Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 April	26 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 no consensus. L Faraone 20:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Courchaine (ice hockey b. 1989)

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

Non-notable minor league player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he does or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This goaltender is a veteran of 5 seasons of professional ice hockey in the ECHL and AHL where he has racked up 74 games played, and won the ECHL Kelly Cup as a member of the Alaska Aces. Unlike skaters, goaltenders are not expected to play in all games of a hockey season, and for this reason goaltenders in other discussions have been granted a relaxation of the NHOCKEY criteria that a hockey player must play at least 100 professional games. It also appears that this player meets GNG as significant, reliable, and independent news coverage can easily be found including [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7] Dolovis (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are made up of blogs, press releases and routine coverage. Goalies have not been granted an exception to the 100 game rule. You did try to bring it up in the past and it was rejected. The fact we have a 100 game threshold is specifically to exclude players who have managed to play a number of seasons but very few games in each such as this one. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 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, czar · · 23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Agreed wtih DJSasso. Blogs, routine and trivial coverage. Little more. Reso lute 13:43, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Kirbie

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

WP:NN girlfriend of a politician. Most of the available sources are passing mentions or self-published. This article is pretty much a vanity PR piece created by subject's boyfriend. Failed speedy deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of a number of vanity pages for Warren Kinsella, including his high school punk band, Hot Nasties, that should be cleaned out. Not at all notable in her own right, entry relies on self-published material and Sun TV intervies of subject. Should have been a speedy.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 00:30, 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. J04n(talk page) 01:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhophobia

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

Should be link to Islamophobia as all events listed are of mistaken identity Jujhar.pannu (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rarely used neologism. --regentspark (comment) 22:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a real phenomena. Just a mistaken identity. Information about these cases is already covered in September 11 attacks#Hate_crimes --Vigyani (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Other than this opinion piece, I couldn't find any coverage of the topic in reliable sources. The two references in the article don't connect the attacks to Sikhophobia or Anti–Sikhism. Calling them examples of Sikhophobia is WP:SYNTHESIS. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with guys above as per pol. Theman244 (talk) 23:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Hansen

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

Biography of female porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 18 "keep votes" and 4 "weak keeps" in the deletion discussion of 2006 [8] can't all be wrong. There were 3 delete votes. --Normash (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a celebrity in Norway with those gnews hits. I can't read Norwegian but she's covered by their newspapers like Verdens Gang and Dagbladet. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -"2003 Venus Award winner – Best Actress (Scandinavia)" with articles on five other wikipedias. --Normash (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets PORNBIO per Venus Award win. Also passes GNG per dozens of articles about her available in Google News archives (not so obvious for a Norvegian actress who was mainly active between early 1990s and early 2000s). Cavarrone (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is a celebrity in Norway and passes WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:11, 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) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Showtek

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

Non-notable act. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage was found in the first AfD and there are several other sources, including several describing them as one of the major hardstyle acts, They're listed in the 'Top 100 DJs' by DJ Magazine ([9]), plus there's this (discussing their gold record for their hit "Cannonball"), Daily Record, this, and various other coverage including VIBE. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above is Hofman, Twan (26 March 2010), "Showtek-duo leeft op adrenaline", Eindhovens Dagblad. It states (machine translation) "DJ Mag, a British magazine known for electronic dance music, drew in his album review of Show Teks 'Analogue players in a digital world' a comparison with The Prodigy." indicating further coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 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) 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Faga

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without any reason. – Michael (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's true, the three clubs Faga has played for are not in fully professional leagues, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. Sionk (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's not necessarily true. If you look at WP:FPL again, you can see that USL Pro is a fully pro league, which Rochester Rhinos are playing in. But just being on a team doesn't count (as we all know). He has to feature in a fully pro league match, a competitive cup match that features two fully pro teams or appear in a full international match. – Michael (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:52, 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 Mooted as per BGWhite. A version of the template code has been fixed up in sandbox, moved over to the template space, and applied to the article. Good work, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of public art in Israel/row

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

This is not an encyclopedic article but a random collection of table related things that serve absolutely no purpose. Stonewall speedy delete - but article is protected by admin for no reason. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to template space. I protected the page because Barney repeatedly tagged it for speedy deletion as nonsense, as an A7-eligible subject, as a test page, and as other things, when it wasn't any of those things. Of course I wouldn't normally protect a page when someone inappropriately tags it for speedy, but when a user goes past 3RR with inappropriate tags, it's more productive to protect the page than to block the user for edit-warring. This is a very new pile of code that looks like a template; the creator is having code problems with this page and List of public art in Israel, so let's leave it alone until its purposes are clearer and we can move it to the right place. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was (and still is) all of those things. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move this seems to be either a temporary placeholder for some code or a malformed attempt to create a template. The solution is to move it, to userspace in the former case or to template space in the latter. Deleting it would accomplish nothing and would only make it harder for someone to contribute. This page absolutely does not qualify for any of the speedy deletion criteria it was tagged for, and edit warring to restore the tags was very disruptive. Hut 8.5 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CSD G2 or G6. All this work is saved in the creator's userspace. I've fixed the template there and moved it here: Template:Israeli public art. The rest of List of public art in Israel still needs tweaking though, if anyone feels like replacing template names. Funny ^Pika! 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be deleting the page after I move it. Close the AfD as it is not needed. Drkup has contacted me for help in this matter as I've helped WikiProject Israel Museum in the past. I've just moved a sandbox version to List of public art in Israel.

On a side note. Barney there is no reason to speedy a page six times in a span of 10 minutes. Most editors can't do complex wikicode. Assume good faith in these matters and offer some help, not six speedy deletes. The page serves a purpose as they were doing a template, but in the wrong space. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 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. J04n(talk page) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not an encyclopedic topic but some random code. For some unfathomable reason an admin has decided to protect it rather than speedy delete which is only viable alternative. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to templatespace per what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public art in Israel/row: "This is a very new pile of code that looks like a template; the creator is having code problems with this page and List of public art in Israel, so let's leave it alone until its purposes are clearer and we can move it to the right place." Barney has been inappropriately tagging this page and the "row" page for speedy deletion under numerous criteria that aren't relevant to template-style code, and he clearly hasn't observed that this page (unlike "row") is not protected. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move this seems to be either a temporary placeholder for some code or a malformed attempt to create a template. The solution is to move it, to userspace in the former case or to template space in the latter. Deleting it would accomplish nothing and would only make it harder for someone to contribute. This page absolutely does not qualify for any of the speedy deletion criteria it was tagged for, and edit warring to restore the tags was very disruptive. Hut 8.5 21:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CSD G2 or G6. Misplaced duplicate of User:Drkup(IMJ)/header and Template:Israeli public art/header. Funny ^Pika! 23:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So...your solution is to copy/paste move it somewhere else, and commit copyright infringement by not attributing the creator? A proper move is seemingly the best place to go, but a copy/paste move is nowhere near appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how one person can be given the benefit of the doubt but another not. As I had written here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public art in Israel/row, I was merely trying to help out the template table coding and cited that the code was already in the userspace. My only mistake was forgetting to explictly leave the link in the edit summary, as per WP:COPYWITHIN. Now I'm wondering if you're going to delete the current version: Template:Public art in Israel - header which is also the exact same unattributed copypaste. Funny ^Pika! 18:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and move~~. If I had a work-in-progress template, and someone kept coming 'round and speedy-tagging it, I'd be sour too. Userfying this seems to be the best option, at least until the code can be sorted. I think tagging this for deletion was both premature and unnecessary - especially since absolutely no attempt was made to actually talk to the editor in question and ask them what exactly they were attempting. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BGWhite seems to have sorted this all out - he sandboxed the code and fixed it up, then put it in the template space and applied it to the article. I think we can close this out as moot, Deleteing this version in favor of the new one at Template:Public art in Israel - header. Accordingly, I've struck my Keep and recommend deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 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) 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Payback

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

This article fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. The only citation that does NOT fail the "Independent of the subject" criteria is the same citation they use for every event. In addition, the event described in the article has yet to occur so we do not have any indication any enduring notability this event may have therefore it fails WP:CRYSTAL along with WP:NTEMP. It is to early to tell if this article will have any lasting significance. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep based on arguments posted here. Sorry, but this event is made by WWE and EVERY recent WWE pay-per-view has gained notability. If this event was cancelled, it would still be notable because that would be a major event cancelled since it's almost guaranteed to happen. There is plenty of sources covering this event:

http://www.wwe.com/events/wwepresents-payback-chicago
http://www.sescoops.com/wwe-payback-ppv-poster-event-synopsis/
http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2013/3/12/4095040/wwe-introduces-payback-to-its-pay-per-view-schedule-on-june-16-in
http://www.tpww.net/2013/04/the-wwe-payback-ppv-poster-synopsis-revealed/
http://www.gerweck.net/2013/04/20/poster-for-wwes-payback-ppv/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1552895-wwes-june-ppv-finally-has-a-name-payback

I seriously could keep on going and if you need me to, I will. Notability is obviously there. So WP:GNG works for this article. WP:CRYSTAL works because the "event is notable and almost certain to take place". Since is has notability, WP:NTEMP is good too. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 13:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because those websites offer up a name and a poster does not make this article relevant. All the websites you have listed are NOT "Independent of the subject". At this point no one can tell what lasting impact this event will have. It should be deleted and unlocked until after the event has passed to see if it has any lasting notability from sources that are independent of the subject. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are clearly covering the event with some of them explaining in detail about the event. These sources ARE independent of the source because they're not owned or affiliated with WWE (with the exception of WWE's website); they are not of "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases". They are independent sources covering wrestling. Also, it's a WWE pay-per-view... they have always had significant coverage for at least the past 20+ years. What proof do you have that this won't continue? The sources are already here covering it like they did with previous pay-per-view events. This deletion will not be upheld in the end because of WWE's press coverage. No sense in this process of deletion when it will only be recreated in a few weeks in the end. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 16:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may add WP:BURO, WP:5, and WP:IAR $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The event is guaranteed to happen in less than two months. All but one of those references are independent of the subject. The event is notable just the article needs to be expanded with the sources above. I do not know how you want a page unlocked Paul? I did not know it was locked. STATic message me! 16:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant locked. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not independent of the subject criteria, of course wrestling sites will have news on wrestling events. Just like NASCAR sites will have news on each NASCAR race but that does not make them both notable WP:SNOW is not a rule and WP:BURO, WP:5, WP:IAR could be pulled up for any deletion ever. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, NASCAR events are also notable if the racing websites are covering it. Your example, in fact, helps our argument. Show me a race that they have covered for NASCAR that Wikipedia does not have as an article. You see, all you're doing is talking and arguing with no proof and that doesn't fly here on Wikipedia. You need proof to counter-argue people with proof. Since you refuse to do so, this has become an obviously pointless argument. You won't even read the definition of what an independent source is. WP:SNOW trumps rules in many cases when the deletion is absolutely not going to hold up. This will not hold up due to the overwhelming proof here. And that I can promise. Textbook definition of WP:BURO. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is sourced, in the afd I can see more sources and it's a PPV event of the major promotion in the world. I think that it is notable enough--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep srsrox provided enough sources to cover WP:GNG. Actually I think WP:NTEMP works against this AfD... notability is not temporary, and enough sources have been provided to indicate notability. This is something that won't change.LM2000 (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not independent of the subject criteria Paul "The Wall" (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want Rolling Stone or Fox News to cover it? Wrestling news sites report on wrestling, just like music news sites cover music. You seem to not understand what the phrase means, a reliable source counts as coverage. STATic message me! 22:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is a list of sources that are considered reliable for professional wrestling related articles. While it would be cool to have CNN cover every WWE, TNA, and ROH PPVs that just doesn't happen. But there are journalists who specifically cover pro wrestling exclusively who are credible, and are independent from the actual promotions. As stated before srsrox provided a list of sources and although they cover pro wrestling they are independent from the WWE company and there are other sources out there that haven't been posted yet.-LM2000 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, even if deleted it would be recreated the second a match was announced. So this would be deletes so that someone can feel like they "did something" which will last 3-4 weeks at most and then be back. Do we not have anything better to do that to delete articles for 3 weeks? MPJ -US 15:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree big time. I'm beginning to suspect the guy just wants to win (WP:WIN) an argument here since he won't even read and understand the definition of an independent source (WP:GNG, point #4). $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Even all of this aritcle's current data is copied from the Pro Wrestling Wikia's article of the same name, deleting the article here on Wikipedia will be of no use as the article will watsefully recreated when a match is announced for the event.Kyrios320 (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pro Wrestling Wiki article for Payback was created a day after this article was. They copied us, not the other way around.LM2000 (talk) 19:44, 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) 02:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Natural Food Zone

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

No reliably sourced sign of notability. Alexa lists only two inbound links, site rank over 9 million. No gnews hits for "All Natural Food Zone" or allnaturalfoodzone.blogspot.com. Ghits are almost all self-generated, nothing of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. It is nice to finally respond to you. This article is entirely notable. Reliable third-part sources have been added, and I am in the process of adding more. Please check by the end of the hour. To remove this article from this site would be utterly ludicrous. Additionally, the page views were sourced from Google Analytics, a very reliable measure of page views. Alexa, in the past has not been as much of a reliable source as Google Analytics. I will, add this source immediately.

◅ If is is kept, which I assume it will be, as logically it would; I will apply for this page to have semi- or fully-protected status, as it seems there are some editors who truly wish to vandalize the article. Coolboygcp (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooboy, here goes:

No, the page views are not sourced to Google Analytics. There is no link to Google Analytics here. There is a link to a page of the blog that makes claims, which you refer to as Citation Two. The blog itself is not a reliable source for boastful claims. Added later: there is now a link to the front page of Google Analytics. That will not show the figures for this blog to anyone... except perhaps the site owner. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "reliable third party sources" that have been added is this link to the reblogging of one blog entry on a sweepstakes site - nothing that establishes notability there.
No, I am not a disgruntled reader of the site. Never encountered this very obscure site until I ran into this article. Note added later: in this subsequent edit, Coolboygcp removed the suggestion that I was a disgruntled reader of his site. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
If you're not affiliated with the site, you may wish to get to know the guy behind it. He may have the very same initials that are at the end of your user name; if so, that could suggest that you have a lot in common.
If you feel I have vandalized the article, please report it through the proper channels. Otherwise, please retract that accusation. (You may want to bone up on WP:VANDALISM.)
You are certainly free to apply for this page to get semi- or full protection. If it is semi-protected, I will still be able to edit it. If it's fully protected, you won't be.
If you wish to welcome me to Wikipedia, you are over 6 years and 10,000 edits too late. Note: This comment was in response to a portion of the posting that Coolboygcp later deleted here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. TheOriginalSoni, Deskana, and myself, were canvassed individually, by name, regarding this AfD on IRC, by a user identifying themselves as CoolBoyGcp. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - it was less of a cancassing than an asking for help. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CANVASS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources yet, and that is sufficient grounds for deletion. I suggest we userfy it and let it go through the AfC process. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, a speedy delete as promotional: " All Natural Food Zone LLC, is currently working on several publications, and other development opportunities, and local market opportunities. These plans have been fiercely guarded, however, the website as stated that it will reveal more in the future." Contents like that shows a promotional purpose, and also shows that whoever wrote the page knows perfectly well they are not yet notable . I commend the nominator for sticking with it in the face of absurd claims of bad faith. If anyone is showing bad faith, or at least an ignorance of WP, it's the ed. who removed the AfD tag--see the edit history. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (edit conflict) reads like WP:PUFFery (just as one example, 5 50M page hits ≠ 5 50M users), and the name "Coolboygcp" implies a COI (site is created by George Poulos), though the account's been in use for a year and a half. Not sure if I'm using Topsy right, but I can't find the supposed tweets by @barackobama [10] [11] [12] or @whitehouse [13] [14] [15]. No indication of real notability; fails WP:WEBCRIT. Ignatz mice•talk 22:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let's not misstate the case. The article doesn't actually claim 5M users. It claims 50M. If they have 50 million users and only two links that Alexa detected, I think they have a problem generating virality. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woopsies. Didn't mean to do that. Ignatz mice•talk 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources in the article references, and I can find none either. -- Whpq (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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jellybricks

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

Non-notable band. A single article in Rolling Stone based more on the novelty of their video (they made it by recording themselves playing Rock Band 2) than on any actual achievements of the band. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have speedied this if it hadn't been afded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)
Comment I considered speedy, but the article in Rolling Stone is an assertion of notability. (Clearly, a weak one, but sufficient to avoid speedy.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non notable band. Safiel (talk) 17:53, 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) 11:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's Where You Take Me (Britney Spears song)

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

Speedy deletion. Strongly fails WP:NSONG, the lack of sources, was discussed ago--demis ^talk 19:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:NSONG --PlatinumFire 21:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing that would demonstrate WP:NSONG - only a couple of lyrics pages. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:05, 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. L Faraone 20:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Talbott

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nearly all the sources in the article are primary or unreliable, and not indicative of actual notability in the greater world. From independent sources with a reputation for fact checking I see a few passing mentions but nothing concrete. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already kept at two previous AfDs. What has changed since then? If he was notable then, he's still notable now. Dricherby (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expanding on my comment above. Plenty of sources are available: Forbidden History spends several pages discussing Talbott's theories; The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe has a few pages of biographical information and discussion of his theories, spread through the book. The Velikovsky Encyclopaedia is not itself a reliable source but cites three reviews of Talbot's 1980 book The Saturn Myth (Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Christian Science Monitor, which could be verified by somebody with access to a good enough library, or a subscription, in the latter case. (These reviews are critical of Talbott and, by extension, Velikovsky's ideas so I doubt the Velikovsky Encyclopaedia would have made them up.) The theories are fringe nonsense but I think there's enough coverage of them. Dricherby (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden History and Velikovsky Encyclopaedia are not reliable sources so are irrelevant. "The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe" does not appear to give significant coverage to Talbott (it mentions the Talbotts in conjuction with the events surrounding the more notable Velikovksy). Reviews of books are not reviews of an author, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't claiming that the Velikovsky Encyclopaedia is reliable (indeed, I explicitly said it isn't). I mentioned it because it points to three sources that are reliable but which I was unable to access, since they're 33 years old and not freely available online. Dricherby (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the entries for Immanuel Velikovsky and Alfred de Grazia are justified, then David Talbott merits an entry by virtue of his being the most successful of the next generation acolytes. Granted reliable sources are scarce; but possibly a supportive editor might be able to provide acceptible sourcing for Talbott's recent activities such as membership in the Natural Philosophy Alliance and his leading a large contingent of Thunderbolts Project members as presenters and registrants to the NPA conferences in 2011 in College Park, Maryland, and 2012 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Had Margaret Wertheim attended the 2011 NPA conference, along with 2010, Talbott might well have been featured in her recent Physics on the Fringe along with Jim Carter. Sic transit gloria. Finally, Michael Gordin's description of Talbott's activities on the Velikovsky scene in The Pseudoscience Wars reinforces Talbott's "notability". Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC) — Phaedrus7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED). Why would membership of the Natural Philosophy Alliance indicate notability? I also don't see how speaking at a conference shows notability, many non-notable people speak at conferences. I am non-notable, I have spoken at conferences. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when anyone can join the Natural Philosophy Alliance and any member can submit a paper to be presented at the conference, which appears not to be selective or peer-reviewed. "Might have been included in a popular science book if its author had visited a conference she didn't actually visit" is not a form of notability that is described at WP:NOTABILITY. Dricherby (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only because the article has been nominated for deletion in the past and has survived twice. If I had been in the first two debates, I would have voted to delete, but nothing has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason by policy, see WP:NOTAGAIN. Consensus changes over time, and it's by discussing things that we realize where the consensus is, it's not by simply deferring to all previous decisions in the past. Bear in mind the last nomination was 4 years ago, and policies have changed considerably since. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 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 merge to List of Chief Justices of the United States. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chief Justices of the United States by time in office

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

Although I wouldn't go so far as to say the length of office is trivial, I do think it just isn't notable for its own separate article. If the number is deemed necessary for inclusion in the encyclopedia, I think adding that one extra column to List of Chief Justices of the United States would suffice. Feedback ^☎ 19:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although this is clearly important information, I agree an extra table in List of Chief Justices of the United States would be sufficient. There is no need to make it its own separate article.Josophie (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both tables are relatively the same except for two extra columns with the length of their time in office and the length of their retirement. If both are deemed necessary, adding the columns will suffice. There's no need for an extra table. Feedback^☎ 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, adding the extra columns would suffice Josophie (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge non-redundant material to List of Chief Justices of the United States . As others have noted above, the need for this list is eliminated by adding two additional columns of information to the primary list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge length of term only. How long they were retired and when they died is irrelevant. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As retired Justices typically remain active in some capacity (O'Connor is even hearing cases in lower federal court), the length of their post-retirement life is relevant information. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jhonlin Air Transport

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

Private airline with 3 aircraft (all of which are small anyway) and 4 destinations. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most airlines are private companies...the size of aircraft is and the number of destinations are irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it irrelevant? Maybe the private bit is, but an airline with a small number of small aircraft, flying to a small number of locations, is unlikely to get any kind of automatic notability. And that's ignoring the fact that the airline fails GNG and ORG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, does it operate on a scheduled service? If it does, per WP:CONSENSUS established through past AfD results, it's notable (provided it passes WP:V through WP:RS, of course) regardless of its size, as operating a scheduled airline service establishes notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether an airline operates scheduled services is not relevant. As a company, WP:ORG must be passed in order to be notable for being included into Wikipedia. Yes, articles of scheduled airlines tend to survive AfDs, but that's mostly because these companies usually enjoy a higher grade of media coverage. I would like to point out that there are not any special inclusion criteria for airlines. There had been an effort, but the discussion was closed as no consensus. Therefore, the question about Jhonlin Air Transport is simply if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. And I cannot find any. It seems to be a subsidiary of Jhonlin Group (a coal business), operating in-house corporate charter flights. In my opinion, it's useless to keep an article about a subsidiary without having one about the parent company. In case Jhonlin Group was created, the airline could be mentioned there. Something similar was done with JS Air.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion closed as no consensus; therefore, WP:CONSENSUS defaults to consensus as established through normal editing, which has established that airlines that operate scheduled services are notable because they operate scheduled services. (Also, WP:USELESS; the lack of an article on a parent company isn't reason to delete.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability. "Per the discussion on the talk page, there is not a specific inclusion criterion for small airlines, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is sufficient, there is no specific threshold that can be used to automatically determine if an airline is notable or not." This is the consensus I'm referring to.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if FoxyOrange is correct, and it is an in-house airline used by this company only, then it doesn't really match those regular passenger airlines that occasionally get kept at AfD. Also, I've seen quite a lot get deleted anyway, some being bigger than this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 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 redirect to Tenderloin, San Francisco. This will not preclude interested editors from trying to create an expanded article. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O'Farrell Street

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

Non-notable street. Unreferenced article, its one claim to notability fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Tenderloin, San Francisco without prejudice to recreation if somebody wants to get serious about sourcing out a piece — which I believe can be done. Inconsequential stub at this point in the article's history, but this is one of the landmark streets of San Francisco, the "main drag" of the Tenderloin District. Regarded as "San Francisco's Sleaziest Street - Yesterday and Today," in this historical essay. I realize that it is unconventional to argue for a redirect at AfD for what very probably is a notable topic, but I feel that given the ultra-minimal coverage of the piece, WP users would be better served by redirection to the nice piece on the urban district of which the street is a part at this juncture. Apply the policy of WP:iGNOREALLRULES, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have any issue whatsoever with this. It doesn't justify a standalone article, and if it is of reasonable notability, then a section in the relevant district article is perfectly fine, rather than what would be a permastub. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could write this one and make it stick, I'm pretty sure. But that's three or four hours I don't really have... Carrite (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Named after Jasper O’Farrell, the civil engineer who made the first official US government survey of the city and mapped out the city's streets and major lots. Per SF Call, Sept. 8, 1901, magazine section, pp. 5, 7. Another potential redirect target, but I think the one I mention previously is better. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Dough 48 72 01:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tenderloin, San Francisco. I would take issue with the idea that it's not notable, but until someone writes a better article it should go to the Tenderloin. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tenderloin, San Francisco - FriscoKnight
Keep Notable street which is obviously easy to expand and reference. See also WP:BEFORE, WP:INSPECTOR, WP:RANDY, &c. Warden (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be nigh-on impossible for this to grow beyond a stub, which means it is better located in the main street article (or O'Farrell's) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:AGF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RANDY? Really? Either a) Randy isn't applicable here, or b) You are accusing the nom of being Randy, which isn't nice or accurate p b p 15:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more bothered by the fact that Warden appears to have assumed this is my first ever AfD, and that I'm a brand-new user, than the things they've spammed at me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to O'Farrell. Not all streets are deserving of their own articles, and the one reference in the article is about O'Farrell, not O'Farrell street p b p 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tenderloin, San Francisco. where information on the street can be summarised in context vis-a-vis being a permastub. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Keep I agree with Warden about the notability of all major streets in all cities. Unfortunately, I doubt our view is the consensus here, but I continue to be of the opinion that there is always enough information available to make a potential article, and that the stubs should beleft in order to facilitate it. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tenderloin, San Francisco It doesn't seem obviously notable to me. Most references to it are trivial and all this information could be contained in the neighbourhood article. Lastly, the Randy and Inspector mentions are really bad faith things to point out and do not advance nor strengthen the keep camp's argument. Especially with no evidence or explanation except a pointy footnote. Mkdw ^talk 07:09, 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 no consensus. I considered relisting, but the community seems evenly split on this, and I do not think more time is going to produce a consensus one way or the other. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi

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

Not really notable on its own. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep How on Earth is this not notable? I was able to make a start on this article, about an American missing person case, using solely British sources (and indeed I found out about it through today's BBC News front page!). I have to ask, since you put it up for deletion just half an hour after it was created, did you even bother to look for evidence before making this seemingly snap judgement? According to your edit log, you perhaps spent at most 3 minutes thinking about it before concluding it should be deleted. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case of any more snap judgements, I'll repeat that the article was nominated for deletion just half an hour after it was created, therefore it's current state should in no way be interpreted as finished. Not even close infact - I created it in a single edit with the bare minimum material, with the intention of adding more later on (and I perhaps naively thought that once I created it, others would also edit it to expand it also). As it happens though, the very next edit was this attempt to delete it, based on apparently no research of what information is out there on it at all. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's also quite annoying is that the person who thought it was so bad it needed deleting right away, seems to have just logged off straight after without bothering to stick around and answer the obvious question of 'why?'. Quite rude if you ask me. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to get into (or even close to ) personal attacks here. Transcendence (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination above was poorly done. And the person didn't even sign it. Crtew (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's no excuse to make things personal. Also, the nomination was signed. It was auto-generated by Twinkle.Transcendence (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. A sad story to be sure, but not worthy of an entry. As most a mention in the Boston Marathon Bombing article or an example to be used showing the misuse of crowdsourcing. Arzel (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This passes one of my personal basic notability tests of "have I heard of it?", and, in this case, an added test of "had I heard of it before it became notable for the wrong reason?" The disappearance received a decent amount of coverage before the bombings, and as such I think it deserves an article. That said, I think that we should work to reduce the focus on the bombings in the article. Really, that should just be a sidenote to the altogether notable story of his disappearance and the subsequent efforts to find him and media coverage. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?. I only created the article because it became well known because of the bombings, so I don't thinking removing that material makes any sense. What coverage did it receive beforehand that would have taken it into encyclopedic territory? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It received coverage as a medium-profile disappearance case. I believe there was something of a campaign to find him. I think at least as much should be written about that as about the bombings. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I just noticed a passing comment in a story today that the FBI had joined the search last month (i.e. before the bombings). Any idea why? I presume that's not something they would normally do. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disappearance of this Brown University student was all over the news media, when it was first discovered that he was missing at the end of last year, in at least the Southern New England portion of the USA. There was even a recent set of articles about how this guy's family & friends were still looking forward to finding him alive & well somewhere, which seemed to me to be a little naive...but whatever. Guy1890 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BASIC requires "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The author (Gruesome Foursome) has established those. While WP:VICTIM might give the impression this should be merged into the Boston Marathon Bombing, what happen here has nothing to do directly with the event, but as a seperate consequence of the event. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The family is already wounded with the loss of their son. Do not burden them further by including Boston Bombing as a reference on Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanasudhi07 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every mention of Boston Bombing is a WP:BLP violation--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at least for now. There are probably WP:NOTNEWS concerns here, but this story is getting substantial coverage in reliable sources at the moment. This story may become more notable as it relates to Reddit, Internet vigilantism, etc., and I suspect we'll know better whether that's the case before this AfD closes. Redirecting Sunil Tripathi to the bombings page would be far worse than having this article, IMO. Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that a strange argument since if not for the bombing link it is unlikely that there would be a page at all. Seems that the only reason he is getting coverage is because of the bombing. People die tragically all the time, very view have their own article. Arzel (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"since if not for the bombing link it is unlikely that there would be a page at all. Seems that the only reason he is getting coverage is because of the bombing." I'm not sure of that at all. There is usually plenty of media coverage (see above) when there is a disappearance like this. Whether or not every disappearance should have its own Wikipedia article is a valid concern, but the fact that his name was falsely pushed as a potential terrorist shortly after the Boston Bombings only adds to the notability of this topic IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not suggesting that the bombings shouldn't be mentioned in the article, only that his name should not be redirected to the bombings. If this AfD closes as "delete", I think it'd be preferable to have his Sunil Tripathi be a redlink versus a redirect to the bombings page. Oren0 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Numerous sources from major news organizations. Is notable, passes all criteria from Wikipedia:Notability.Transcendence (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep, the issues in the event go beyond the situational news over a common missing person. Diego (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the Primary Notability Criterion easily and relates to multiple other issues, which are likely to result in active links. If time proves otherwise, the article can always be deleted later. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Effort went into creating the article and there was already a fair amount of news coverage about the disappearance before the bombing. The bombing and mis-identification elevated the case to worldwide attention. It continues to get attention now. It makes no sense to merge the info into the bombing article. I can see no reason here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy to delete this. SNOW Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While you are at it, delete the entirety of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.152.26 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that someone put effort into creating an article is not a policy-based ground for a "Keep" argument, nor is the fact that someone has heard of the person. The individual is non-notable except for his mistaken connection to the bombings. WP:BLP1E applies to the recently dead, per WP:BDP, so " Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.". Delete also per WP:NOTNEWS. A flurry of stories such as those mentioned above might make sense if one is a news editor trying to sell papers or a TV news editor trying to maintain viewer interest, but this is an encyclopedia, and we should be concerned with things of enduring importance, rather than mistaken and sensational coverage of someone's personal tragedy like this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everyone who disappeared or died tragically.Edison (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With regards to WP:NOTNEWS, an argument could be made that this event is notable under WP:EVENT in that it has or will have a lasting effect on Reddit and that there was significant coverage. While there hasn't been any policy change yet, there was this blog post http://blog.reddit.com/2013/04/reflections-on-recent-boston-crisis.html and given that they instituted policy changes due to witch hunts in the past, it's possible they might again. Transcendence (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As has already been pointed out by others, my choice of 'Disappearance of...' as a title was deliberate - the intent of it is not to be a biography of Sunil but an article about a missing person case that became notable for reasons that are obviously very discriminate and which quite clearly don't apply to 99.9999999% of other disappearances or tragic deaths. The mistaken connection to the bombings is precisely what makes this a notable missing person case. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I would say transwiki to Wikinews:, but apparently they have an incompatible license. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Applying the logic of enduring importance is flawed. The event happened over the last month or so. How can you decide if it has enduring importance and by who's standard exactly? Many good points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS There is no way that this should be deleted while the topic is hot in the news around the world. Also consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RAPID#Don.27t_rush_to_delete_articles which suggests strongly that this deletion discussion is premature. On the basis of the votes, clear guidance against rushing to delete, this is a WP:SNOW case. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there was a rush to delete while the story is ongoing. However, there are good reasons that I see for a keep just on the merit of the article at this time, such as WP:SIGCOV. The fact that the article is called "The disappearance of ..." already puts more weight toward the phenomenon than the person, and in this case was properly used. The later would be an argument against the WP:NOTNEWS. What we don't know now is whether this case will resonate enough with people later that they will refer back to it. Somebody should really have categorized the article at this point. Crtew (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ongoing story? Now that everything is known about the misidentification this will be the end of it. Arzel (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently false. There isn't even an official cause of death yet. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't merit its own page, and is an unbelievably painful reminder to the family and friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.207.225 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What purpose does this article serve? He was a missing person, wrongly identified as a bomber and who likely died before the Boston bombings even took place. We have no indication he was even seriously considered by law enforcement. The story only exists because the media wanted it to. People will forget his name in a week because people disappear every day and those people often turn up dead. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The most he deserves is a possible 2-sentence mention on Reddit's page and the Boston bombing page, but without linking his death to their actions. We should start with a brief mention and go from there. Only if there is conclusive evidence tying his death to the allegations of him being the bomber (which currently appears doubtful) should we start to consider actually making a page. Angry Lampshade (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI: There was foul play during this process by IP user 68.231.15.56 who made three edits and turned the nominator's comment into a vote. Nominators cannot vote. The diffs are [16] [17] [18]Crtew (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but i thought that the editor had not followed correct format and believed that i was just following the exact wishes the editor wanted to express - if i was in error then i express my deepest apologies--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, There are at least two rules to keep in mind here: 1) You cannot change other people's votes or edits. 2) The nominator makes a statement in support but cannot vote in support of the nomination. These edits should be reverted by an uninvolved admin.Crtew (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content to Boston Marathon bombings and delete. Tripathi is not notable on his own, and neither are the circumstances of his death. The fact of his misidentification as a suspect is relevant in the article on the bombings, but no more than that. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: merge and delete isn't really a valid option, due to Wikipedia's copyright policies. (See WP:ATD-M and WP:Merge and delete for more information. Merging and redirecting, however, is an option. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS - there are thousands of missing persons cases every year - many of which are investigated by the FBI. The unfortunate stupidity that is/was 4chan and Redit makes it more notable but doesn't make this page cross the threshold in my opinion. CoolMike (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasoning below
- WP:NOTNEWS does not apply when WP:GNG is met. This story received many many instances of significant coverage in reliable sources on it's own, completely separate from the Boston Bombings. Also, this story was being reported (albeit barely locally), before the bombings.
- We cannot use "but the family will be burdened with the memory" as an excuse for deleting an article that otherwise meets policy. This is well sourced, and it is notable per GNG. Any comment of "family" or "notnews" amounts to I don't like it at this time, as notnews does not apply when things become both independently notable and more than a few minutes passed, and the family's feelings play no part in our building of an encyclopedia, think about the Tsarnaevs' article, or the article on the shooters at Columbine. All in all, there's absolutely not policy-rooted reason to delete this article, but multiple policy-rooted reasons to keep. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a private tragedy that was mistakenly turned into a public issue. It was not his disappearance that prompted newspapers to write about him, but the mistaken identification. We can include those details in the Boston massacre article if there's a section about the input of social media. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It was not his disappearance that prompted newspapers to write about him". Sure it was, and then, later, after the recent Boston Bombing, there was even more coverage about this guy. Was there significantly less coverage about Tripathi before he was ever (unfairly) tied to those bombings? I'm sure there was indeed. Guy1890 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can people just re-read the opening line if they're in any way confused as to why this article exists, before giving their reasons here as to why it shouldn't. Its wording was chosen quite deliberately, I assure you. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah I just did - the openning line to WP:BLP (the only thing relevant to this discusion) is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" which is the only thing we need to read thanks--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah I just did again - the openning line to WP:BLP1E (the only thing else that is relevant to this discusion) is "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." which is the only thing we need to read thanks.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article event is certainly notable, and has been widely reported; enoough grounds for inclusion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is headed for no consensus, but I wanted to weigh in. It undoubtedly falls under wp:blp1e, wp:notnews, and wp:blpcrime. BLP concerns remain in the close proximity of ones death because the immediate family and next-of-kin are to be considered. My76Strat (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this "undoubtedly" falls under BLP1E, can you please answer the point I make below about how it seemingly isn't even covered by BLP1E (it's being saved in this same edit). Can you also explain why you think BLPCRIME is relevant, as I can't see that at all from the wording of that section. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Without receiving extra attention during the Boston Marathon Manhunt, this may or may not have been notable, but given the fact that it was highly publicized, still notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a clear case of WP:BLP1E. This is only truly notable in the light of the Boston bombing and only deserves a brief mention there. While it may be notable in the sense of GNG, that isn't automatically a justification to write a separate article. SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a "clear case of BLP1E" when BLP1E states that "It is important for editors to understand that .... WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people"? And similarly, how can it be a clear case of BLP1E when the article isn't even a biography? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your manipulation of the article title in order to try and avoid the obvious should not be ignored. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's kind of an odd situation; of course this wouldn't have received the coverage it did if not for the publicity from the bombing misidentification, but it's well-sourced and notable past just the mis-connection to the bombing, so just including information there doesn't make sense. It received widespread coverage before the bombing, and the misidentification just increased the existing coverage. As for it being covered under BLP1E...I don't see how that's the case. The subject isn't notable just for being a mistakenly identified suspect, he's also notable for being a missing person who received significant media coverage, even if the misidentification was what significantly increased the visibility of the story. WP:GNG seems to be met. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wkipedia is not benefited one bit by the deletion of every article that one or a dozen people find unnotable. We can all find articles of Wikipedia about people we don't know, stuff we don't care about, or things we think are not notable or even things we perceive to be incredibly obvious. The point is that some find this article subject notable, it is well sourced, and got worldwide coverage, and these points are enough to justify keeping it Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not benefited by such strange logic. We have rules and guidelines for a reason. If we apply your logic to all then pretty much anyone that has a little bit of coverage in a newspaper would have their own bio. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you strip out the heinous and purulent BLP issues in this article, this wiki article is little more than coverage of your next door neighbor's garage band (tragic that some bereved family needs to endure your fascination with abomination)--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start with the personal attacks Transcendence (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revisit This is a notable story. A tragic death that until investigation is fully complete, we don't know how much it may have been connected to the false accusations (hence suicide) against him, or not a suicide and unconnected, or other - hence my call for "revisit" But keep it for now: It's one of the top stories half way around the planet, on Australia's ABC news http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/falsely-accused-bombing-suspect-confirmed-dead/4652176 After we know for sure whether it's a suicide or not, whether foul play (currently "not suspected" of being foul play but it's still very early) and whether a suicide (if it was one) is due to false accusations, we don't know enough. His life is not worth less than the 3 who died directly. As noted ABC of Australi put it as among the top headlines for today. Touches on highly noteworthy Boston Marathon Bombings and on noteworthy issues of public safety, vigilante detective work, and more. Right now the main entry on wikipedia for the Boston Marathon Bombings does not mention him at all except in "see also" at bottom, which links to this entry which means if this is deleted then there will be no mention at all of Sunil in the entire Boston Marathon Bombing article, which would badly mis-serve our readers. Keeping and revisiting later will give time to decide whether to put more into original article, or keep this article, or do both (a mention in the Bombings article and a separate article with more details) which can be done when we know more about the cause and circumstances of death and how linked to the false misidentificadtion etc. Harel (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is independent of the subject; it's all news coverage from the same time, treating it as news, and unlike things like Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013, it's not the kind of thing that will obviously be covered by non-news sources. Come back when we get coverage in books or academic journals, or when we get news sources that discuss it as a past event. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have the Boston marathon bombings themselves even been covered in books or academic journals yet? This argument makes no sense, Wikipedia quite obviously does not wait for such coverage before deciding if something is notable or not. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my current count is 14 vs 14--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Transcendence (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been internationally reported on both the false accusation, his depression and his death after the false accusation in social media. To consider that which is internationally covered not newsworthy or notable is absurd, for then, we'd have no entries of any events!Wzrd1 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a link, I think unintentially, that his death is related to the false accusation. However, all indications are that he passed away long before he was accused by Reddit. Arzel (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His disappearance was widely discussed in the media, and there are plenty of verifiable sources of such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinsonMan (talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It isn't even a missing person any more, now that his body has been found. A brief appearance in the news is not encyclopedic. We do not have to include every tragedy that was briefly in the news. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Titanica

AfDs for this article:

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

While cool, this website does not appear to be notable. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem with finding a reference about another reference work is that there are too many references to it in Google Books and Google New Archive, and you would have to go through them one at a time to see which are reviews of the website and which are using "Encyclopedia Titanica" as a reference. There are over 1K listings in Google Books and several hundred more in Google News. You get the same problem for every reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. None of the three references are exclusively about the site, and the longest only devotes a paragraph to it. I see lots of passing mentions, but not substantial writeups. It's rather telling that, while cited, it's not even listed in the External Links sections of RMS Titanic and Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:IAR. There are no in-depth writeups about the site that I can find, but it is cited too often to ignore. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 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) 03:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences

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

OA journal published by OMICS Publishing Group. Indexed in CAS, ProQuest, EBSCO, DOAJ, and (like almost all OA journals in the biomedical field) PubMed Central (and hence PubMed). None of these listings is particularly selective. The claim that the journal is indexed by Thomson Reuters is false (easy to check through the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The journal has been indexed in Thomson Reuters Master Journal List. easy to check through the [19].Selective listing.Dorisaviram (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — Dorisaviram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The journal is listed in the TR Master Journal List. However, as that list entry shows, the journal is not indexed by any Thomson Reuters database. I searched the Web of Science (having access to most TR databases) and found 1 (one) article that cited 1 (one) article published in this journal. Note that the above editor also added "indexing" by HINARI, Open J-Gate, SHERPA, and JournalSeek to the article. These are all non-selective databases that normally are not even listed in journal articles. I will leave them in place for the duration of this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article created by someone who appears to be associated with a number of OA journals of the type usually described as "predatory"; this sort of misuse of Wikipedia can't be allowed to stand, certainly when notability is so lacking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Per nom... Please check WP:NJournals article..It has been clearly stated in Notes and Examples that the journal should be included in the major indexing services..It has been included in TR Master Journal List(Irrespective of listed/Indexed).I feel you know the difference between indexing services and Indexed.So, to my knowledge this article satisfies the criteria and can be skipped from deletion.Dorisaviram (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Is there any rule stating articles created by "someone who appears to be associated with a number of OA journals of the type usually described as "predatory"; " should be deleted in Wikipedia.

Irrespective of the person who created the article, we should focus on the articles authenticity...whether to be included or not...Dorisaviram (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I know the difference between indexing services and indexed. This one is not indexed in any Thomson Reuters service, despite being listed in the master journals list. From what I know of the academic publishing industry, this journal still has a long way to go before TR will consider this one even for their more minor databases, let alone the Science Citation Index. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present time the journal is not indexed by any Thomson Reuters database. Come back in three years time. Then it could be judged if the journal gained some relevance. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Master Journal list includes journals which are listed because they were cited once. Citation indexes by their nature include them, no matter how insignificant,. It doesn't count DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 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. Obvious delete - no need for relist (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Beck

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

Nothing notable. Runs a non notable Wharton alumni placement organization, and everything else is minor. Accepted by the CfD process, but shouldn't have been. The article on his association has been deleted once from mainspace, and declined there several times at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 25 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 25. Snotbot t • c » 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 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) 01:12, 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 keep. Slimy nomination by dynamic IP. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satō Tadanobu

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

Due to the current revision, the subject of the article fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Therefore, I have nominated the article for deletion. 123.224.83.74 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Oda Mari (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am completing this nomination of behalf of the above IP user, using the rationale provided on the article's talk page. I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Japanese page is substantially longer than the English page, and the individual is notable. The current form is insufficient, but should probably be maintained until someone expands it.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a strong believer, when it comes to something this historic, that if any written sources exist (beyond namedrops), then the subject is notable. In this case, I found: [20][21][22][23]. And this is just English language sources, I don't have the knowledge of Japanese to find them: but if English ones exist, Japanese ones will as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I spotted the same sources as Lukeno94 earlier when I declined the IP's PROD nomination, and was similarly impressed. There is definitely something here to write an article about. Rklear (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Took me seventeen seconds (I timed it) to locate this, this and this, covering his impersonation of Yoshitsune at Yoshino; in fact, it took me longer to write the previous clause than it did to locate sources. It took me only a few minutes longer to find out that he's almost equally well known for his self-defense exploits with a Go board - indeed, the famous painting Sato Tadanobu Defending Himself with a Goban is close to notable in its own right. There's a kabuki play about him (Yoshino Shizuka Goban Tadanobu) and he's a major character in another (Yoshitsune Senbon Zakura) (which was also made into a film; Tadanobu The Fox). In short, he's pretty damn notable, and I haven't even checked the ja-wiki article for additional sources yet. Given the persecution that the article's creator has received at the hands of a certain known sockpuppeteer, and the clear evidence that WP:BEFORE was not followed, I'm having a hard time believing this to be a good faith nomination. I haven't the time to sort the article out tonight, but I'll do some expansion work on it tomorrow. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this individual appears to be quite notable as evidenced by the sources identified above and by the existence of a commons category relating to this individual. Green Giant (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now expanded the article somewhat from the nominated version. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:52, 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. L Faraone 20:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Mase

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

Not independently notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Her only "claim to fame" is that she was married to Nelson Mandela. Their marriage ended before Mandela became notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the creator of the page, I really have to disagree. The assertion that her marriage was her only claim to fame is simply erroneous. She was not merely the wife of Nelson Mandela, but the mother of three of his children (two of whom, Makgatho Mandela and Makaziwe Mandela, also have their own Wikipedia pages), thereby being a senior member of a historically important dynasty, akin to Jackie Kennedy. Her relationship with Mandela and with her children would prove to be a significant influence on them as they grew up and achieved their own success. Throughout the 1950s, she was also associated with a number of other highly significant figures in the anti-apartheid struggle, such as Walter and Albertina Sisulu; she was therefore at the heart of the action at a very important part of history. Besides, many other sources identify her as being notable. She is discussed in all of the biographies devoted to Mandela, and also made various appearences in the South African media throughout her life, during which she became a voal critic of Mandela. On her death in 2004, international news outlets like The Guardian published her obituary, with her funeral being reported on far and wide, including in the China Daily and the Daily Mail. You only need to type her name into Google to look at the extensive number of references that pop up. Collectively, this illustrates that she was a significant figure in modern South African history, and is undoubtedly worthy of having a Wikipedia article of her own. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makgatho Mandela and Makaziwe Mandela do not appear to be independently notable either. --ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure Mase can be said to have independent notability based on that single interview where she criticized Mandela after his prison release, and the China Daily coverage I see isn't so much an obituary as it is coverage of Mandela's reaction to her death (Mandela attends first wife's funeral). I may just be missing the obit in question, though. Still, Nelson Mandela is an article that's already packed to the gills; it's not practical to add more information about Mase to it, even though there's plenty of secondary sources that discuss this relationship in detail. What if this article was simply restructured or reimagined as a subarticle of Nelson Mandela--would that be a possibility here? There doesn't seem to be a dispute that many secondary sources discuss Evelyn Mase in detail, and there's no other logical place to put this detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thinking about this a little more, this seems to me to be a case where WP:NOTINHERITED gets overruled by the level of coverage. Sara Delano Roosevelt is famous only being FDR's mother; Elliott Roosevelt I is famous only for being President Teddy Roosevelt's brother and Eleanor Roosevelt's father; Chelsea Clinton is famous only for being Bill's daughter; Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) is famous only for being Shakespeare's wife; Tad Lincoln and William Wallace Lincoln (who died age 11) are famous only for being Abraham Lincoln's son, etc. Judith Quiney, a Good Article, is famous only for being Shakespeare's daughter. None of these individuals have the stand-alone accomplishments mandated by WP:NOTINHERITED, but their article serve as useful subarticles to the main topic. I would argue that this serves the same function. At worst, perhaps Mase's article and the articles on the children could be refactored as Family of Nelson Mandela, comparable to Family of Barack Obama. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the only reason she is notable is because of her kids and ex-husband. Per policy, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And while there is WP:V and WP:RS available on her, those in themselves do not make her notable. In contrast to Jackie Kennedy who has established notability outside of simply having inherited notability due to the Kennedy Family. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - upon reading Khazar2 post, I would agree that refactoring and merging into something similar to Family of Nelson Mandela or perhaps Wives of Nelson Mandela maybe an appropraite way to keep this content. However I still believe that, as the article is today, it cannot stand alone. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I still support the retainment of this article, I would be willing to work on something along the lines of Family of Nelson Mandela as an alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a "Wives of Nelson Mandela" article isn't really a viable option because it would still basically be all about Mase, the other two are definitely independently notable. A Family article is an option, while a few familiy members are definitely notable, a few more of the children and grandchildren have had some limited media coverage and the family dynamics and relationships as such have had significant coverage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent notability, WP:NOTINHERITED. ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC). She has received coverage in sources only because she was Mandela's ex-wife. She is not notable for any reason in her own right.--ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PAGEDECIDE. - "Independent notability" is an ill-defined concept, and "notinherited" is an argument to avoid. What matters is that the person has enough direct coverage in sources to write an article. Diego (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Midnightblueowl. For pete's sake, there's a whole article on Cynthia Lennon, who is non-notable other than the fact that she married John Lennon and thus was written about in the context of being married to him. Same situation here. ... discospinster _talk 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: might I also add to that such figures as Angela Bowie, Lucía Hiriart, Luo Yigu, Ekaterina Svanidze, and Eva Braun... all the female spouses of culturally or politically influential men who arguably did nothing in themselves to warrant "notability". If we're going to delete Evelyn Mase then we should probably delete that lot too... Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially per Khazar2 and Diego. Plenty of coverage and no compelling reason to delete; indeed, deletion would lessen the quality of our encyclopedic coverage of matters Mandela. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable. There is a scary amount of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists going on above.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." — WP:OSE. ... discospinster _talk 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Guardian ran an obit. Obits like this aren't run for nobodies. WP:NOTINERITED would apply if coverage were sparse; but that simply isn't the case here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that WP:OSE is being overused as a keep argument and it's not a strong defence. However multiple high quality independent sources have decided that she is notable enough for them to report on her in her own right. We on WP may have a view that they are only doing so because of who her former husband was, but this is second guessing the independent source's motives. The sources exist, they comment in depth on her, they are independent and multiple. It's not our job to tell newspapers etc that they are mistakenly according her inhgerited notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I opened a can of worms by looking at other articles of this type. As I said in my comment, I think we're all agreed that there are multiple, independent, in-depth reliable sources exist on Mase; the problem is the editors who argue that her article should be deleted anyway because Wikipedia banned articles on family members of the famous without independent accomplishments. It seemed reasonable to show from precedent that this wasn't a correct or logical interpretation of policy; if family members get enough written about them, they get a Wikipedia article like anyone else. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newry Democrat

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

Contested PROD. Article makes no claim to notability. The only secondary source coverage that I have been able to find is about the controversy when it was sold ((like this). That controversy should be a section of Alpha Newspaper Group if it is covered at all and this article should changed to a redirect to that page. Andrew³²⁷ 16:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG, with substantive coverage about this publication in other reliable sources like Belfast Telegraph and the BBC (as shown by the GNews search results that show up from the link at the top of this AfD. We should certainly not go out of our way to delete a notable newspaper. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would make a better case for Keep if you added those sources to the article. Crtew (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG per ongoing coverage. A merge could be discussed on the article's talk page. Source examples: [24], [25], [26], [27] (short article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would regard all the local rags as notable. The possible exception may be local newspapers, which became defunct long ago after a short period of publication. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Wikipedia may not be a newspaper but even local news media publications can carry a lot of notability. NA's findings make for a very solid argument for GNG. Mkdw ^talk 07:13, 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. L Faraone 20:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Conti

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

A photographer whose only claim to fame is playing Detective Rizzo in Kojak. Seems like a fairly major role, but I can't find any significant coverage in third-party sources. It looks like he just isn't notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most recognized for a TV role, for which I'm not finding reliable source documentation, and in connection with a sensationalistic 1993 court case. Borderline GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 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) 20:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jakobi

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

Amateur golfer who invented a snack food and has a job. No secondary sources about the man himself, and only a three-paragraph local news story about his snack business. Article was prodded and the prod was rejected by the article's main editor, but they have failed to address basic WP:BIO problems. McGeddon (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about him as snack food inventor. this article is pretty much it. Even less coverage as a golfer. I found a mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If we had an article on Metcalfe's Food Company, I might have thought twice. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shine (King of Burma)

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

I cannot find any information about this legend in reliable sources, nor about the "Tribya" tribe. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. Possible hoax, I guess; but, in any event, I can find no sources, and none are evident in the article. Deor (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that the small tribe of the "Tribya" has now changed to "the small Burmese tribe known as the Karen". ... discospinster _talk 03:57, 19 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, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: hoaxish, and the burden of proof is on the article creator. (A Burmese demi-god called Alzahar?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:05, 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 · · 16:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singers & Players

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

Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable sources to verify any of the other information in the article besides the fact that they were indeed listed with On-U Sound Records. —Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Singers & Players was effectively a reggae supergroup of notable musicians including Adrian Sherwood, Lincoln "Style" Scott (Roots Radics), Roydel Johnson with regular contributing vocalists such as Prince Far I and Bim Sherman contributing. A search for 'singers players adrian sherwood' found these on the first page of Google Books results: VIBE, SPIN, CMJ New Music Monthly, then there's Global Rhythm, Rock: The Rough Guide, Reggae & Caribbean Music, The Rough Guide to Reggae. With Sherwood being (I think) the only constant in the group as producer, merging there may be appropriate, but this is certainly a notable group/collective, and certainly doesn't fail WP:V. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VICE src was listed twice, here is SPIN czar · · 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the Onu bands with a long shelf life.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 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, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find reliable sources. The Banner talk 09:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Michig demonstrates plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and the band released albums on Cherry Red Records [28] and On-U Sound Records [29]. Meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 07:57, 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 Keep - I, the nominator, withdrew the nomination and I am closing the discussion per WP:SK. RockyMM (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B92 Top 100 Domestic Songs

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

Non notable, non verifiable RockyMM (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - the discussion has produced evidence about list's verifiability and notability. Still, the article needs reworking. --RockyMM (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against: The list is notable as one of the rare national radio polls for the best fan-selected songs released in the region during the existence of SFR Yugoslavia and after. The list also received a significant media coverage in Serbia and the entire region. Furthermore, musicians whose songs appear on the list have also commented on the list, including Darko Rundek who said he was glad that Haustor song "Šejn" was on the second place behind Ekatarina Velika "Samo par godina za nas", which even further legitimatized the list. Such lists attain articles on Wikipedia and are considered notable, as exemplified in the Category:Lists of rated songs, in which, for example a similar radio poll of 50 Canadian fan-selected songs, 50 Tracks: The Canadian Version, is assessed as high-importance article by the WikiProject Canada.--Milosppf (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against: I agree with everything Milosppf had to say about the topic - the attention of the media and the artists, the existence of similar articles on Wikipedia - and would like to add that the poll was organized by Radio B92, one of the largest broadcasters in Serbia and former Yugoslav region. Ostalocutanje (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there was media coverage, we need references (even if it's in Serbian or other languages of the region). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment response: Here are two quotations taken from this source (http://dalje.com/hr-scena/ekv-prvi-haustor-drugi/12399)

"I am glad that "Šejn" is ranked so high on this list and I don't regret that it is not on the first place. Among all these songs there are quite a few excellent ones and I can't distinguish only one of them." Darko Rundek of Haustor

"This list is not an intersection of the masses' taste, but it reflects the taste of younger, more educated, communicative and open people. It is quite logical that most of these songs are from the 1980s not only because of the fame of that "golden age", but also because of the mere fact that the production had been greater and of better quality than in any other period." Toma Grujić, the editor of Radio B92

Here is a reaction by the former Ekatarina Velika drummer Ivan Fece "Firchie" from this source (http://www.b92.net/kultura/pop/intervju.php?yyyy=2007&mm=07&nav_id=255163):

"I think, as much as I remember, that Milan Mladenović has been present with the amount of six songs among the top ten, both with Šarlo and with EKV. I know that "Par godina za nas" has been the first, that the fifth or the sixth song was yet again EKV, if I am correct. Without a speck of pretentiousness, I am not at all surprised with that. It is like having three meals at one table, one is good, the other two are not good, which does not mean they are bad, but I don't want to be pathetic. I knew Milan quite well, we had been friends for years, since '78, he was quite a character up to the point that the fact itself conditioned the quality of things he had done in Šarlo as well as Katarina and EKV, and it's quite logical that it remained like that up to this day. There is another driblet here. You all know that Jimi Hendrix died, that many bands disappeared, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and that still there is a veil of fame around that story. It wouldn't be fair not to mention that the entire original lineup of EKV is not among us, and that this specific fame contributes to that entire thing, which does not reduce the quality which he had left to us."

I will provide more if necessary.--Milosppf (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Delete~~: As for notability, it has waned. These sources you've provided are from 2006 and 2007. Still, much bigger problem is that this list cannot be verified. Where and how the correctness of this list could be verified? --RockyMM (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, B92 cannot be used as source per WP:Notability - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject --RockyMM (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Notability cannot "wane", as you suggest, because it reflects a music preference of a part of the population in a particular historical period, and as such is notable to be documented on Wikipedia. Furthermore, we live in the Information Age in which information which is currently in the eye of the public is quickly replaced with that which will come after it. Hence, the date of these articles is 2006-2007 when the list was officially published and when it provoked certain (significant) responses. People still debate about this list and other similar lists on music fan forums which, however, cannot be regarded as reliable sources, but nevertheless the topic is still thought-provoking.

Concerning the usage of B92, the list was created by Radio B92 and the interview with was conducted on the B92 website which is at least semi-independent of the radio show that organized the poll, plus a year after the list has been published, when Firchie was promoting his EKV Revisited project, Therefore, we are not talking about a media spectacle, in which famous musicians speak in favor of the list, so as to make it popular or significant, because it was only a question among a dozen others in that particular interview.

As I said, if it is required by someone else other than you, I will provide more references, but so far I think there is no need as you are nevertheless outvoted. I would, however, like to hear a fourth and a fifth opinion on the subject.--Milosppf (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why someone else other than me? Do you think I have prejudices? --RockyMM (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Here is a complete list on websites unrelated to B92: 1, 2. A large number of websites features only a part of the list (first 10, 20, 30, 50), but it proves that the interest of the media was large. Ostalocutanje (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've established both notability and verifiability and I've changed my vote. Still, the article itself should be reworked thoroughly, especially the references since some important ones are dead links. --RockyMM (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your decision. There is a lot of work to be done in the area of Serbian rock music, and this article will be definitely be improved at a certain point. Until then, I can add these quotations into the article in the 'Reactions' section, as the first step in its improvement. It was a pleasure debating with you. Have a nice day.--Milosppf (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've done well since notability and verifiability are established for the list. Also the article has some more content, which is good. There is a lot to be done. I could recommend Ostalocutanje to include these he to references to lupiga.ba and ngo.ba that he has found somewhere inside the article in some kind of prose. --RockyMM (talk) 22:15, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemists' Ring

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

Best I can tell this is a type of ring issued only by a single university rather than as the article suggests something that is in wider use. The design is also inconsistent with something that sees much use. It looks rather uncomfortable and the shape also makes it tricky to wear nitrile gloves something chemists do rather a lot. ©Geni 11:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This ring is from the Association of the Chemical Profession of Alberta which does not have it's own article on Wikipedia so there's no target for any merge. The ring itself has not had significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm guessing this is something inspired by the Iron Ring of the Canadian professional engineers. It isn't issued by a single university. It is issued by the ACPA. See [30], and [31]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 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. L Faraone 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels Entertainments

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

Non-notable company. Half the sources are primary sources, another quarter or so doesn't mention the company at all, the rest mentions it in passing and does not even agree on the company name's spelling. No significant coverage at all. Heavy doses of synthesis and WP:COATRACK. Huon (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This business apparently operates ferris wheels in the UK. We have articles on some of the wheels at issue, like Wheel of Manchester and Yorkshire Wheel. We also have an article on the business that used to operate them, Great City Attractions, which apparently went bankrupt last year. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I am troubled by the synthesis aspects of the article and the references to things being "reported" to be the case. This is getting rather too close to WP:OR for comfort. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the article can be rescued. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I put this article together at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wheels Entertainments. It was assessed and created without any issues being raised or improvements being requested. I believe it is comprehensively sourced and that there are no synthesis issues. I have addressed the issue of the spelling of the company name. I have asked for help at User talk:Peterkingiron#Wheels Entertainments and intend to further improve the article to address my use of "...it was reported..." which seems to have created an unfavourable impression, despite the valid references. If there are any other issues, I would appreciate the opportunity to address them. 92.40.185.27 (talk) 12:55, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Reed

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Beede, a woman who signed a develoment contract. Less than a year training in a minor promotion and only 3 weekly shows anounced before she was released. After her released, no more notices. I don't see the article notable --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's sourced isn't enough, and even if the unsourced stuff is true, probably not enough. More like a list of fields she tried to become notable in. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Delete Agree with InedibleHulk above. Feedback ^☎ 17:10, 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. L Faraone 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith (Charity CEO)

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

I believe it should have been deleted per WP:A7. Now, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 10:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I declined the A7 tag on the basis that the Guardian mention and Insight on Conflict profile provided a modest claim to significance. However, having undertaken a proper hunt for sources, I've concluded that the necessary coverage just isn't out there - he's a regular soundbite contributor for many publications, but no-one seems to have written anything much about him. As a corollary, I've also failed to find any decent coverage of Action On Armed Violence, his charity - since the two are closely related and are problematic for the same reason, I've added it to this nomination. Lack of coverage means that it seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article about Action On Armed Violence should also be deleted due to lack of significant coverage. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 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) 20:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel Richardson

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 17. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see two claims to notability. The first one is that Richardson was a Hollywood actress. However, she has played only very minor roles, so she fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. The second claim is that she is a supercentenarian and longest-lived film actor, but the significance of this is not covered by "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (WP:BASIC) The Press-Telegram articles, which are the sources for many statements in this WP article, do not appear to meet this standard. Edge3 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB lists 2 roles: uncredited, unnamed "Israelite Woman", and another uncredited role IMDB doesn't even give a name to. If this had been in 2005 instead of the silent era, the article likely would have been speedy deleted without a thought. Notability isn't temporary, and the other side of that coin is that non-notable actions do not somehow grow notability over time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources support the claim that she was the longest-lived actress. I've removed the utterly unreliable, anonymously written IMDb trivia "reference", which doesn't even make an out-and-out claim, only that she was "believed to be the oldest actor ever in Hollywood" (bolding mine). The alleged distinction fails to even include the whole world. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not certain if I'm supposed to leave a comment here, since I initiated the first AfD and the DRV, but my rationale for deletion remains the same as when I nominated this article in the first place (except, of course, the reference numbers have changed since some have been deleted). Canadian Paul 03:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I posted a recommendation (with reasoned points) on 18 April. It's more than a little annoying to find my recommendation has since been hived-off (suspiciously like buried) into a hard-to-find separate page - it took me nearly 7 minutes to find it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 17, and there one has to "unhide" the section to access it and also read the other initial comments upon the relisting for deletion. This new page only shows "delete" responses as if that's all anyone's ever recommended. It creates a false impression by not showing all comments received since 17 April. Unintentional I'm sure, but nevertheless that's the result. Moving on now, is this the second or the third relisting? All initial comments on 18-19 April were to keep or to overturn as no consensus, after which yet it was decided to "Relist with a semi-protected AfD" (making it a third relist? whether intended or not!) so as to have a sockpuppet-free discussion? I don't see how semi-protecting (potentially limiting the responses) aids discussion, but I'll let that pass. Moving on further, I agree the discussion should concentrate only on the subject (not the article), so let's only discuss that. I came across the article from an unbiased/neutral position after the first "keep" decision, and after reading through all the subject cite-refs (including ones deleted in early April) I felt the case for keeping it was well decided. Allow me to restate my 18 April reasons for keep: The subject is worthy of remark a) for her longevity (undisputed - the only difficulty is the lack of a printed source other than Press-Telegram), b) for her having known and worked with some major film stars, although she herself did not achieve fame, and c) for being the wife of John J. Richardson, who apparently accompanied Chaplin (!!) to the USA on his first visit. More may emerge about this in time (the article only makes the barest mention), and therefore both this article and a possible future one about her husband could well become important "stubs" for those researching the silent film era. And if another retired actress should approach 110 in the next year or two, many will turn to Wikipedia to check and compare info on the current "record holder" (sic). Logic says keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Hobbs (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She's old, but not so old that that in itself is a claim to encyclopedic notability. People also do not inherit notability by being friends, co-workers, or otherwise associating with notable people. See WP:NOTINHERITED for details. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. I don't have access to the full Press-Telegram articles. What I can see doesn't mention the claim at all. Does it say anywhere in them that she was the oldest? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Therefore also fails WP:NOTABILITY (as being a supercentenarian is, as has been repeatedly shown in Afds, insufficient and falls under WP:1E). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:28, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mourhrna Reddy

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

Participation in pageants isn't grounds for notability; she hasn't won any of them. Only primary sources. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete merely a contestant and has held no national titles. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - even though you are wrong about the ground of notability and participation in pageants.. this girl never entered a major internatioanl pageant afterall and should be deleted until she does.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am probably wrong but most beauty pageant participants seem non-entities to me. Winners of national competitions for large countries, maybe, but not her. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 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 no consensus. Two things are clear though, it needs a clean-up and it needs references. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in the Philippines

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

Delete, basically a giant page of Redlinks, wiki is not a random listing and there is absolutely no sources to show that these hotels are indeed notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of WP's scope as shown by various items on WP:NOT: Not a directory, travel guide, etc. If you want WP to be a guide to businesses why stop at hotels in the Philippines? How about art galleries in Argentina, shoe stores in Singapore until we have a world-wide Yellow Pages? Borock (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume that none of the redlinks merit an article (which may or may not be true; the lack of sources presently in the list does not tell us anything), we still have a core of at least a couple dozen articles for this list to index, as a complement to Category:Hotels in the Philippines. So keep per WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per reasoning by Borock. The question is whether the subject of the list notable? I have to say no, sure, hotels in general are covered in reliable sources such as in travel guides, but that goes into WP:NOT. Are there notable hotels in the Philippines? Yes. Should there be a category for that? Yes. Should there be an extensive list of all hotels in the Philippines? No.
Now, I can see an arguement for keep per, WP:NOTCLEANUP, as it could be argued that if the non-notable hotels are removed from the list, than it should be truer to what a Wikipedia quality list should be, but then that leaves us with the question is the subject of hotels in the Philippines notable in and of itself? That I am not so sure, and a category can handle an inhouse listing of articles that are about hotels in the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If a category is appropriate, then a list presumptively is as well, per WP:CLN. And "Hotels in the Philippines" does not have to be a viable prose article topic for it to be appropriate to index our articles on such notable hotels in a single list to aid reader navigation, as WP:LISTPURP recognizes. Seen another way, hotel is a notable topic, there are many notable individual hotels, and one of the most useful and obvious ways to subdivide a list of those hotels is by the country in which they are located. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and then trim out all redlinks, add hidden text stating "do not add redlinks w/o refs", and make sure that all hotels AND former/defunct/demolished hotels with articles are here. I will be happy to do all that. the subject is inherently notable, as there are notable hotels in the philippines, and we have enough articles to justify a stubby list. The list of course should have refs in it, even for blue linked names, but thats not an argument for deletion. The list for hotels in the US is pretty nice.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, then clean-up, perhaps moving the red links to the talk page. "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Altho some of the redlinks can be very quickly used for viable stubs, the odds are that many will never make articles. That's no reason for not making a list of the ones that are notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are so few good links that it is better to delete for now. Do not salt the earth. If a good list is developed, it can be added.

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle grappling

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

This appears to exist in only one venue - made up variation. No mention outside of the web site. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV and it seems to be more in the "things I made up one day" category. At first it looked like it was just an article on freestyle wrestling, but it's really more of a hodgepodge sport.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant coverage--even the primary coverage is trivial (such as an outdated link to a tournament). All coverage seems to be primary and based in Portland, Maine. Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 16:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonidas Pantelides

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. Ambassadors do not have inherent notability. Coverage merely confirms his existence, nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an ambassador to the UN with a reasonable amount of coverage 1 2 3. By the looks of it a lot more could be found by someone who speaks more languages than I do.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. He's held a nice number of posts, but I'm having trouble finding anything more than "presented credentials" or "spoke on behalf of..." in relatively straightforward staff matters, aside from some he-said-she-said in some local scandal about smuggled munitions and improper disposal leading to tragedy. I would safely place that under WP:ONEEVENT at most. Ray^Talk 19:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diplomatic heads of mission should have a presumption of notability due to the seniority of their post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not true. There is already a notability guideline WP:DIPLOMAT. LibStar (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is an opinion. What you quote is a guideline only, and a fairly pointless one at that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is a subset of the well accepted Wikipedia:Notability (people). Your comment is insulting to the experienced Wikipedians who worked on developing the guideline. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that WP:DIPLOMAT isn't really a guideline. It basically says exactly the same as GNG and is therefore a completely useless addition that nobody would miss if it was removed. I'm an experienced Wikipedian myself incidentally (maybe you should look at the profiles of people you address before getting on your high horse?) and I think any editor is entitled to express an opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:DIPLOMAT, which states verbatim as of this post, "Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required." Source examples include: [32], [33], [34]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon Northamerica's findings, I'm inclined to agree that while the article is in horrible shape, it appears this person does meet WP:DIPLOMAT and simply needs improvement. Mkdw ^talk 07:03, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuki Endo

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

This article (CV?) has languished for three years with no one willing or able to add any third-party sourcing. In the absence of any in-depth coverage or reliable sourcing, it is hard to see how this satisfies the basic notability criteria. An earlier PROD of the article was declined by an admin who suggested using the Japanese Wikipedia article to expand this article... the only problem being that the Japanese article has no additional content and is similarly unsourced. --DAJF (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the admin referenced, my main concern was that the subject has received an award which might constitute adequate notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom 208.54.35.196 (talk) 21:50, 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, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete probable WP:AUTOBIO. created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 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) 20:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Empress

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

No verifiable references, and the primary editor appears to have a COI. Subject does not appear to be notable. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference supplied is "Abang, A. (February 17, 2010). Telephone interview.", and coincidentally, the original author is user:Aabang. This makes the source unsuitable as a reliable source, and is original research. As for my own searches, I see no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 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, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to meet our guidelines for inclusion. The only reference in the article looks mighty suspect and is certainly not reliable. — sparklism ^hey! 07:51, 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) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents of Gujar Khan

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

Unneeded fork, most of these people don't even appear to be notable. FallingGravity (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. See also Gujar_Khan#Notable_residents - This is just a verbatim copy of the section from the main Gujar Khan article. One might argue that a forked section would work as an article, and in some cases I would agree - but here, the section isn't long enough to justify a new article. Indeed, there are multiple names here that could stand to be trimmed for lack of refs showing notability. A good rule of thumb is that they should only be listed as a notable resident if they are themselves notable enough for an article - many of these are not. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this list pointless, but most of the people listed don't even have articles here on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is just an unneeded verbatim fork as mentioned by Ultraexactzz. Ryan Norton 14:17, 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 withdrawn. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Envirome

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

~~The subject has some existence but miserably fails WP:GNG. Also per WP:NOTNEO, WP:DESCRIBE. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: I have withdrawn the nomination after Mark's major revamping of the article. I no longer believe that this subject is unsalvageable or that the only option left here is deletion. --Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, neologism. Unsourced OR, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as meaningless babble. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Withdraw my vote and leave the matter to the biologists. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The article itself doesn't explain the term well. But I don't think the term is a neologism; it is an "omics" style word used in the fields of psychiatry and genetic epidemiology and has been in use for at least 15 years. See, for instance, the academic articles Understanding the roles of genome and envirome: methods in genetic epidemiology and Epidemiology and social aspects of the human envirome. Evirome is meant to be an analog of genome, meaning the totality of environmental effects on a disease. I think an article could be built discussing enviromes and environomics, but this article isn't a promising start. --Mark viking (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's around for quite some time, that doesn't mean it's notable. Believe me, if I could improve the article, I would do so instead of resorting to time-consuming deletion discussions. I simply couldn't find enough sources to expand on this subject. The best source I could find is, H. Escobar, ed. (1993). Clinical ecology of cystic fibrosis : proceedings of the 18th European Cystic Fibrosis Conference, Madrid, 21-26 May 1993. Amsterdam [u.a.]: Excerpta Medica. pp. 44–45. ISBN 0444816704. which defines the term as, "The envirome can be defined as the set of environmental features which have contributed to the establishment of a unique genome. [...]the envirome is the ′meaningful or significant environment′ for a particular gene pool defining a given organism." To me, it is quite clear that the ′envirome′ is not notable in itself yet but rather as an upshot of genome theory. Hence I would suggest a merge with Genome/Genomics, albeit I doubt, not much of the article is currently salvageable. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten the article from scratch. The article is now fully cited to seven peer-reviewed academic papers. Two of these papers (the Cooper and Neiderhiser papers) are secondary sources in that they are reviews that discuss in-depth the envirome and enviromics. There is a third review by Anthony I did not use. With multiple in-depth reliable sources, the topic is shown to be notable and the rewritten article shows that it is possible to construct at least a short article from the sources. A notable topic and an article with (in my opinion) no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:54, 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) 20:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiggit

(Find video game sources: "Tiggit" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD. The subject of this article appears to fail WP:GNG. I am unable to find reliable, third party independent sources that show any significant coverage of this game launcher. The article uses only the launcher's own website, a very small article on the PC Gaming Wiki that does not provide any better sources to use, and a readme. My searching around mostly only revealed forum topics about this launcher. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking reliable sources to establish notability - both refs are user-editable and thus not reliable - created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really feel I'm taking time from you guys, so I won't change the article any more and specially I don't want to be considered a "SPA", sorry again, have a nice day. - Ramayac (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage is from blogs: no RS. Doesn't pass GNG, insufficient critical discussion or notability. czar · · 03:53, 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 merge to Google Glass#Reception. L Faraone 20:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glasshole

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism coined in Urban Dictionary, and stub doesn't contain enough reliable sources to establish notability on the neologism beyond commentary about a wider topic (Google Glass) rather than the term itself. The sources present in the article so far don't show any substantial evidence of notability beyond a trivial coinage and its apparent "trending" usage. Among the 4 sources cited, SFChronicle gives around ten lines of "pop culture"-style commentary, and the other three sources seem to op-ed type sources commenting on the Google Glass rather than the term. One source, the Atlantic Wire source is misleading as the title gives the assumption that linguists have specifically analyzed the neologism, "glasshole", but they haven't, and the article goes on a ramble about an individual linguist's commentary on the term "asshole", and misleadingly associates that individual's commentary with this neologism. In any case, what essentially amounts to 3 sources that mention the topic is not enough to establish notability on this neologism. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: also doesn't provide enough new/notable content to warrant an article. This will only end up being a perma-stub. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism with very weak sources, so not notable either, and in any case Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Google Glass#Reception. This article is just a dictionary definition, while the main article discusses the topic of people behaving like assholes/illegally. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This info has been repeatedly censored out of the main article, Google Glass by M0rphzone. [35], [36],[37], [38] It is no longer discussed there. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call it whatever you'd like, but the removal has already been discussed and justified in the talk page. You have no valid reasons for adding it to the article beyond WP:ILIKEIT. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily meets WP:GNG with the coverage and use in Forbes Magazine,^[1] the San Francisco Chronicle^[2], ZDnet^[3], the MIT Technology Review^[4] the New Statesman^[5] and Computerworld.^[6] Hardly weak sources by any definition.

References

^ Hill, Kashmir (17 April 2013). "Google Glass Bid Up To $95,300 On eBay Before Seller Realized He Isn't Allowed To Sell Them". Forbes. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
^ Bort, Julie (15 April 2013). "There's A New Word To Describe Inconsiderate Google Glass Users: 'Glassholes' (GOOG)". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 17 April 2013.
^ Perlow, Jason. "Google Glass and the emerging Glasshole culture". ZDnet Tech Broiler. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
^ Pavlus, John (21 February 2013). ""Glassholes" Only, Please Why is Google restricting its Glass rollout to rich tech elites?". Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
^ Chakrabortty, Aditya (9 April 2013). "What happens when engineers run the world?". New Statesman. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
^ Storm, Darlene (22 April 2013). "No, you can't jam Glassholes; Google's Eric Schmidt calls for Glasses etiquette". Computerworld. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the sources you cite don't specifically talk about the "glasshole" neologism, which is by far not the main topic of discussion or relevance/importance in those blog-style opinion pieces. Specifically, as I pointed out above, the SFChronicle is not a reliable source as it's essentially a ten-line-long ad page; the MIT Tech Review piece and ZDnet piece are talking about the Google Glass and its early restrictions/launch procedures, not the Glasshole neologism; the Forbes author writes about his experience and personal opinions on the Glass, where the only mention is a link pointing to the Urban Dictionary entry; and the NewStatesman piece talks about the wider implications of technology giants and engineers running the world, not this glasshole neologism. The point is, anyone can do a cherry-picked Google search for "glasshole" and find sources that mention the term, but that doesn't mean it's the main topic of discussion or that it's notable enough to merit its own article. Wikipedia is not for dictionary-type entries such as this one. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redircet to Google Glass as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until/unless there's evidence that the neologism catches on beyond a couple mentions on blogs. polarscribe (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few instances of usage in blogs, even reliable blogs, does not make a neologism notable. The sources also seem to differ wildly on what the term seems to mean, so a lot of it seems to be an attempt at using a clever wording to increase page hits rather than an actual term with any consistent meaning. - Sudo Ghost 06:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google Glass#Reception. I'm not yet seeing the level of coverage about the term (not just using the term) to justify a stand-alone article. The term would make a perfectly good redirect, though, and there is some material in there worth saving, so I don't see a need for deletion outright. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google Glass#Reception or Google Glass#Criticism if it is ever started. This is a bad name for an encyclopedic topic, what could be said about "glasshole" that would not fit better in a putative Criticism of Google Glass article? --A3 nm (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veli Albert Kallio

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

I have proposed this page for deletion. It appears to be mainly autobiography of a non-notable private individual. The title of 'scientist' does not appear to be substantiated by by the subject having published anything in the scientific literature (there are no results for him in Google Scholar or JSTOR).

The results of a Google search for the subject do not substantiate the subject's notability: apart from the Wikipedia entry under discussion, all the results are either from social media pages, emails the subject has sent to mailing lists, or petitions the subject has signed.

There are issues with a number of the sources cited, which do not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources:

Citation 1, given as a source for the claim that the subject is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, links to a blog on the BBC website where the only evidence that the subject is a FRGS is in a comment on the blog made by the subject himself, along with the credential that the subject is a "Member of His Excellency President Ahmadinejad's Personal Facebook".

Citation 2 is a blog called "Green Diary".

Citation 3 is the website of the Independent newspaper which does name the subject in the context of a story about melting icecaps, but the science behind this story and the legitimacy of the 'Arctic Methane Emergency Group', naming Kallio, has been criticised by William_Connolley here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/03/17/arctic-methane-emergency-group/ (yes, I'm aware of the irony of citing a blog! Science_(Journal) makes the same point here: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5992/620

Citation 4 is a brief bio on an 'invited speakers' page on a conference on religion and science, but does not contain any information relevant to the text for which the citation was given.

Citation 5 is a blog called "Psyche, Science, and Society".

Citation 6 is a dead link.

Citation 7 is a link to a video on the "Supreme Master" website of the new religious movement led by Ching_Hai.

Citation 8 is a press release.

Citation 9 is another link to Ching Hai's "Supreme Master" site.

Citation 10 is to a story on the Geographical magazine, which contains a one-sentence quote from the subject. However, the citation is not relevant to the to the text for which the citation was given.

For these reasons, I propose that the subject does not meet the notability criteria and that the page be deleted.

I've not proposed an article for deletion before so sorry if I've posted too much text or made any mistakes in process. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. Delete unless better sources are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete His submission to the UK parliament a couple of years ago. Note the amount of healthy endorsements including founder of the Frozen Isthmuses’ Protection Campaign of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans see this blog (search for FIPC), note his address. Then look at his facebook page, same picture univisity etc. Current job, works at a school in Bracknell. Degrees are in Religious studies and business management.Martin451 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment changed to delete, Ray's comment wrt FRGS was useful. Joining a society, and claiming to be the head of your own campaign does not make you notable. His claim to fame seems to be by association and meaningless qualifications and claims. Notability is not inherited, especially not from self claims.Martin451 (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the input Xxanthippe and Martin451. Anyone can make written submissions to Parliament: this does not provide a reliable source. Nor does it provide any "healthy endorsements" as these are all claimed affiliations made by the subject. Indeed, FIPC would appear to be non-notable in itself as it is almost entirely associated with the subject and claims made about him: a bit of a blogosphere echo-chamber. So still Delete for me. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a bit unclear. The main point was that he makes big claims, but when you look at his facebook page, his degrees are not even science based (religion and business), he does not even have a doctorate. He works at a school but makes no claims to have a PGCE or be a teacher. He does not say what he did for a year at Newbold college (a religious college).Martin451 (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for clarifying. MrLukeDevlin (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that would confer notability here. He seems to be a peculiar combination of lower-tier activist and non-notable crank. I should note that Fellowship in the Royal Geographic Society is not an exclusive honor requiring high credentials - over 2/3rds of their approximately 15000 members are fellows, according to our page on them. You get a fellowship by going to their page, filling out the application, and paying dues, so long as you have a career involving geography [39]. Ray^Talk 18:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ray. I mentioned the FRGS thing not because I thought it conferred notability, but because of the bizarre citation given for it: a comment on the blog post by the subject himself! MrLukeDevlin (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a secondary school teacher with an interest (evidently amateur) in researching ice in the arctic: looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laverne Harris

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

Is being a world chili champion notable? The chili cookoff mentioned in the article doesn't seem to be notable in itself. There's a ref that this person won it (so what) and died in 2008 (again, so what). I don't see any real notability for this individual. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Coverage of her win at the World Championship Chili cook-off seems to be widespread across the USA ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44]), but the coverage is just a spike of coverage at that time. My review of google news search results did not show results show sustained interest in Laverne Harris. However, her winning recipe has lived on. It's covered in this 1978 book which is contemporaneous with her win. This paywalled ST L. Dispatch article also includes her recipe. If there were some coverage of her outside of 1978, I would lean more towards a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 18 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)} 04:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've had a look, and other than the spike of coverage when she won the chili competition, there doesn't seem to be any further coverage of this person. I have to conclude this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT, where she had her fifteen minutes of fame but didn't go on to receive any further media attention afterwards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:01, 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AvJet Routing

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG. Article contains no assertion of notability of the company, and appears to be written as a promo piece by User:AvJet Routing. I have cut down the promotional aspects a bit, but the article still fails to assert notability. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There seems to some stuff out there. http://www.ainonline.com/social-tags/avjet-routing, enough to just make it notable. However the owners/runners of this company should not edit this article due to their WP:COI and previous use as an advert.Martin451 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly can find it exists in online lists and directories but nothing to show it is of any note. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 18 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)} 04:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real indication of notability--it think it would have been a valid A7 for lack of even an indication of importance. About half the items in the list given above do not mention the company, and the ones that do are routine notice or press releases. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Giant Friend

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

Deleted in 2010 via A7, and in 2011 via PROD. Supposedly, this is substantially identical to the last versions, but out of caution, I'm AFDing it instead. This does not seem to meet the notability for TV series. No results on Google Books, and only four on Google News — of which three are one-sentence mentions in context to something else entirely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no relevant coverage. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Linus et boom" gives a couple results in French, but most of them seem to be blogs and the rest are all 404'd. Also, Google Translate won't support most of them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did PROD this back in 2011 when it last came along and whilst this version is slightly better than the last not much has changed in the last two years. The series still has no actual coverage in any language and doesn't pass WP:GNG any further than "this exists". tutterMouse (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After creating this AFD, the nominator made a request at WP:AN that resulted in the undeletion of the previous content. Parties wishing to vote in this AFD should check the old revisions if they think them relevant. Not wishing to vote, I've not checked those revisions. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Crescent Directive

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

The book does not satisfy WP:BKCRIT. With two blog reviews of no particular noteworthiness, and a discussion on an internet radio show, I do not see why the book, nor the author, merit an article. Furthermore, the publisher of the book created both the book's and the author's article on Wikipedia. Finally, the book does not meet the Wikipedia's threshold standards in any way, i.e. it does not have an ISBN number nor is it available in libraries. Stamscaney (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You might want to look into potentially AfDing the author's page as well. It has many of the same issues with notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A book doesn't have to meet threshhold standards to become notable- those are generally just there to indicate that if a book has an ISBN or is in any libraries, that sources are more likely to exist than if they didn't. There are always rare instances where a book doesn't have an ISBN or isn't in any libraries and passes notability guidelines, but this isn't that instance. There just isn't any coverage to show that this book is notable. I'd probably argue the same for its author as well, which is why I'm not suggesting redirecting. The author doesn't seem to really be notable either, but I'll try to find sources. If he's notable then I'll come back and suggest a redirect, but I'm kind of doubting it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, he's not notable either and I've opened up an AfD for him as well here. Tokyogirl7 9 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the author page. It is not helpful to have two articles; since the author has done other things than write the book, that would be the article to keep. (assuming we do keep the author page) DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a reason for merging if the author's article itself is up for AfD as well. If the book isn't notable - and it isn't - then let's just delete the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Hosie

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

Non-Notable Person. Under WP:BLP1E, he is a person notable for only one event and falls under all three of the guidelines for 1. only being notable for one event, 2. being likely to remain low-profile, and 3. the event being not very significant. He does not satisfy the general WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." (The other half of the guideline being moot.) Anon423 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the reviewer who accepted this article today. After reviewing the nomination, I have realized, to my chagrin, that this article is a textbook example of BLP1E. :P Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree. Textbook BLP1E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.247.75 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — 140.180.247.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teina Pora

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

Appears to fail to meet WP:CRIME. There are a number of people agitating (apparently with good reason) to get this man freed, but wikipedia is not a campaigning platform. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the contrary. It clearly meets WP:CRIME which specifically states: "The criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime: The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."

Pora had a "significant role" in that he got convicted - twice for the same murder. This is historic because the murder took place 20 years ago and Pora is still in prison. In addition to coverage at the time of the murder, there has been plenty of coverage about his role recently in print media, radio and television as well.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Offender9000 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs in above converted to links since this page has no reflist. Dricherby (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A common murder is not a significant crime so the only criteria is if he is a significant figure due to the publicity around the campaign to get him released. It would appear there are a few stories every now and then about this but not much otherwise. Eg almost nothing in the Herald between 2000 and 2011. I don't think it is enough to include him - SimonLyall (talk) 05:25, 25 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 25. Snotbot t • c » 01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, getting significant coverage in NZ news media, including in the New Zealand Herald newspaper and 3 News television channel. Maori Television is about to air a documentary "THE CONFESSIONS OF PRISONER T" about his case.-gadfium 06:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Meets WP:GNG, just because someone didn't receive coverage in an arbitrary period of time doesn't mean they fail any guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep need a cleanup and possible rewrite but meets WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Murder of Susan Burdett per WP:1E then prune all the one-eyed fan-club material. Delete as per later comment. Daveosaurus (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a notable murder, then that might work. It's not, so this is the more valid article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, if the murder isn't notable, and the murderer isn't known for anything else, then he can hardly be notable himself, can he? The suggestion, bolded above by Offender, that Pora is wrongly convicted, is an extreme fringe POV which in the eyes of most people founders on the fact that Pora confessed to the murder. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact he confessed, then several reliable sources began showing evidence that the confession was due to being under duress (for want of a better term), is why he is notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 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 Keep Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aerocar 2000

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

No third-party coverage, therefore fails WP:GNG. Best I can tell it's an inventor's CAD drawings and a picture of a Lotus parked next to a flying car. Lacking third-party coverage, it fails to even rate being listed at Flying car (aircraft)#Concepts per the prior RFC discussion there. — Brianhe (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — obviously there are sufficient sources. Brianhe (talk) 06:27, 25 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 25. Snotbot t • c » 00:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mentioned in Popular Mechanics here: [61] Rmhermen (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was quickly able to turn up many third-party sources. Four have been added to the article, and more (gBooks snippet views of periodicals are annoyingly imprecise, only giving volume, not issue, numbers) here. There is far and away enough coverage here for the WP:GNG to be fully satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electrician (band)

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

none of the references mention the band, only the creators other projects, none of which have articles either. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. World History may be notable. It's also possible (but unproven) that Neil Campau might be himself notable, in which case this could be moved to Neil Campau. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might support name change to Neil Campau. he was previously deleted as A7 nonnotable musician, in 2007. Things Change.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 18 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) 00:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katuah bioregion

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

Not a notable topic, basically seems to be an advert. Although this stub article identifies "Katuah" as the name of an ecoregion, in fact its only significance appears to be as the name of a regional Earth First! group. Wikipedia does not exist to commemorate the names and slogans of activist groups. Orlady (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a promotional article by someone connected to the Earth First group. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 13:13, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:12, 18 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) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the above. Even if it were not promotional, the concept does not appear notable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:58, 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) Mediran (t • c) 01:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PhoneFactor

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

Tagged for notability since 2011 - lets make a choice. CorporateM (Talk) 07:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 07:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 18 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) 00:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to say keep, because the links seem sufficient to me to establish notability. New York Times and Bloomberg Businessweek are both major mainstream sources with editorial oversight, and there are other good sources on the page as well. I'm not sure if the original question of notability was added before adequate sourcing, but it probably needs to be reviewed. May need a little bit of a rewrite to sound less like a glowing accolade, per WP:NPOV, but it's not spam and it does cover a notable topic. Chri$topher 01:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources in the article do appear to show notability and the article does appear to meet WP:GNG. Half the sources don't, and the article does read like a borderline advertisement, but the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. - Sudo Ghost 06:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability clearly established by sources. Please consider evaluating and removing {{notability}} yourself next time. -—Kvng 13:07, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Life With Eggplant

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

A search returns no professional reviews, no evidence of charting, no media attention and no other notable mentions. Article does not give any evidence of notability. Richard Ye^talk 06:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a keeper. I just googled it, and got lots of hits. Anyway, an official release by Motorpsycho gets automatic notability in my book. Here's one review. Here it is on iTunes. I could also find articles, reviews, and news in Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, Italian and German, but that's probably not so useful on enwp. - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language reviews would be very useful, because right now there's nothing to prove this satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Many Wikipedia users have some knowledge of foreign languages, or at least can stick something in Google Translate and see if it looks reliable. (NOTE: the Sputnik review is by a contributor, not paid staff, so it doesn't count for notability according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 25 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) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by NRK, Bergensavisen, Adresseavisen, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet.... 86.42.74.65 (talk) 21:41, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pahal Singh Lama

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

Jsharpminor (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the reason for the proposed deletion? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:45, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 18 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) 00:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Experience suggests that a national chief of police is likely to be notable, unless those familiar with the local language and literature inform us otherwise. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:01, 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) 20:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MayanTiles

(Find video game sources: "MayanTiles" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable phone game. No sources turning up in news or books. Google is mostly returning non-RS promotional stuff. Spinning Spark 00:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 00:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: rather run-of-the-mill, I think, for a video game. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable game, plus COI page creator/editor. Ansh666 02:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no results in the reliable sources for video-games search. Diego (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be much, if any, coverage of this game in reliable sources. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 22:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits from any RS. Delete as non-notable for not passing the GNG significant coverage criteria. czar · · 03:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE did not show any promising results for GNG. Mkdw ^talk 07:01, 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. L Faraone 20:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Aaron Roberts

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

Non-notable blogger and associate pastor. The only evidence of notability here is the award of the Best Christian Blog for Under 25's by Christian New Media. This doesn't rise to the level of a notable award per WP:ANYBIO: "...has received a well-known and significant award or honor,...". There are no secondary sources that show notability or discuss the subject. Fails WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:There is a secondary source for Dean Aaron Roberts here, by Trystan Owain Hughes noting Dean Aaron Roberts as an award winning blogger. http://www.trystanowainhughes.com/#/compassion-quest-reviews/4574224298 . Dean Aaron Roberts was also a finalist at the 2012 Christian New Media awards as referenced here: http://www.newmediacentreofexcellence.org.uk/cnmac/awards/shortlist and is mentioned as the recepient of the Best Christian Blogger for Under 25's by Christian Today magazine: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/vicky.beeching.easterlive.and.youversion.take.home.christian.media.awards/28770.htm Inthepubliceye (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as per Tassedethe. The additional sources mentioned by Inthepubliceye are also not notable and niche. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would argue that being 'niche' is relative to who you are and what your subject interests are. Premier Media is the biggest contributor to Christian news, radio and media coverage in the UK and so for many, the article in question may not be as 'niche' as you would like to suggest, especially when Premier Media are endorsing Dean Aaron Roberts. It is not very fair to say that the additional sources are niche either, due to the fact that Trystan Owain Hughes is a highly acclaimed theologian, radio broadcaster in the UK and is endorsing the subject matter of this article. It is a similar comment I wish to make with regards to Christian Today, the well established Christian Newspaper - the fact that the subject matter is referenced alongside some other notable organisations and individuals gives the article credibility and noteworthiness. C.F Vicky Beeching, The YouVersion Bible app (LifeChurch.tv) et al. I therefore stick to my position and wish to see the article kept on the basis that notability has been established and is widely available on the internet, not just in primary sources but in secondary also, and that claims of an article being a 'niche' are by no means any grounds to support an article deletion. Inthepubliceye (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd just like to comment on the quote by Tassedethe as the reason they have nominated this article for deletion, "This doesn't rise to the level of a notable award per WP:ANYBIO: "...has received a well-known and significant award or honor,..."." - fine, except that this award *is* well known and *is* significant to the UK Christian community. With regards to secondary sources - these have already been established earlier in this debate. Inthepubliceye (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to see this article kept on the basis that the award is given by a well known Christian organisation and, as they are notable, gives credibility and notability to the award and to those who receive it. A quick google search of the name reveals lots of links to primary sources (the blogger in question, but also to secondary sources backing up the information on this article and those claims held on the blogger's personal blog. I contest the view that it fails WP:N and would say otherwise. It does pass WP:N and fulfils criteria of WP:ANYBIO. There are a lot of other articles on Wikipedia about individuals who aren't referenced as well as this article, nor are the person(s) of some other articles as well searched on Google. If a strong keep is contested, it may be worth modifying the article to emphasise that the notability of the person is due to a blogging achievement rather than anything else, in this case as an associate pastor. 92.19.219.41 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources, he appears to be notable. FWIW, I am not a fan of 'happy-clappy' ministers. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN as a lay pastor. So, a radio station creates an award (on which we have no article) for the best Christian blog by someone under 25: NN to my mind. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 24 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, Stalwart111 00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Awards for "Best .... under 25" normally have the meaning of someone who is only developing a career, somewhat like best newly founded company . Analogous with our policy on youth awards generally, which does not even recognize the Rhodes Scholarship as a demonstration of notability , such awards are not sufficient. (In this case, the source relied upon for the award gives him nothing more than a mention in a list, while giving an actual discussion of the major award winners.) DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is merely an opinion until you reference this policy and state exactly where the article in question does not meet the standard of the policy set. I don't even know if there is such a policy. If there is, fine, but the debates on here are meant to be strengthened with hard cold evidence, not simply musings and assumptions. Added to that, if the award is notable, then anyone who receives it is notable. Just because there are some more "major" award winners, that does not detract from the award being given to someone who is less major *in comparison* to some of the others. That is ridiculous. I still stand by my view that this article does not break any policy standards and that even if the person scrapes notability by the skin of their teeth, they are STILL notable.Inthepubliceye (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RE: Peterkingiron's comment. That is all it is, a comment. Again not backed up by policies and their standards. Just because Wikipedia does not have an article on a certain award, it does not mean that the award or it's holders are not notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress and not dictatorial of whether something or someone is notable or not. Please see my above comment as to why I still hold to my view to keep this article (and all my other comments).Inthepubliceye (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially self-sourced and vaguely promotional. We're all bloggers here, aren't we? Having a blog which is the recipient of a non-notable award of some sort is..........umm.......... non-notable. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carrite, your objections have already been discussed earlier in this debate (see FruitMonkey's reason and justification and the responses made by the defendant of the article). As Inthepubliceye has said, guidelines for debating these issues clearly stipulate that merely stating "Delete" and then saying something isn't this or that is not enough to contribute to finding an outcome which is partly why this AfD has been relisted. You must explain how the article violates Wikipedia polices. I don't see that this article does violate them as I explained in my contribution, though this IP address may be different now; (92.19.219.41 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)) using the policies on WP:ANYBIO and WP:N to justify my reasons. Also, on a slightly different point, your comments could be seen as rude and so I would like to ask and remind those who contribute to this and any discussion to please observe WP:AFDEQ, especially WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:BITE 92.19.219.41 (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. No further sources have been offered except for [62] which I would classify as trivial, merely a link from a book promotional page back to a review on the blog of the person under discussion. I would question if even that was independent as it is a review of his "former lecturer". The further links to the new media awards are merely passing mentions. The IP:92.19.219.41 seems to be proposing that as the organisation is notable (which it is) then the awards are notable. This is questionable especially as no proof of such notability is offered. Then they state "...anyone who receives it is notable." which in my opinion is plain wrong. I'd cite WP:NOTINHERITED as part of "Arguments to avoid": "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities.". The IPs argument actually involves a double level of inheritance none of which is supported by sources unconnected with the subject or more than trivial in nature. Tassedethe (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can you say that these sources are trivial? Media coverage of the awards is quite wide within the Christian community, including the Evangelical Alliance, National Church/Christian newspapers. What does it take in order for something to stop being trivial? As I'm a new contributor here, and this is the first article I've ever done, I'm not overly au fait with Wikipedia policies, but I looked at the WP:NOTINHERITED and yes, maybe sometimes the argument that the IP address used is not always helpful. But the guidelines do say that "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." To me, that means that yes there are cases where the WP:NOTINHERITED guidelines kick into effect, but there are cases where it doesn't as well. More than that, the italicised "always" insinuates that in a LOT of cases, notability can be inherited. And if you contest my interpretation, the guidelines still leave room for inherited notability. If the Awards are notable (which I think they are; a quick search on Christian New Media Awards will come up with all sorts of independant sources from the Big Bible Project & CODEC - part of Durham University to the Catholic Press to the Evangelical Alliance) then it is not a double level. And if the Awards are notable, then according to the ANYBIO that the IP address mentioned (as did you in your opening of this request for deletion), then the article passes that as well. I understand that I'm new, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Please also understand that the subject area is specialist and within a certain "world" if you like, the Christian world and so it's not going to have the same sources as the Nobel peace prize. Inthepubliceye (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: after relisting this discussion I contacted the original author to raise a few concerns and we ended up discussing the article in more general terms. The article has now been userfied at User:Inthepubliceye/Dean Aaron Roberts draft to allow the editor to continue working on the article until such point as the subject meets notability criteria. Stalwart111 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close now as delete -- The result of userifying should be that we do not need the existing article. This will make the space available for it to be uploaded when ready. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Front yard

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

This article is just a plain mess. It should probably be deleted. RightGot (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yard (land). Backyard should probably be merged there too, seeing as neither it nor Yard are terribly long. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak keep, maybe redirect~~ - Clarityfiend is right that it's not a particularly good article or a long one. But we'll have to agree to disagree on backyard, which I think is pretty good and is, in my view, particularly important to Australian culture and vernacular. I would have to disagree with merging that to Yard (land), which seems mostly about cattle yards. With that in mind, I think front yard could probably be fixed/cleaned up to the point where it is of a similar quality to backyard. I might have a crack at a clean up. Stalwart111 05:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look to see if I could find some references and was actually surprised by how many were available. Obviously there are plenty of how-to style books about how best to decorate a front yard. But there are some of those sorts of books that give a good historical overview of what a front yard is and how it differs to other types of yards. There are also, from the looks of it, plenty of sources that talk about the historical/cultural importance of front yards (both academic and general interest type books) and a few academic papers. I've added a few relevant sources to the article without adding them as in-line citations. What tipped me over the edge was the subsequently-referenced text from the 1930s about the importance of front yards to the American psyche during the depression. There's also a bunch of news pieces on front yards, privacy, election lawn signs and the like that I haven't even gone near yet. Nomination was, I think, entirely fair enough but I really now think the article should be cleaned up rather than deleted. Happy to do some of that cleaning up. Have changed my note above on that basis. Stalwart111 06:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though in the light of Clarityfiend's comments I wonder whether a rename to Front garden would not be more appropriate. There is clearly a vast cultural gulf here that language does not assist with. In England, the front garden is a concept which is instantly recognisable even though individual plot layouts vary. Briefly, population densities in NW Europe (to take just that as the example), dictate that there is usually a sharp physical division between the (limited) garden space on the street frontage which often has little privacy and which is a public display for the home, and the garden or other space at the rear which is typically private and used rather differently. The present article is a mess, and attempts to discuss the concept in terms of a 'typical' layout for certain parts of the world are unhelpful to users unless representative examples can be found for everywhere. A search in Google books on 'front garden' demonstrates the problem here - they begin with certain assumptions about the topic that this article cannot. I have not looked for them, but there will be sociological and anthropological studies of the concept as well which need to be incorporated. If someone wanted to blow it up and start again that might be best. --AJHingston (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AJH, I'm unclear as to what version you were looking at before you made your comment but I have been working on rewriting the article with the same sort of premise. It is very clear that a UK/EU perspective needs to be added. This is the version originally put up for AFD. The current version is very different though I believe it still needs a lot more work. Would appreciate your thoughts on the redraft so far, either here or on the article talk page. Stalwart111 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that I was commenting on an earlier version. Improving an existing article can be difficult, especially when you would not have started from there. The back garden article, though, does demonstrate why there is still a difficulty in covering the whole topic here in the way that is being attempted. You may be right in taking things country by country, but there is then the problem of covering everywhere. For example, I am not sure whether it would be true to say in Britain that a change in the emphasis on the front garden in the early 20th century was as described in the US. Certainly the grand imposing sweep of the entrance drive became a rarity, but I suspect that was mostly to do with plot size; I doubt that there was for example a conscious decision to move the building line forward to give more space to the back, more that the front had to be sacrificed to allow as much space at the back as possible (a subtle but important distinction) or that people did not want large front gardens even where they had the choice. More interesting perhaps was the decision in some planned developments to give an open aspect to the frontage, associated for example with the Garden city movement or company towns such as Port Sunlight where residents might be prohibited from establishing plot boundaries. This did continue in the UK in some planned developments both private and public until the 1970s, but arguably the growth of the private estates of largely semi-detached housing of the inter-war period and after demonstrated the importance attached by many people to a protected and ornamental space on the street frontage. This is getting a bit OT for an AFD discussion, but others will bring their own thoughts. --AJHingston (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's cool, I understand. Incidentally, I moved that bit into the US section (it has been changed several times). I'm putting together a ref list for the UK bit and I have some stuff on Canada and South Africa so they'll probably be added too. If you have anything to contribute to the UK bit, please do! Stalwart111 13:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Notability is not in question in this case. The basic issue here is whether there is a fundamental difference in history and function between a front yard and a backyard, or whether the dichotomy is a false one and everything can be handled in merged form under yard (land). I believe that there are historical and functional differences and that the division is not an artificial one. Even if I am wrong about this, this is not the proper place for a merger discussion, which is a content matter, and this debate should be closed Keep on a procedural basis pending that discussion by involved parties. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This could also be reasonably closed as a Speedy Keep on the basis that no valid rationale for deletion has been presented by the nominator. "Article is a mess" is an editing matter, not a notability matter. I'm consequently revising my opinion above from "Keep" to "Speedy Keep." Carrite (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are indeed sources on the origins and sociological aspects of the British front garden (I'll see what I can add but have other things on my plate right now), as mentioned above for the US front yard. Hence the topic is demonstrably notable; the challenge is to make a clear and balanced article out of it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has been significantly improved since the AfD nomination. Any problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and as passing WP:N. For source examples, see those added to the article by User:Stalwart111. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:45, 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.

[Forbes-1] Hill, Kashmir (17 April 2013). "Google Glass Bid Up To $95,300 On eBay Before Seller Realized He Isn't Allowed To Sell Them". Forbes. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

[bort-2] Bort, Julie (15 April 2013). "There's A New Word To Describe Inconsiderate Google Glass Users: 'Glassholes' (GOOG)". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 17 April 2013.

[Perlow-3] Perlow, Jason. "Google Glass and the emerging Glasshole culture". ZDnet Tech Broiler. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 24 April 2013.

[Pavlus-4] Pavlus, John (21 February 2013). ""Glassholes" Only, Please Why is Google restricting its Glass rollout to rich tech elites?". Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

[5] Chakrabortty, Aditya (9 April 2013). "What happens when engineers run the world?". New Statesman. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

[Storm-6] Storm, Darlene (22 April 2013). "No, you can't jam Glassholes; Google's Eric Schmidt calls for Glasses etiquette". Computerworld. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]