they write of, or about, Bush on 21 occasions in the last 12 months. You may not be notable Fiddle Faddle but Peter Bush looks to be in my eyes. I'm sorry to personalise this discussion but the last contributor, in what amounted to little more than a "vote", has certainly done so. Castlemate (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been keen on the "I am sorry, but" construct. It is broadly the same as WP:WADR, and devalues any point made. You made your point earlier. I have made mine, too. Others will judge the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and not enough WP:RS for WP:BIO. 06:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qworty (talk • contribs)
- Comment I just added this further reference to the article so as to help dissuade those of the opinion that Bush fails WP:GNG. The Australian – Bush joins Nine as chairman This is one of a number of press articles that provide "significant coverage" of the subject. It is in The Australian which is a "reliable source" and is "independent of the subject". It "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". It is not "a trivial mention". Castlemate (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with all the reasons by other Keeps. New worl (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Australian article does clearly show notability as head of major company. I note that FF's argument earlier could be used to delete essentially anything. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources 1, 2, 3 clearly go beyond passing mentions and are in reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 13:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations provided establish notability per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Vision Entertainment

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

The previous deletion discussion suggested it was a fast rising corporation, and it was kept. But there is no evidence of rise, no notability is asserted in the article, and there are no WP:RS references. Delete as non notable corporation Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any discussion of this company in Google, Highbeam, Questia or a couple of UK newspapers. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It exists but does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Heath (film director)

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

This is a technical nomination. The article predates the BLPPROD process, but would, if created today, be subject to it. The gentleman may or may not be notable, but there is neither an assertion of notability nor is there a single WP:RS reference. I am suggesting deletion unless and until it referenced in RS, when it may be speedily closed unless other rationale is given for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Myspace page may be enough to pass BLPprod if it was a new page now - though I don't understand why it is headed "Smiert Spionem" rather than "James Heath"? But there is not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE anyway. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no sources to support the notability of the subject or of the feature film mentioned in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that isn't really valid. As nominator I am simply pointing out that without a reference in WP:RS this article may not stay. I have made no other comment, and done so with care. There are several people whose opinions here could be agreed with, but I doubt mine is one if them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gratian Dimech

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

This is a technical nomination. The article predates the BLPPROD process, but would, if created today, be subject to it. The gentleman may or may not be notable, but there is neither an assertion of notability nor is there a single WP:RS reference. I am suggesting deletion unless and until it referenced in RS, when it may be speedily closed unless other rationale is given for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any sources to support notability. As well as a basic Google search, I looked in GBooks (one passing mention in an autobiographical work), GNews (nothing), a UK newspaper archive (nothing), the UK Web Archive (nothing), HighBeam (nothing), Gale Cengage Learning (nothing)... Moswento ^talky 08:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no sources to support the notability of the subject or of the feature film mentioned in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that isn't really valid. As nominator I am simply pointing out that without a reference in WP:RS this article may not stay. I have made no other comment, and done so with care. There are several people whose opinions here could be agreed with, but I doubt mine is one if them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 01:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beheaded (band)

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

This band fails WP:BAND as well as WP:GNG. Most of the information is based on listings most often for upcoming events and insubstantial coverage. There's just an interview in a source of questionable reliability, the contents of which are WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 17:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there does seem to be a lot of non-reliable sources mentioning the band (references in blogs and other sources, not necessarily self generated) they fail the requirements of WP:BAND and I was unable to find any reliable sources that would satisfy WP:42, outside of the already mentioned interview of which the reliably is difficult to determine. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There's a bio at Allmusic which describes the band as "Malta's first and still best-known death metal band", which goes some way to meeting WP:MUSIC#7. Apart from the interview mentioned above, I can't find an awful lot else though, but I think these guys just about scrape the bar at WP:MUSIC. (BTW, TOOSOON for a band that formed in 1991? I must be younger than I thought!) — sparklism ^hey! 09:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With WP:GNG so distant (and Allmusic being on this side of stellar), you'd think more would be available, perhaps even in Maltese or Italian if they were the "best-known." I wonder if notability based on the most prominent ensemble of each genre in each country (so says Allmusic) is really what WP:MUSIC criterion 7 contemplates. JFHJr (㊟) 00:59, 17 April 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This Duke University Press book states: "Veteran band Beheaded has remained the leader of this genre in Malta for two decades, serving as a strong source of inspiration for up-and-coming death metal bands". The band seems to just about meet the notability criteria, with a clear indication that other offline sources almost certainly exist. Moswento ^talky 09:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Jain

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

The article has no reliable sources, independent of the subject - see my listing on the talk page. I can't find other good sources, though it is hard to be sure since this is quite a common name. John of Reading (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like an advert for his services, not an article about him as a genuinely notable person. Fails on all counts. Agree with nom. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per WP:Notability (people). Having an IMDb profile doesn't equal notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Jain

Greetings,

I am a frequent user of Wikipedia since 1st December 2009 when I need to research on people, practices, places and things. I would like to start by sharing my deep appreciation for the great work that others like you and yourself are doing to maintain the quality and accuracy of articles on Wikipedia.

While I appreciate the continuous necessity to review the contents on your pages, I was unpleasantly surprised to see Mr. Rajiv Jain (cinematographer) nominated for deletion from your esteemed pages.

I request you to kindly peruse through what I have enumerated below and then make an informed decision on the way forward on this page and his presence there.

Towards this attempt, I would like to share with you a few reasons why I believe that Mr. Rajiv Jain’s candidature befits his presence on Wikipedia.

1. Below mentioned are a few sources that will point out his contributions to Indian cinema

a. http ://www.gomolo.com/about-rajiv-jain/16993

b. http://www.ranker.com/list/movies-with-cinematography-by-rajiv-jain/reference

c. http:// www.gomolo.com/about-rajiv-jain/16993

d. http://movie-stars.us/filmography/rajiv%20jain.aspx

e. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1203010/

2. I have edited this page and have removed links to his website, interviews, articles or blog (which some have commented to have been created personally by himself)

3. IMDB (internet Movie Database) is a credible site which enumerates the work of notable contributors and related cinema releases. I request you to kindly credit them with the professional respect and consideration that one would give to honourable peers. While IMDB may not equate to notability or nomination to a celebrity club, it can undoubtedly be considered as the most reliable data base on films and key contributors to the industry

4. As a regular user of Wikipedia, I can assure you of the presence of many other names that would earn lower eligibility to be on the coveted Wikipedia pages. These less than worthy nominations are present from all industries viz; politics, international relations, the corporate world, Bollywood and more importantly, Indian cinematographers. I would of course refrain from being rude enough to mention their names or nominate them for deletion. In the event you do proceed with your decision to do away with Mr. Jain’s presence on your pages, I would certainly ask you to peruse through the following link and proceed with appropriate due diligence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_cinematographers

5. I request you to kindly Google about him using ‘RAJEEV JAIN CINEMATOGRAPHER’ as keywords for your search. I assure you that you will be able to read a lot of information about him in the form of write ups, interviews, videos on You tube, his working stills etcetera

6. Mr. Jain has worked with notablable film Producers / Directors like like Aziz Mirza, Chandrakant Kulkarni, Ketan Mehta, Makrand Deshpande, Late Mukul S. Anand, Nitin Chandrakant Desai, Rajiv Rai, Satish Kaushik, Shyam Benegal, Subhash Ghai and Wanuri Kahiu, who are themselves present on Wikipedia.

7. While I have edited his page to only include professional essentials, I would like to point out that the contents on his page were not very different from the content on the Wikipedia pages of other cinematographers

a. I do not think it will be criminal to mention his wife and daughters’ names on his page as a person’s success at work is fuelled by the support, faith and love of his family. Besides, many other cinematographers have their spousal and children’s details mentioned on their pages.

i. His daughter Abigail Jain is a popular Indian television actor who has a Wikipedia page to herself.

ii. His daughter Kimberly also had a Wikipedia page, which has now been discontinued as she has taken a brief brake to complete her high school education

8. While I appreciate the spirit behind the freedom available to anyone to nominate personalities / articles for deletion from Wikipedia, I would like to share a recommendation that you also put in place a method to control nominations that are made with mala fide intent (of which I am certain is this case) I realise that my notes and comments are lengthy and therefore appreciate your time and patience to read through it. I look forward to an informed decision on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksh (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Since you also posted this on my talk page, I'll respond here. The references you list, IMDb and other filmography database entries don't establish notability. Notability is not inherited by being related to notable people or working alongside notable people. I'm not seeing non-trivial reliable source coverage for Rajiv Jain. The best hope for notability appears to be WP:CREATIVE. What reliable sources have commented on this award-winning filmmaker's work? • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment "...nominations that are made with mala fide intent (of which I am certain is this case" is an ad hominem attack and must be retracted and, ideally, apologised for. To me such things invalidate any other argument put forward. The attack has also been distributed on every talk page the editor could find that was remotely connected with this deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, including my talk page. I didn't know you guys received the same message. I honestly think this should just be discounted as it isn't a policy-based argument. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per the request for atleast two reliable sources of write ups / interviews, I have provided details of a few pertaining to Rajiv Jain, the cinematographer. I request you to kindly consider / refer / peruse through them during your decision making process.

While surfing for articles on him, I have also realised that there are numerous articles / interviews on him, some of which refer to him as ‘Rajeev Jain’. While I realise the time constraint that you and other decision makers continuously face, I would like to request you to kindly type ‘Rajiv Jain cinematographer’ as key words to find interviews on cameras and in magazines and articles about him and his work. While perusing through his old Wikipedia page, I did not think any part of it appeared as an advertisement although it must be said that a lot of his interns who have worked with him have written extempore about him and provided links to his works / interviews. I have of course edited those pieces as I had shared with you in my last note. I also thought that those write ups etc were very informative on cinmatographic content such lighting, camera work etcetra and believe that this is extremely useful, informative content that could educate and update people with interest in this area of work. The details of reliable sources of information on him are as follows 1. * Title: Cine Blitz, Volume 25, Issue 1 • Bibliographic information and Product Details: o Binding: Trade Paper o Category: Books o Country of origin: USA o Digitized: 24 Jul 2008 o Edition: 1999 o Format: Paperback, softback o International Standard Book Number: A100007818 o Language: English o Length: 56 pages o List price: $21.16 o Original from: The University of Virginia o Publication Date: 2010-09-15 o Publisher: Blitz Publications and VJM Media Pvt. Ltd. o Size: Magazine A4 size, perfect bound o Weight: 0.21 lb • Please click on this Link: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7yAqAAAAYAAJ&q=rajiv+jain+cinematographer&dq=rajiv+jain+cinematographer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wox-UfaPM8TQrQeTmYHABA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw

2. * [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3onHbwAACAAJ&dq=%22Rajiv+Jain%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rad-UaHeLYSsrAf4voCgDA&redir_esc=y

Title: Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts Alumni: Rajpal Yadav, B. M. Shah, Rajiv Jain, Amritlal Nagar]

• Bibliographic information and Product Details: o Binding: Trade Paper o Category: Books o Country of origin: USA o Edition: 2010 o Format: Paperback, softback o International Standard Book Number: 9781158509461 o Language: English o Length : 24 pages o List price: $14.14 o Publication Date: 2010-09-15 o Publisher: General Books LLC o Size: 6.00" wide x 9.00" long x 0.06" tall o Weight: 0.11 lbs. • Please click on this Link: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3onHbwAACAAJ&dq=%22Rajiv+Jain%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rad-UaHeLYSsrAf4voCgDA&redir_esc=y

3. * Cinematography by Rajeev Jain (Video E-Magazine Interview) • Please clink on this link http://animationsupplement.com/index.php/interviews/14-cinematography-by-rajeev-jain

I realise that going through the details of the aforementioned three bullets could be very time consuming and I will be happy to provide a synopsis of the contents in each of the above mentioned. It may require some time for me to synopsise, but I would be happy to do so if you so require. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniksh (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Maniksh: Three things. One: Please stop pasting screeds of stuff no-one os going to read here. Two: improve the article. No-one cares about anything except the article. Three: please sign your comments here. If Sinebot signs them for you ether replace that with your own signature, or leave it alone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Manchester Monarchs season

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

Standings already listed in league-centric pages. Game log is easy enough to find on AHL site or other databases Anamnesis17 (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and you may as well tag and include 2007–08 Manchester Monarchs season to this nom. Looks like an abandoned attempt at mimicking the NHL team season articles, but as this is just widely available stats with little likelihood of expansion... Reso lute 14:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article is about a notable season for a notable professional sports franchise. It contains useful and referenced information. If Wikipedia wishes to be the first place to look for for uses who are seeking to find information, then we should not be deleting useful article simply because the information may also be found elsewhere. Dolovis (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Team season are not kept below the NHL level. At minor league levels we just keep a league season. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 23:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Manchester Monarchs season

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

Standings and playoff series already listed in league-centric pages. Game log is easy enough to find on AHL site or other databases. Anamnesis17 (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article is about a notable season for a notable professional sports franchise. It contains useful and referenced information. If Wikipedia wishes to be the first place to look for for uses who are seeking to find information, then we should not be deleting useful article simply because the information may also be found elsewhere. Dolovis (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Team seasons are not kept below the NHL level. For minor leagues we just have an overall league season. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other related AFD: Looks like an abandoned attempt at mimicking the NHL team season articles, but as this is just widely available stats with little likelihood of expansion. Reso lute 13:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, retargeted, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or Consequences (NCIS)

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

This page is designed to redirect to the NCIS (season 7) page. A separate article for this episode has since been created, so the redirect page is now pointless and only causes confusion

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7), housekeeping non-admin closure. czar · · 05:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tesses

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

Contested PROD Original reason was that the article is about a "Non-notable character". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Cole

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

I see one or two sources out there, but not enough to establish notability. There is no inherent notability assumed by playing in af2, a minor league of a minor league. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Keep. The subject did not receive any major college awards, and never played in a major professional football league, and therefore does not rate a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. While I found numerous hits in a Google News Archive search, the overwhelming majority of those articles are routine coverage or trivial mentions from one of the two hometown newspapers that cover University of Minnesota sports. If we stretch the general notability guidelines to say that such routine coverage in the hometown papers qualifies as in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, then virtually every college quarterback in America, regardless of mediocre accomplishments or the lack of major awards or honors, should be given a presumption of notability. Here's hoping we don't stitch another Frankenstein monster of GNG notability out of a collection of relatively insignificant coverage in a university's hometown newspapers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote in light of Cbl62's research below. For the record, I note that 16 of the listed sources are from two newspapers, the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, both of which are also the University of Minnesota's hometown newspapers. Multiple references from a single source count as one source for notability purposes. Having said that, I trust Cbl's judgment (and proven track record) with regard to other listed sources that I cannot view because they are off-line or behind website paywalls. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google news archive turns up many articles about Cole from major metropolitan daily newspapers, including St. Paul Pioneer Press (32nd largest newspaper in USA by circulation), Minneapolis Star Tribune (17th largest newspaper in USA by circulation), The Oregonian (19th largest newspaper in USA by circulation), and The Arizona Republic (14th largest newspaper in USA by circulation). Will try to list several of the best examples, if time permits tomorrow. But these do not constitute routine coverage in small town papers. They are feature stories in some of the largest newspapers in the country. As a starting QB for a Big Ten team (for parts of the 2000 and 2001 seasons), it is not surprising that he got a lot of coverage, more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of non-routine coverage of Cole in mainstream media sources spanning the decade from 1998 to 2008: (1) Cole Steps Right In at Minnesota, The Oregonian (available at newslibrary.com), 10/6/00; (2) Cole Is Blossoming As a College Quarterback, The Oregonian, 12/16/99; (3) Cole Finds Foothill a Perfect Fit, The Oregonian, 12/17/98; (4) Cole Comfortable as QB, The Daily Collegian (Penn.), 10/11/00; (5) Stopping Gophers Will Be Tall Order: Minnesota Quarterback Travis Cole Makes The Offense Dangerous by Land and Air, York Daily Record (Penn.), 10/5/00; (6) Cole Move Up to Backup QB, Arizona Republic, 1/11/06; (7) Dorados' Travis Cole out for rest of season, Valley Central, 7/19/08; (8) QB looks to resurrect career with RGV, The Monitor (Texas), 3/29/08; (9) Mason Lucky To Find Even-Tempered Cole, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 12/28/00; (10) Cole Short On Memory, Long on Confidence, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/15/00; (11) Calling on Cole, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/30/00; (12) Cole Isn't Satisfied Being U's No. 2 Quarterback, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 8/16/00; (13) Gophers QB Shuffle Nothing New To Cole, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/6/01; (14) Travis Cole among 18 free agents, The Vindicator (Ohio), 4/23/02; (15) Cole Steps Into QB Job, Expects Passing Marks, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/30/00; (16) Cole To Start, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/8/01; (17) Cole Takes Reins, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/00; (18) Cole to start at quarterback against Illinois, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/25/00; (19) Cole to Lead Gophers: Senior Quarterback Gets Another Crack at Purdue, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/01; (20) Two-sport Cole in demand as practices overlap at Minnesota, Minnesota Daily, 4/4/01; (21) Cole Plans To Test Arm on Mound In Baseball, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 1/18/01; (22) Cole regains coach's confidence, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/15/00; (23) Cole Gets Dose of Noise: Vikings Game Is Taste of What Awaits, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 10/12/00; (24) Calling on Cole, He's not the prettiest quarterback to watch, but those who know Travis Cole predict he'll come through in his first start for the Gophers, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/30/00; (25) Cole Proves He's Capable, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/3/00; (26) Cole, Gophers Could Be Cozy Fit, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 2/1/00. Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not every college football athlete is notable--many are not. However, typically quarterbacks of Division I programs generate enough press the pass WP:GNG. Based on the research above, it looks like this particular player passes that guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (and cleanup) - per Cbl62's exhaustive list of sources, I suppose he's notable. Article still should be cleaned up, but that's not the purpose of AFD. Go Phightins! 02:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex 3.0: A Sexual Revolution Manual

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

non-notable book, apparently self-poublished. Not even in WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be quite non-notable. CreateSpace is a self-publishing service. (While it it possible for self-published works to achieve notability, I see nothing to support the idea that this book is.) LadyofShalott 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator and LadyofShalott.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems to be marked for deletion by an admin only on the basis that it is self-published. Extremely positive amazon reviews suggest that this book is an important transformational text in the area of human sexual psychology.

The book already hit number one on amazon during the 5 day promo period (screenshot on the right)

This book is currently the inspiration of a movie that is currently being made (pre-production stage) in San Francisco and Los Angeles featuring number sex positive authors and speakers including Chris Ryan (coauthor of Sex At Dawn), Dossie Easton (author of Ethical Slut) and many more.

Trailer, kickstarter page and offical movie website are all due to be launched in the next 3 to 4 weeks and are set to focus on the open-source nature of Sex 3.0 as a movement (not Sex 3.0 the book - these are 2 different things) AND NOT THE BOOK. The free and open-source nature of the movement is the only thing I have written about on wikipedia.

I also have to comment that I am dismayed that I have been given a final warning for using wikipedia to promote a book when this page (the book promotion page) was created by wikipedia admins and not me. The link to the amazon page for the book was created by wiki admins and not me and I am being threatened with a ban as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the thing is that Amazon rankings don't matter on Wikipedia. Selling well on any format only increases the chances that the book will actually get coverage. It's not a guarantee and we've had people who have had books achieve the New York Times Bestseller lists, yet those books still don't pass notability guidelines. In this particular instance the book hit the Amazon list because it was free. That definitely doesn't help give the notability because it's fairly common for people to load up on free books on Amazon. As far as it becoming a movie, that in itself doesn't mean that the book is notable. It just means that there might be a movie. Even if it does get made, that doesn't guarantee notability. If the movie gets made and becomes notable, then it could help extend notability. Now when it comes to the book spawning a movement, you'd have to prove that it's a notable movement by showing coverage in reliable sources. That's really the crux of a notability argument on Wikipedia: can you prove that the book is notable by providing sources that are reliable? By this I mean that the sources aren't non-notable blogs, sources released by the author or anyone representing him, or routine announcements or database entries. I'll see what I can find, but I'll be honest and say that the book being self-published means that it's less likely that there will be any sources. Sometimes self-published books can achieve notability, but it's uncommon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...[T]his page (the book promotion page) was created by wikipedia admins and not me." Oh? Then please explain "15:16, 2013 April 13‎ Pizza Lord (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (294 bytes) (+294)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Sex 3.0 is a sexual revolutionary movement which began in 2011. It defines the three eras of mankind as Sex 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 with 1.0 being all of human history ...')" (bolding mine). LadyofShalott 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see that Lugia2453 turned your article about the movement into an article about the book and added the Amazon link. Lugia is not an admin. Turning an article about the movement into one about the book was not unreasonable, but the Amazon link should never have been added. LadyofShalott 11:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's the problem: this book hasn't received any real coverage in what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source and I can't really find anything that would back up the claims of the book spawning a movement or inspiring a movie. Most of what I found comprised of non-usable blog reviews, primary sources, junk hits, and a few merchant sources. Nothing that would show notability. Nothing about this is notable at this point in time. Now don't get upset- this doesn't mean that the idea of the book is bad or that the movement can't one day gain notability. It just means that this isn't notable per Wikipedia. The big issue here is that you've created two pages about a non-notable movement, one of which was deleted due to it sounding very promotional in tone. An article doesn't have to be actively asking for money for a physical product in order to sound like it's promoting something. What doesn't help your case out any is that at one point both articles were pretty much the same, which kind of backs up the idea that this was more about using Wikipedia as a platform to promote the movement. Whether you meant to do this or not, the book and the movement are not notable and this is going to be a delete as far as I'm concerned. I would highly recommend not attempting to re-upload anything about this movement on Wikipedia, as that would likely get you blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sufficient notability for inclusion here. Smells promotional. All the arguments have already been made for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A free book with 'sex' in the title will make the top of any download list, I'm sure. But so far I fail to see its notability. Yintan 11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being self-published is not, in itself, a reason to delete. However, being self-published and completely unnoticed by secondary sources is. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Bleck

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

This is one of many similar articles that completely fails GNG. Furthermore the sourcing that exists in the current state are not from reliable sources. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- total fail of WP:GNG, reliable sources are entirely lacking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing that would demonstrate WP:GNG, most links lead to subject's social networking sites, and poor coverage in others. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find substantial coverage from wikipedia:reliable sources. ---GRuban (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Salt might be appropriate given the creating editor's other repeated recreations. JFHJr (㊟) 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Is simply a promotional article. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Christianity

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

~~Article is a case of WP:LINKFARM.~~ Deadbeef (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTCATALOG violation. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Ultra-lite dictionary definition which seemingly exists only to promote several vaguely similar titles with links. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per Arxiloxos below. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of the complete transformation of this article at AfD from a dictionary-lite promotional list to a piece on one notable project going by this exact name. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge#Christianity as a likely search term for people looking for a particular Christian encyclopedia. There are a few books out there with this title (or something close to it) that might be notable, such as John Bowden's 2008 volume published by Oxford [23] (sample reviews:[24][25][26]); if/when an article gets written about such a book, we'll have to deal with disambiguation, but for the moment, I think a redirect to the list is the most constructive approach for this term. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I agree with Arxiloxos re the appropriate target. Moswento ^talky 09:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Good job finding a good redirect there, Arxiloxos. Sasquatch t|c 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Undelete Yeah, agreed, thanks Arxiloxos, I've used all those links you provided to change the page to be better now. Doug Christian (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: The page creator has just now re-established the page as focusing on one single encyclopedia. As such, all previous discussion should render as invalid and we should now discuss the merits of keeping the page as currently established. My new vote is a weak keep. While notability still isn't firmly supported, it is present. Dea db eef 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This remains a mish-mash, you had it right the first time. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly still needs improvement, but in what way is it now a "mish-mash"? It has a focused topic now. LadyofShalott 16:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait! – I suggest we give the article's creator a few days to work on it. It certainly needs both improvement and also some evidence of notability which may not have had time to accumulate yet. Jpacobb (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - I found another citation in the Napa Valley Register saying it was one of the best books of 2005. Doug Christian (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found several more reviews - see the article talk page for citations. LadyofShalott 21:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews from reliable websites aren't difficult to find to establish notability, and the redirect option leads to a section which appears to be just a collection of links to unrelated Wikipedia articles. Article needs expansion, but the topic itself seems good. Chri$topher 23:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to satisfy GNG as there is more than one review. James500 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, now that the article has found a focus. Good editing, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new article that has emerged. St Anselm (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to keep per above comments and article improvement. Caution is needed here to keep this article focused on the one-volume Oxford project, and avoid a WP:FRANKENSTEIN effect: one of the sources that was added to the article[27] actually reviews a different project [28] to translate the great German-language de:Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon into five volumes in English. We could certainly have an article about the Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon (it is already listed at List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge#Christianity), but it would need to be a different article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I deleted this as part of a mass deletion of articles created by this sock puppet account, named in honor me me and my supposed excessive pro-Christian views and then claimed to by my sock puppet at SPI. The editor has created dozens of sock puppets and hundreds of articles (and some clear vandalism) in a stated blackmail attempt to get unblocked (he was blocked in part for misuse of sources and is now community banned). Because the article's topic has actualy changed I have agreed to undelete it in this exceptional case. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if it weren't both pathetic and crazy, it might be funny - when blocked, he wrote on his talk page "Hi, I've apparently been blocked because I am a sockpuppet of Dougweller. I confess, it's true. I am out for a global, christian and racially biased world dominion over the encyclopedia." He must be the only person (besides one YEC editor that thinks I'm the most evil racist on Wikipedia) who thinks this. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the proviso that the promotional angle should be toned down a bit. At the moment it sounds a bit like the publisher's flyer. Deb (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not see much wrong with the article in its present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annita McVeigh

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

Does not met criteria of notability, per WP:CREATIVE. Two dubious references to articles written by the person, which however does not say anything about the person. No coverage about the person has been found; does not even have an entry on the BBC website. Mootros (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some Googling I cannot find any authoritative coverage of McVeigh.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run-off the mill broadcaster, nothing notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew³²⁷ 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ahmed Abukhater. (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Water as a Catalyst for Peace

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

Notability not established per WP:NBOOK. The whole "Description" section appears to be copyvio. ELEKHH^T 01:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ahmed Abukhater. A search quickly shows that this book hasn't even released yet and definitely has not had the coverage necessary to pass notability guidelines before its official release. The thing about textbooks and scholarly works is that it's not really a guarantee that they'll pass. These things either gain a ton of coverage and accolades or (more normally) they never gain the amount of coverage necessary to pass notability guidelines. This isn't a slur against Abukhater- there are a lot of very, very brilliant people who write very good books that never gain enough attention to establish notability. I think that it's feasible enough to redirect to his article, although I'll note that his page looks like it could use some cleaning in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79 and WP:TOOSOON. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description section is updated.
The book is available now for pre-order and also promoted through Routledge: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415642132/
The book review section includes endorsements from leaders in the field (such as Franklin M. Fisher of MIT and Lawrence Susskind of MIT and Harvard Law School), which outline the notability of the book and its approach. --PeterDandy (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: PeterDandy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. czar · · 02:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being endorsed by notable persons isn't sufficient for a textbook to be notable in itself. If this textbook attains notability in the future (which it very well could), then in my opinion that could be a good thing. For now, though, it needs to be treated as another textbook, per WP:TOOSOON. Chri$topher 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor L. Bennett

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

Article was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. That article's creator stopped editing and a new account was created a few days later that created this and another article from that previous editor, both under slightly different names.

No new sources have been presented, only different versions of the same exact sources that caused the previous article to be deleted. Sources are trivial mentions that might verify the content, but do not establish notability for the subject. Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sudo Ghost 01:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CREATIVE No third party sources. Mootros (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Boy do I remember that AfD. The thing is, it was established that none of the previous sources were enough to pass notability guidelines. The big issue was that there was a consensus the awards weren't enough to show notability and really, that's all that she really had to argue notability with. It doesn't help that the article's original prose (which was sort of promotional in nature) was almost identical to the version uploaded by the publisher that edited under a different username. I'll be honest in saying that I suspect that this is the same editor under a different username. As long as somewhere they stated that they are the same person and that they have a conflict of interest in being the publisher, they technically aren't doing anything wrong. It's heavily discouraged, especially given how the last AfD ran, but as long as someone with a COI can edit neutrally it isn't against any rules. In any case, here's a rundown of the sources currently on the article, followed by the links in the external links section:

Rundown of sources

[29] This is her picture available as a background. Not really usable as a source to show notability.
[30] This is something I'd argue would help towards notability but isn't enough in itself to give absolute notability.
[31] Another art contest that could argue towards notability, maybe, but isn't enough on its own. I think people argued that this wasn't really enough to argue towards notability.
[32] This is sort of one of those contests that's nice, but isn't really a well known enough one that would really give notability.
[33] This is good, but a lot of people argued that it wasn't really in-depth enough to count overall.
[34] This doesn't even mention her at all.
[35] This is considered to be another one of those contests that would look good on a resume but doesn't really count towards notability as a whole when it comes to Wikipedia.
[36] The big issue with this one is that it's ultimately a primary source. Her picture was used as a cover, but the only people commenting on it are the people who are using the picture. This is the type of thing that wouldn't give notability because while again, it'd look good on a resume, having people use your picture isn't enough to give notability.
[37] A nice competition, but it's debatable whether or not this would be enough per Wikipedia to give notability. The thing about competitions is that most of them, the vast majority of them, don't give notability at all. Of the 1% that would extend notability, less than .001% of them are notable enough to where they'd give absolute notability. Even if this fits into that 1%, this isn't part of that select .001%.
[38] This is a competition, but she didn't win. I don't think this would have given notability, but even if it did- you need to win first prize to establish notability.
[39] This looks to be a contest run by the site, so this sort of falls under the same issue as her photography being used for the cover of something. If the only people that comment on her win is the website itself, then that argues against the notability of the award.
[40] "Only" an honorable mention. This has the same issue in that if it isn't the first prize, it isn't enough to establish notability. Only on very, very rare occasions would a runner up or honorable mention extend notability and even then it's usually for the big big awards such as an Oscar.
[41] This doesn't mention Bennett and doesn't look to be the type of thing that would be usable as a RS in any case. In order to back up the claims in the article, the source must at least mention Bennett.
[42] Also doesn't mention her.
[43] Ditto. No mention.
[44] This is just a list of people who may win a contest. It doesn't really help establish notability and the contest doesn't look like it's the type that would give notability.
[45] This is one of many links to a non-notable blog magazine (per Wikipedia, remember- they're very strict about what gives notability). Having your picture on a magazine doesn't really give notability. If a picture is ever put on a notable magazine (say, Time magazine) it makes it more likely that the photographer would gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. All of the ones after this point are magazines that use her picture, so they're all considered primary sources since they're publishing her work.
[46] Same issue here.
[47] Same issue here.
[48] Link is dead, but it would have the same issue.
[49] Same issue.
[50] Non-notable magazine.
[51] Doesn't mention Bennett at all, but would still have the issue of being a non-notable magazine.
[52] Aside from it being a non-notable magazine, it's fairly inappropriate to link to a sale site. I'll probably remove this one.
[53] Even if this is the same Neon magazine that is established to have some notability here on Wikipedia, the issue still remains that this would be a primary source since they're using her photograph.
[54] Doesn't mention her at all.
[55] Dead link.
[56] Non-notable blog.
[57] Another non-notable blog/magazine.
[58] Another non-notable magazine and like the others, is just them using her picture.
[59] Non-notable magazine.
[60] NN magazine.
[61] NN magazine, doesn't mention her.
[62] Just a link to a page that shows how you can submit something. Not usable for notability.
[63] NN magazine.
[64] NN magazine, link goes to a general page that doesn't mention her.

EL

[65] This was written by Bennett for the Guardian, so it's not usable to show notability. It'd be considered a primary source at most.
[66] This is a repost of one of the pictures mentioned above. I seem to remember that people argued that this was a trivial source at most, which is probably why it's in the EL section now.
[67] With the argument against the BBC picture in mind, the argument here would be the same.

The issue is still the same. All that Bennett has going for her is that she's won a few competitions that never seem to have gained any coverage. She hasn't really gained any true notice since the AfD closed last year. I have no true issue with this being userfied again, but I would emphasize that it should be run through an experienced editor before getting posted to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the history of these attempts to remove the entry on Eleanor Bennett and find it strange if not actually sinister, especially as it seems to be the same two or three editors who have been pursuing the case relentlessly. Ms Bennett is by far the most outstanding young photographer working in the UK at the moment, with an unsurpassed record of competition and exhibition successes and publication credits, including her current title of Young Environmental Photographer of the Year and pictures currently on exhibit at the Royal Geographical Society building in Kensington Gore, inclusion in the National Geographic and Airbus ‘See the Bigger Picture’ global touring exhibition in 2010, publication in major newspapers such as The Guardian and Telegraph, and contribution of cover pictures to journals of the status of The British Journal of Psychiatry. How would it be possible for her to have better credentials as a photographer than these? Although I am not normally a believer in conspiracy theories I find myself wondering if there is a hidden agenda here and the motivations of the people crying for her exclusion are not entirely pure.

I think it would be ridiculous if Wikipedia were to have no entry on the country's best known and most prolific and successful young photographer and can't understand the reasoning of those who feel that it shouldn't. It's beginning to look as if this matter will have to go for adjudication to somebody a bit more senior in the Wikipedia hierarchy without any axe to grind. The proceedings here are beginning to look very unsavoury. Coriander2 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC) — Coriander2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I wouldn't say it's sinister. I'm just in the habit of looking through the AfD list and saw that this came up on the list. As far as the other editors' reasons, I would say that they likely kept a lookout for variations on the name, given how sharp the conversations got in the last AfD. That's not uncommon and doesn't mean that they have a personal vendetta against Bennett. Considering that the last AfD was the way it was, it stands to figure that I'd remember it. In any case, if you want to show that she passes notability guidelines, you'd have to show that she's received in-depth coverage. That's really the big thing here: she hasn't received any such coverage that would show that she passes notability guidelines. Several people in the last AfD were actually long-term Wikipedia editors (such as User:DGG) and they'd voted against the article given the same awards that were here last time. The consensus was that the awards weren't notable enough to warrant keeping the article on their basis alone and given that not much has changed in the few months since the last AfD, I'm inclined to agree with them. The claim that she's the "country's best known and most prolific and successful young photographer" would have to be backed up by reliable sources that affirm that she is. If you can show those reliable sources and have them be sources that are reliable per Wikipedia, then I'd be more than happy to change my vote. Her being on exhibition is good, but exhibitions can only give notability per WP:ARTIST if it "has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed there is an agenda. I.e. to go by third party sources that say something about the person. She might well be well-known, but if it is only by word of mouth this written encyclopaedia is incapable to deal with such occurrence. It is its shortfall, thereby given strength to written documents. Mootros (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that you hold off any further action for a few days to give me time to put together a detailed case for mediation and if that is unsuccessful possible arbitration. Would seven days be an acceptable period? I need to examine the Wikipedia criteria carefully and construct a clear case. Coriander2 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation and/or arbitration are not relevant to the appropriateness of the article on Wikipedia, more time will not change that. However, AfDs typically run for at least seven days; nothing will happen to the article before then. - Sudo Ghost 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion The subject seems to be trying too hard. There are more sources to be found such as Northern Arts; Limerence; HUF but they all seem rather promotional and so it's not clear how independent they are. Anyway, I suggest that the subject create a user page on Wikipedia and donate some photographs to the project. Per WP:USER, limited autobiographical content is permitted — see User:DGG for an example of a respectable user telling us something about himself. As the subject seems to be talented and keen to exhibit their work, they might try contributing some photos and seeing whether they are good enough to be featured. By engaging with the project in this way, the subject will better understand it and we may get some good photos out of it. The page in question here could be userfied on that account pending further development. Warden (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that 'the subject seems to be trying too hard'. As far as I know we haven't heard at all from the subject herself. Or do you mean that she shouldn't make herself available for interview by publications that Wikipedia doesn't consider worthy? The simple fact is that the subject has supplied artwork, including cover art, to a staggering number of magazines and book publishers, most of them too small to interest Wikipedia, but collectively it's an amazing accomplishment and validation of her work. The small press knows that they can rely on her for free artwork of a totally professional standard, because she is young, living at home, and more interested in her art than in making money out of it. This is how she has become well-known throughout the small press and small magazine publishing world, and why many of them have singled her out for interviews and treatment in feature articles. It would be easy to amass a huge index of her association with such publications, but as has been re-stated so many times here these would not count as evidence of 'notability' for the purposes of Wikipedia. It is this aspect of her work though that has brought so many people from the small press world in to support her as a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. I don't understand the point about the possibility of the subject contributing photographs to Wikipedia, but my guess is that she would be delighted to do so if asked. Her email address is on her website and it would be very easy to contact her with this proposal, but as I don't really know what it's all about I wouldn't be the best person to discuss it with her.

But in addition to her popularity as a cover artist for the smaller publishers she has supplied the cover for an edition of The British Journal of Psychiatry^[1] and had competition wins with outfits as significant as The National Geographic since she was a young teenager. As is detailed in the article she was the winner in her age group at 14^[2] and at the age of 14 had her work included as the youngest contributor in the National Geographic and Airbus ‘See the Bigger Picture’ global touring exhibition^[3] during the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity (2010). This was a major international exhibition, satisfying the condition WP:ARTISTpart (b) above, and her work is presently on exhibition at The Royal Geographical Society building in London as winner in the under 18 category of the Environmental Photographer of the Year Competition. Again this is a major competition and her part in it is major, satisfying condition (b) once again. She was also at 14 the winner of the 2010 photomonth Youth Award,^[4] sponsored by the World Photography Organisation. As listed in the article she has had other numerous competition wins, but as she is not yet 18 all of her wins have of necessity been in age-appropriate categories, which seems to disqualify them as legitimate competition successes in the eyes of the editors who have called for the deletion of the article.

The notability or otherwise of this subject is a question of editorial judgement, and anyone reading the history of the attempt to get a Wikipedia entry approved for this subject will see that the article has caused considerable personal acrimony which involved the same editors who are here once again calling for the removal of the article. Because of this personal involvement in a dispute that has, perhaps through no fault of the editors, descended to personal attacks, I think it would be appropriate for a completely neutral and uninvolved editor to act as mediator in the decision regarding this article's eligibility for acceptance. Coriander2 (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think interested parties will be informed automatically, but in case it doesn't happen I'll just let you know that I have entered a request for help with conflict resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN).^[5] Coriander2 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a regular volunteer at DRN. That request has been closed, as DRN will not accept cases which are already pending in other forums. (The same is generally true of all forms of dispute resolution at Wikipedia.) A listing at Articles for Deletion is sufficient unto itself; this is the place to make your best arguments for retention or deletion and the administrator or editor who closes this discussion will resolve any disputes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or heavily trim -- This young woman is clearly very prolific in getting her work publihsed for (at most) a 17-year old, but WP is not the right place for her to be recording all her achievements. It would be much better if this was done in a personal website, where she would be able put up copies of the images. I suspect COI in the creators and editors. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'heavy trim' is a compromise that might satisfy all parties. As she gets older and accumulates wins in adult competitions the article can be expanded again, but for the present she would have a Wikipedia presence that would represent fair recognition of her considerable achievements. Coriander2 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, so any article on the subject would be inappropriate, no matter what prose is found there. That might change in the future, but for now it is too soon to have an article about this individual. - Sudo Ghost 17:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but surely it's overstating the case for deletion by saying that "any article on the subject would be inappropriate, no matter what prose is found there". The basis for that decision is indeed "what prose is found there", the decision can't be made in that a priori fashion. Coriander2 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "heavy trim" would not solve the notability issue, and that is why the article is at AfD. Articles are not kept or deleted at AfD because of the amount of prose found in the article. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, which is determined through third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not through "what prose is found there". Changing the prose will not change its appropriateness in that regard. - Sudo Ghost 17:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, the sufficiency of the evidence given is a matter of judgement. She has major competition wins and an extensive publication record. With respect, I would still like an independent opinion about those things, from someone who has no personal history with this debate, and will see if I can enlist the input of other independent editors. Coriander2 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what AfD is for, and other editors have commented and will continue to comment. - Sudo Ghost 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per WP:CREATIVE: no major awards or individual exhibitions or works in museums. Virtually no reliable third party sources. As mentioned above: this might just be too early for an article about her. And to Coriander2: please do not try to see an agenda here; we are all volunteers, essentially working for the good of the Encyclopedia, so why see a conspiracy when there really is none? No one is "gaining" anything by keeping the article out, but we have policies we have to apply, and these are the result of years of collaboration and consensus finding. These policies are applicated to each "case", as NPOV as possible. And application of these policies points quite clearly to delete, at least for the moment. Lectonar (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer your points there, Lectonar, I am not suggesting a conspiracy, just that the two editors who initiated the deletion procedure this time have had a history of acrimony with the creator of the first article on Bennett and I find it hard to accept that they have no residual hostility to anyone trying to get an article published on this subject. On you point about 'individual exhibitions', that isn't in fact what the guidelines call for, just that the person's work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". I think two of the subject's (fully referenced) competition wins satisfy this condition, the National Geographic and Airbus ‘See the Bigger Picture’ global touring exhibition in 2010 and the current exhibition at the Royal Geographic Society building in London where she is the Young Environmental Photographer of the Year winner. Coriander2 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your line of dicussion let me think otherwise; if I have offended you with that, I am sorry. If you want to argue about our policies, this is not the place for it. You asked for someone not directly engaged in the topic to give his opinion, and I did that. Your arguing every single vote is hot helping your cause, btw. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would be hard-pressed to find any example of me holding any sort of grudge or hostility. Opening this second AfD is not indicative of "hostility", but rather that this subject does not warrant an encyclopedia article; an opinion that has not changed the second time around, because the quality of the sources in the article have not changed. As to the competition wins and exibitions, those would require some kind of third-party reliable source showing that they are notable, otherwise they aren't indicative of notability because no sources have shown that the exhibitions or competitions are "significant"; being one of several winners of various competitions that occur annually doesn't show notability, especially when there are only primary sources and blogs that show any mention of it. - Sudo Ghost 10:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per previous discussion p b p 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/202/2.cover-expansion
^ http://www.ngkids.co.uk/cool_stories/1472/ng_kids_2010_photography_competition_results/
^ http://www.seethebiggerpicture.org/honourable-mention.php?image=668
^ http://www.worldphoto.org/news-and-events/2010-photomonth-youth-award-winner-announced/
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleanor_L._Bennett

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. J04n(talk page) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Nélisse

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

fails WP:NACTOR. enough evidence of multiple significant roles. too early in her career. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DElete: I agree that this is too early in her career, no significant roles. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If for no other reason than that I oppose deletion for anything that is not an advertisement, or doesn't contain any relevant information. Her role in Mama (2013) is significant enough to make people wonder who she is. And I am not aware of any minimum-roles-rule for articles about actors on Wikipedia. Gerald Jarosch (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read WP:NACTOR. Multiple significant roles are required. LibStar (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NACTOR / WP:BLP - Alison ^❤ 03:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Panadura Royal College#Annual Big Match. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Greens

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

The article has turned out to be a replication of information in two articles St. John's College Panadura and Panadura Royal College. It was the consensus of two discussions on merging to merge the article to the two articles. However a user later block for sock puppetry recreated the article with the same content and again it was recreated by a user which seems to be a sock too. Cossde (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per previous consensus and protect against future distruptive socks. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 7. Snotbot t • c » 19:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 7 April 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 15 April 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, czar · · 00:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishali Deepak

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

Article was one of many created by the same person that do not meet WP:GNG. As opposed to fixing the previous articles, this is yet another creation where there are no references that show notability. There are a few brief mentions, but nothing significant and nothing in reliable sources. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This lady is HOOOOOOOT but not notable. An up-and-coming film star does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, as is clear from there being a mention in a single news article and a profile on IMDb. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for WP:HOTTIE. Ha ha. Stalwart111 13:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have edited the whole article a reference to his film I am Bangalore, Dr Adil (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources from what I can see. IMDB is not considered a reliable source and a YouTube video of the short film she was in isn't really a "source". WP:TOOSOON? Stalwart111 13:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cayucas

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND Eeekster (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Looks to be an up and coming band. No prejudice to recreation when they arrive. I did find this New Band of the Day article on the Guardian, but that isn't sufficient to estblaish notability now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 4 April 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) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian source is excellent, as is NPR's All Songs Considered [68] 86.42.83.240 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band is getting play on Alt Nation at this time Floatjon (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) -- also, besides my WP:BAND #11 argument, I'll note that there's more coverage/Google hits for the previous name, Oregon Bike Trails. Factor that in when considering notability. Floatjon (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~, although the NPR source linked by IP editor 86.42.83.240 does appear to be a significant coverage non-primary reliable source I have not found, while searching for reliable sources other non-primary reliable sources. Therefore, as there only appears to be one significant coverage source, it is my humble opinion that it is presently too soon for this subject to pass WP:GNG. If another significant coverage source comes out, then I would reconsider.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to information provided by Darkwind, subject of this AfD appears to pass WP:BAND, criteria #11. I believe this is a very low threshold, and thus only changing my opinion to Weak Keep.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original closing comment: The result was delete. As Whpq (t c) noted, no prejudice against recreation with appropriate sources to establish notability, once these are available. —Darkwind (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Relisting debate per a discussion on my talk page with Floatjon (t c) who provided some additional notability evidence; the community should have a chance to comment on this. —Darkwind (talk) 00:29, 23 April 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, —Darkwind (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The additional sources provided were: [69] and [70] in support of GNG under the band's prior name, and [71] and [72] in support of WP:BAND#11. —Darkwind (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello. I'm the creator of this page. I just added some sources to articles from LA Weekly, Altsounds.com, and more. I'm sure this is obvious, but I don't think this page should be deleted. The band is signed to Secretly Canadian, the same guys who work with artists like Major Lazer, Bon Iver, Dinosaur Jr. and more. The music is distributed internationally and the band tours internationally. I'm a huge fan and, judging by the number of articles about Cayucas you can find on google, I think many others are as well. I didn't want to delete the Multiple Issues/Deletion Consideration boxes from the code because I'm not sure that that's my place, but I do want to make you all aware of these updates to the page so that hopefully you will delete those boxes. Thanks! 01:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I've reviewed the additional sources and although this creeps up towards notability, I feel it still falls short at this time. I've amended to a weak delete recognizing there is a stronger case here for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Considering that their debut album, Bigfoot, came out 2 days ago it might not be a bad idea to close this discussion down and reopen in a month or so if it doesn't generate any significant press. J04n(talk page) 10:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject satisfies WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable and independent sources (Pitchfork NPR Buzzine Pretty Much Magazine Contact Music). I can find several more if needed. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TMMBA

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

Not very encyclopedic. Doesn't easily fit CSD criteria though so submitting it this way. Kumioko (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

This delsort is a subset of "people," like profs and administrators, not degree programs. czar · · 00:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master of Business Administration, or else delete. Ignatz mice•talk 01:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - degree associated with a single institution, if google results are anything to go off of. Not notable separately, not deserving a general article. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/202/2.cover-expansion

[2] ttp://www.ngkids.co.uk/cool_stories/1472/ng_kids_2010_photography_competition_results/

[3] ttp://www.seethebiggerpicture.org/honourable-mention.php?image=668

[4] ttp://www.worldphoto.org/news-and-events/2010-photomonth-youth-award-winner-announced/

[5] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleanor_L._Bennett

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]