Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 December	7 December >

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 Keep. GB fan 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 2[edit]

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

Complete lack of notability, or compliance with guidelines in WP:Aircrash Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 7 December 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 December 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the fact that the accident was picked up by Peter Greenberg and that it was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2011 ([1]) shows that there is some kind of lasting significance as required to pass WP:EVENT. It's also to be mentioned in the book The Fifth Discipline (but as this book not about aviation and I don't know the extent of its coverage of the accident, I wouldn't use it to make a point). Last but not least, there is this article at airliners.net. (is this considered a reliable source at all?) It indicates that the aircraft was repaired, even though being damaged by salty water, which could be some kind of a unique event, putting more weigh on the significance of the accident. More/better sources should be found, though.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into San_Francisco_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents, which appears to be the best destination for this, and likely also List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 and List of Japan Airlines incidents and accidents, based on my reading of WP:PLANECRASH. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this accident does have lasting significance - the "Asoh defence" came directly from it. Apart from that, a large commercial airliner was significantly damaged at the least. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sven Manguard. No need for a merge, there is already a paragraph at the target article. Crash with no lasting significance, no injuries or deaths. The only reason the article has been mentioned in the news recently is because of its similarity to the much more serious Aviana short-landing earlier this year. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it was a plane crash with lots of people on board makes it significant. It also happened under similar circumstances as the Asiana crash is interesting, too. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Not every plane crash (this was not even a crash, more of a water landing) with lots of people on board is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable; by definition, meets the WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It was not a "routine" accident or news event. It was not heroic like US Airways Flight 1549 where everyone also survived, but was an equally spectacular civil aviation accident involving a commercial airliner carrying over a hundred passengers and crew. It perhaps did not have "lasting" effects (which might also be true of Flight 1549), but any passenger airline accidental landing/crash not on an airport runway always receives extensive attention and becomes notable; this one is eminently suitable for standalone inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents, which seems to be a guideline for articles about airports, aircraft and airlines (not aviation accidents by themselves), is not relevant here. This is not an article about an airport, airline or aircraft; it is an article about a notable aviation accident. DonFB (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE with flying colours. The fact that they rescued the aircraft from the water and actually returned it to service is pretty rare, and possibly almost unique in commercial passenger aviation. WP:AIRCRASH is a guideline, and cannot overrule GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:43, 13 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IrAero Flight 103[edit]

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

Lack of notability, just another overrun with no fatalities and no long term changes in procedures law, regulations etc. Petebutt (talk) 20:08, 6 December 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 December 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, there is no evidence for the "lasting significance" that is required to pass WP:EVENT.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable accident. Fails WP:Event....William 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Scary to say, but plane crashes without fatalities are quite common. While the aircraft may have been wrecked, there was no loss of human life and no changes to procedures. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. JodyB_talk 05:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I should have added the rationale as A7. This deleted the redirect, the article is also deleted as A7. JodyB_talk 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bilgehan demir[edit]

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

This biographical article was begun yesterday and almost entirely written by the subject of the article, Bilgehan Demir (as can be seen in the username of the article creator and most frequent editor, Mbdemir76 (talk)). Furthermore, its notability is questionable; Google searches result in few results. Ithinkicahn (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail GNG, and appears overly promotional. Giant Snowman 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the page appears to have recently been moved to Bilgehan Demir (with the second word capitalized this time). Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 - the subject of the article, the one who created it, just brazenly attempted to delete the deletion tag (as well as other template messages) from his own page. Ithinkicahn (talk) 01:51, 11 December 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haneen[edit]

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

Article about a personal name. No sources or evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 7 December 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 due to WP:BLP issues in history and concerns expresssed below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Kent University Conservative Association[edit]

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

Organization seems to fail WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG. It simply seems to exist. Despite existing since 1965, there are no book hits whatsoever for it, as well as no news hits either. In short, there is little to no coverage in independent sources about it, and even if its members are notable for some reason, notability is not inherited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I didn't notice this has gone through two AFDs before, one in 2005 (delete), one in 2007 (redirect). Realistically, if independent coverage was generated in the intervening six years it wouldn't be difficult to find, but that's not the case as far as I can see. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt Pretty much boilerplate text for a student political organization. Should be salted due to the persistence in recreating. Mangoe (talk)
Delete but don't salt. The last AfD was in 2007, and the history shows it wasn't until this year that the page was recreated following the redirect. I wouldn't call a two and then six year gaps between article creation persistence in recreating. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kent Union#Student life, as suggested before. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this gives it WP:UNDUE prominence as the only such organization that would be mentioned. There are likely several hundred of these, and even among the political groups the Kent Labour Students seems essentially of the same age (they do not give a specific founding date). Of all the groups at UMCP, for example, I would only give space to the Monarchist Party, given that they actually made the news through their historic victory in the SGA elections there. It's not particularly noteworthy that campus groups, anywhere, have some group with a conservative political bent. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO PUNK Live DVD[edit]

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

Non-notable DVD. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 01:17, 13 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IrAero Flight 103[edit]

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

Lack of notability, just another overrun with no fatalities and no long term changes in procedures law, regulations etc. Petebutt (talk) 20:08, 6 December 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 December 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, there is no evidence for the "lasting significance" that is required to pass WP:EVENT.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable accident. Fails WP:Event....William 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Scary to say, but plane crashes without fatalities are quite common. While the aircraft may have been wrecked, there was no loss of human life and no changes to procedures. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 9 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMETA[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources discussing such an organization. It may have existed, but it does not seem to meet notability requirements. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - My concern is that the article lists a number of possibly living persons as being the author of a UFO tract without valid sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With no prejudice against creation of a redirect to Ufology#COMETA or another appropriate location. I see this as similar to Disclosure Project. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disclosure Project. jps (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:02, 7 December 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. The others can be listed later on. Please wait a few days. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Martinez[edit]

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

Non Notable Pornstar. Fails WP:PORNBIO as he has not won "a well-known and significant industry award" & WP:GNG as has not "received any significant coverage in reliable sources". Finnegas (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the aforementioned reasons:

Withdrawn by nominator. I am taking onboard Gene93k's & Erpert's concerns about the articles needing to be evaluated individually. In addition, I would like to clarify I did carry out the 'prescribed WP:BEFORE procedure'. Moreover, I would like to highlight I have no Knowledge of Finnish to understand any 'articles from Finnish newspapers and magazines' which may exist concerning ‎Henry Saari. Finnegas (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you makes WP:BEFORE about a Finnish person ignoring sources in Finnish, and about a Japanese person ignoring sources in Japanese... interesting! It's pretty obvious that in cases of non-English speaking people you should search sources in their native language, otherwise you cannot say that a person fails GNG. If you haven't enough language skills and you're also unable to use easy translation tools such as Google Translate, you should simply stop to nominate people whose sources reasonably would be in a language different from English, period. As far as I can remember you were already warned about that, but you keep to nominate for deletion non-English people and then to justify your lack of WP:BEFORE with the same lame excuses. Sorry, but if you keep on waste the community time, I will not esitate to report you for disruption. Cavarrone 15:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight you intend to report me for not conducting a rigorous enough WP: BEFORE? Finnegas (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, your WP:BEFORE is blatantly non-existent. Second, sure, if you keep on abusing and misapplicating the deletion policy and you keep on wastling the community time I will report you to AN and I will ask for having you banned from AfD processes (it would not be the first case), especially as you were warned multiple times about your deficiencies, and you apparently and knowingly refuse to fix them. Cavarrone 15:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only thing these bundled nominations have in common is that they are porn stars. I suggest listing them separately so that they can be evaluated individually. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has the nominator made the prescribed WP:BEFORE procedure before nominating all these articles for deletion? I checked Henry Saari and a few minutes were sufficient to found a dozen articles from Finnish newspapers and magazines about him (and one was already included in the article). Not yet checked Nozomi Aso (ie 麻生希) but there is an Expand Japanese template on the top of the page and the Japanese article lists, among the references, at least three reliable sources (the weekly magazine Friday, the monthly magazine Cyzo, the news website Zakzak). Cavarrone 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I'm neutral about notability, but as Gene93k hinted at, there is no valid reason for these articles to be bundled in the same AfD. Aside from them all being porn stars, they have nothing in common; in addition, the articles were all created by different editors. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speedy close and apply WP:BEFORE before any further nomination per what said above. Cavarrone 07:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per sourced award won. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry[edit]

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

I believe this WP:VANITY-press published book fails WP:BK rather plainly. Not notable outside of WP:FRINGE circles. jps (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I don't see any reviews, and the article has none listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is borderline promotional in how it's written, but it looks like it would just narrowly squeak by a speedy via that outlet. In any case, I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough for an entry. I would say redirect to the author, but there are many of them- making it impossible to decide which one is the more feasible redirect target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. This article looks more like a table of contents than an encyclopedic entry. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable and written as an originally researched promo. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per reasons outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a cut'n'paste from some amateur X-Files. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article about this book's author Richard Thieme may be in violation of the policies concerning biographies of living persons: WP:BLP, specifically notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is snowing outside and online. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book was reviewed in a collegiate library review journal, Feb 2013, Vol 50, No.06. The book received a positive recommendation and amongst the comments was, "A Useful Resource of the study of a controversial topic." This is a history book and not an X-File book. It is not unusual for history books within Wikipedia to have brief descriptions of their chapters listed. This was done in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Twelve Caesars, and The Communist Manifesto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.59.173 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70.113.59.173, according to your edit log, you created this article in a sandbox with the username "Rpowell2u". If you are the co-author of the book with the same first initial and last name, I suggest you might read our guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest, thanks. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Secret ^account 14:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eklipse Sports Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station which does not exist. Was "due to launch in October 2013" and has not begun to broadcast. The page was created by User:Spencerpryor, listed in the article as the station's Managing Director. Lunchtime O'Wiki (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 7 December 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Cure[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Article consists almost entirely of an overextended summary, which may be plagiarized from elsewhere on the Internet, though I haven't been able to pin down which is the original source. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: It turns out the summary was plagiarized from another website, so I've pulled it down. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could nom please state the grounds for nomination? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added above. Not sure how I forgot that. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dug a little about the copyvio concerns. If you're referring to this wikia entry then it looks like they copied our synopsis rather than the other way around. (Synopsis was added to the wikia on July 10, 2012, but existed on WP as of July 3, 2012.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two reviews: [2] and [3]. There might be more, but I'm not sure. The Google News archive doesn't seem to be working. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had some serious issues finding sources due to a similar issue with Google News. There may be more out there that is lost in the swamp of non-usable reviews and link that come up in a general Google search, but I managed to find just enough for this to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': I hadn't found those sources, but if they're there, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community Party[edit]

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

Non-notable political party; I suspect a one-woman project by User:Deborahnoblet. Its website has been dead for years and it has no mentions on the internet besides Wikipedia clones. The only version of its website available at archive.org states that "The Community Party intends to stand in elections across Europe" (signed, Debbie) but I don't think that ever happened. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliable sources or evidence of notability Depthdiver (talk) 19:54, 10 December 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 History of science and technology in Mexico. Any salvageable content can be retrieved from the article history and merged into the redirect target. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technology in Mexico[edit]

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

This article seams to overlap a lot with History of science and technology in Mexico. I am not sure whether we need a new article about technology in Mexico. This article is poorly sourced, and full of copyrighted images. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one into the other and redirect. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Mae Pharo[edit]

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

No references to reliable independent sources to establish Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goes by the name "Agnes M. Pharo". Known for a short quote about Christmas often re-quoted e.g.[4] Can't find much else. -- GreenC 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting mention here in relation to lack of a Wikipedia entry. -- GreenC 20:22, 8 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come As You Are (sex shop)[edit]

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

Non-notable retail operation lacking non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, while Google has gutted its news archive search even the web search reveals significant coverage in The Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, and more... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 7 December 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 deleted by Daniel Case per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 14:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TimroMero Production[edit]

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

Autobiography Herald talk with me 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Nutkins[edit]

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

Seems to be an aviation illustrator but despite some of the claims in the article I can't find anything at all about him anywhere online (discounting his website and his museum website) let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. The claim of raising money for charity is very worthy, but he produced over 6000 of these prints, so £100,000 doesn't indicate high value art. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This source says "one of Britain’s top aviation artists Geoff Nutkins".. but then goes on to promote him in a way that reads like a press release. Not sure what guardian-series.co.uk is and found very little else (the NewsShopper sources are not independent). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:25, 30 November 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, Ged UK 13:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do believe he's very talented, but, I'm struggling to find multiple reliable secondary sources. SarahStierch (talk) 00:01, 13 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Holland (composer)[edit]

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

The article makes claims for the subject of the article which would pass notability criteria. However, I feel that these claims are not backed by reliable sources. I am nominating this article for deletion based on lack of reliable sources. Persons contesting this would be making a strong argument by pointing to 2-3 sources each of which document some claim to notability.

See the talk page of this article for discussions about sources. It seems that several people including me have questioned them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage; insufficiently notable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely does not meet the notability requirements for a WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs)
Delete. Fails notability per WP:ACADEMIC (for the fringe theory section, which was apparently restored) and I don't see it satisfying WP:notability (music) – Seppi333 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has been a somewhat frustrating experience for me, to say the least! Holland is of marginal notability. There are two independent, reliable sources about his work as an amateur scientist on some fringe medical theories, one of which (the Ira Glass piece) should certainly qualify as in-depth coverage. The article currently has very little in the way of sourcing on anything else about him; there's a page at his university whose authorship is unclear (some parts are written in Holland's voice, others are written in the third person) that provides biographical information. It would be nice if there were more coverage of him as a musician/composer/academic in truly independent sources; Google is able to find a couple things, perhaps the best of which is this. If the Skidmore page and/or the article linked in the previous sentence are third party RSs, then I think there is clearly enough information to write a decent two-paragraph plus lead article about Holland (essentially, the article we already have); if not, then there's only his scientific stuff. I personally think that he's an interesting-sounding guy, that there's the material there for a short biography, and that he should be considered (just barely) notable. --JBL (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, I regret that you find any part of this frustrating and I wish that upon seeing this article you would have known that a deletion discussion was a likely outcome. The community here strives to review content in a consistent way, and it is a failure of the infrastructure here when people expect one outcome and get another. I hope that your frustration is lessened by seeing what a huge amount of discussion that multiple volunteers have spent talking about a person that perhaps none of us recognize, and I hope you recognize that this could only be so quickly and orderly managed on Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY is a defined term; consider reading WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE,and WP:GNG as user:DGG suggested to on the talk page of the article. If the subject of this article met any of these, then the article would be kept. His university-published biography is considered self-published regardless of its authorship. His university has a financial relationship with him and is compelled by their own interests to portray him in a way that makes them both look good, so this is not a reliable source. The Saratogian newspaper article is a copy/paste sort of journalism and not a media description of a person's life work which establishes notability; it is a promotion for an event and whoever wrote the article seems not to have interviewed Holland or investigated more deeply than finding his basic bio somehow. The Ira Glass piece could be good if it makes any claim which would establish this person's notability, but this source was not used as a citation for a statement of that sort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. It was clear to me that Holland was a candidate for deletion; on the other hand, it is often the case that articles on non-notable subjects survive a long time, especially if they are decently written. I am not nearly so invested in this article that I am going to go through thousands of words of notability guidelines to find spots where my overview above can be propped up by a direct policy-citation. I just think it's too bad that this (basically decent if necessarily stubby) article is going to be deleted for no really crucial reason. --JBL (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claim to fame is having a piece on him in This American Life, but ordinarily that one thing would be good enough for me. In this case, though, that one thing is medical research that clearly is non-mainstream, sourced only by sources that clearly do not meet WP:MEDRS, with no mainstream assessment of whether what he's doing makes any sense. As such, reporting on this work only from advocacy pieces as we do now clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and risks endangering real lives by leading cancer victims away from more proven attacks on the disease. But removing this material from the article leaves nothing of note. And the fierce defense of this fringe material by its proponents (restoring it after DGG's strong warning not to, and repeated removing the fringe tag from it) does not bode well for our ability to keep the article neutral. I think the only solution is to not have an article until such time as he's achieved enough fame that the mainstream is forced to take note of him and provide sources we can use (if it ever does). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 9 December 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wynne LeGrow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Party nominees for office are not inherently notable. While there is quite a bit of text on this article, much of it is sourced to his own campaign website. Little coverage independent of the subject exists. Further, few articles link here, confirming lack of importance. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. A redirect is an appropriate outcome for candidates for a national office. Any relevant information about the candidate can be added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my "Keep" !vote and hat'ing this discussion as it is not helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep:Muboshgu is incorrect, I am seeing alot of good references from the NY Times, to local Virginia papers to a TV station or two, not just the campaign website. If the article didn't have the sources, I would say it failed GNG, but since it has 17 sources that fall under WP:RS, I think it passes GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the sources I see are exactly the sort of run-of-the-mill coverage generated by any halfway competent political campaign. I see no significant coverage of this person before or after the campaign. Accordingly, the article about the campaign is the best place to discuss this person, according to longstanding consensus as reflected in WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: References are references regardless of when they were made. If these were blog references or some other non-notable website, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they are to local newspapers, a TV station, the New York Times. So, regardless if they were made during, before, or after the election, the article has references (17 of them) and passes GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you say the New York Times, are you referring to this source? Because that doesn't contribute any "significant coverage" towards GNG. None of the other 17 references provide "significant coverage" either, unless you count the WP:PRIMARY sources, which you shouldn't, since secondary sources are required. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The New York Times mention is insignificant and routine. Citations to his website are not independent. Several others are passing mentions. The coverage is entirely run-of-the-mill, routine, trivial coverage of a badly failed election campaign. Coverage at the article about this election is the best place to discuss this person in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You all realize you just said, in a round-about way, that the Times isn't a "reliable, independent source", right? Regardless, there are references from the Richmond Times Dispatch, The Progress-Index (the local paper for Petersburg, Virginia), The Chesterfield Observer (another local paper), The Tidewater News (I do believe that's a weekly), another source from The Progress-Index, and one from WVEC, the ABC affiliate in Norfolk, Virginia. Now, those are reliable sources also and are independent of the candidate (as is the Times). Would you like to shoot those down as well? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not at all what Cullen and I are saying. We're saying that the coverage of LeGrow in the NY Times is trivial and not in sufficient depth to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read it the wrong way, it seems like that is what you were saying. What I was saying was, you add the Times to all the local coverage, you get some good references which establish notability. Just because the papers in Richmond, Chesterfield and Petersburg aren't to the size of the Times, they aren't insignificant. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to be clear, every politician who runs in any election will generate some press coverage, by virtue of the fact that local media have a moral and ethical and legal obligation to provide coverage of the election. However, the mere fact of being a candidate in an election is not sufficient to make a person notable enough to be covered (permanently, for an international audience) in Wikipedia; for a political figure to qualify for an article on here, he needs to either (a) have actually held a notable office, or (b) have generated enough sustained coverage for other accomplishments (i.e. his career outside of the political campaign arena) to demonstrate that his failure to get past WP:POLITICIAN is counterbalanced by his meeting a different notability guideline. Since LeGrow hasn't held office, his chances of being notable enough for inclusion here rest entirely on criterion B — so the dating of the sources is relevant to whether he passes that or not, because it speaks directly to whether he was ever notable enough as a nephrologist to get past his failure to be notable as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 9 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damaged beyond repair[edit]

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

In searching I am not finding widespread support for this term defined as is. I don't nec. think it falls within a csd category but I do think it is not notable phrase to include here and possibly has a dose of WP:OR to go with it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. I am finding some mentions of the term in places such as this book, but it's brief and would be considered trivial. I'd suggest merging it somewhere as a mention, but I don't know an exactly good target for this to be added to. I don't have a problem with someone userfying the data, but I think it'll probably be a few years before this term really gets enough coverage to justify its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79. I've heard of the term "damaged beyond repair" to refer to structures damaged after calamities, but the term as used in the article appears to not be widespread. An alternative could be to redirect it to a disaster-related article (the term is frequently used in that context), but I'm not sure what the appropriate target would be. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly the term is used loosely (and perhaps more formally) in relation to damage to physical objects and no doubt the usage here derives from that. If kept, there should be a hatnote directing users to Total loss. I do see quite a bit of evidence in Google that this alternative meaning has been around in the popular conciousness, or at least the blogosphere, since 2007 and is discussed for example here - it certainly cannot be dismissed as OR and we usually restrict neologism objections here to things of more recent coinage. What I cannot judge is how far it has penetrated into the (sub-)culture in order to be notable. But I do not think this is clear-cut, and I am inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt. --AJHingston (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the OR concerns stem from the tone of some of the claims made in a previous version of the article, which claimed things such as all DBR men fail to make any contributions to society in a meaningful, positive way or that it all was the "direct result of black male socialization which focuses on aggression and hypersexuality". It wasn't backed up with a RS and was such a blanket statement that it came across as a little OR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you TG. That is exactly why I thought it was a possible issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the view is attributable to the coinage then of course it has a proper place in the article, as does criticism of it. The difficulty might be that the term could be held applicable to all men/women/people within a (sub-)culture, a person's particular personal history, or men in general for that matter, and the article should make clear whether it has retained its original context. The fact that it is controversial or not borne out by the experience of some editors (which is OR) is not so much the issue as whether we can reliably reference it by pointing to usage. Alternatively, the controversy itself might be sufficiently notable for the article to be on that. --AJHingston (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by "not a dictionary." The concept of people "damaged beyond repair" might possibly be a good topic for an article. I don't have any ideas for a title. This article says this particular expression is used in the black community. Obviously (again a part of "not a dictionary") we don't have two articles, one on what something is called by black people and another on what it's called by white people. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's not define every single metaphor in the English language. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The OR issues mentioned above are not a reason to delete, of course; I'm not sure why they were brought up. However, I don't think this neologism quite meets the bar set by WP:NEO. "Damaged beyond repair" is a common phrase used to describe objects such as equipment, so for example a search for the phrase "damaged beyond repair" yields a lot of results. However, very few of them are for the usage that is the subject of this article. There are some; this is a thing that has some usage, to be sure. But I can't seem to find much in the way of discussion in reliable sources about the term, other than the trivial mention in the Karazin book that Tokyogirl linked to: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." (WP:NEO). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it's a simple statement, if it's a phrase not in common usage, and has no significant or verifiable references it must by definition be WP:OR. Under the subheading WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states rather explicitly "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." therefore it is indeed a valid reason to mention for deletion. Now whether or not my assessment of original research is correct can be up for debate but I thought it fell under verifiability clause. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a phrase used in this context in 2007 if not before, commented on at the time, (we have references for both) and which it is said remains in use. The original use was not in WP. Even the controversy over it could be notable if we had enough sources. That is very different, surely, from the case where somebody writes a WP article claiming (say) that all men are worthless based on her experience, or an article based on a phrase that someone else used last week for the first time in a blog. Once somebody has coined a phrase and given it a meaning it could not be original research to attribute that meaning to it if the reference exists; the issue here must be whether it has passed the notability bar. --AJHingston (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point in the fact that it has some support showing it is a phrase used in sparing situations, that is one of the reasons I added whether my assessment was correct or nowt was open to debate. My main reason for the post was replying to the comment that OR is not a reason for deletion when it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh pardon; I did not mean to imply that OR is not a reason to delete in general; I've argued for deleting made-up neologisms on a number of occasions. My point was simply that it is not a reason to delete in this case, so I was confused as to why it was being discussed here. There was possibly OR in the article—much of it I think removed here—that kind of OR can be fixed without deletion. The term itself is not OR; it is in use and discussed in RS. I agree it isn't enough to pass the bar set by WP:NEO, but it is certainly not OR. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i understand where my statement may have been off base too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:58, 11 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Trenwith[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 6 December 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 December 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an obituary (so no BLP violation) in the Sunday Star Times says he's nationally notable in New Zealand, and is sufficient coverage. Quite clearly the author's motives were to cover Old Boys of this particular school, I don't see any problem with this motivation as long as the author sticks to policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sometimes even spammer get it right. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Scott[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 6 December 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 December 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a common name so not easy to do a comprehensive search for sources, but I can't find references, and the article doesn't provide information of notability (the article author is normally very good at finding references). Tru Test, of which he was MD for 2 or 3 years, may be more notable since it's apparently won a NZ business award[5] and has some press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only possibility would be New Zealand's Who's Who of 12 years ago. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated Technology Laboratories, Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No indications of any significant coverage to be found anywhere. Coverage that is found consists largely of the company's own press releases. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying my best to write a fair, wiki page and instead of continuing to attack my work for trying to document the small companies in my area could you please help me point me in the right direction to address the issues. I have spend a lot of time trying to research this business and do not know what I am doing wrong? You mention "significant coverage" what information do I need to provide? I had a friend look it over and found an article from NVIDA that mention this business and I have tried to make this wiki page fair and neutral as possible. Please help me. MajesticWriter (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia - I'm sorry you're finding it a bit rough. What the article needs is a few (say, three) reliable sources that prove beyond doubt that the company is notable, that is to say, that it is obviously newsworthy. An article in, say, the New York Times that materially discusses the company would be perfect. A press release from the company itself doesn't help, because of course every company believes itself to be worth talking about. Hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chriswick and thank you for the welcome and advice, so basically, I need to surf the web and find articles that talk about the company but are not r=from the business itself? Right? Was the one from NVIDIA more suitable? I do believe I did see one from the New York times. A big thank you, it has been rough, I was up all last night. Plus this coding here is confusing but I am trying to catch on. MajesticWriter (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "mention" of ATL in the NVIDIA article is not significant coverage. It is a brief mention in passing of one company that happens to be using NVIDIA's technology in an interesting manner. The main topic of the article is NVIDIA's technology itself, not ATL's use of it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please just delete the page I give up, thank you. p.s. the "brief" mention was about 1/3 of the story..... MajesticWriter (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WikiDan61 is correct, the NVIDIA article is not significant coverage because it only seeks an opinion from this organization and is not about this organization. The other sources are derived from the organization's self publications. This organization does not meet notability criteria. I appreciate your effort MajesticWriter - Wikipedia will be here if you choose to return another time. You can get guidance before you begin by talking to people at the WP:TEAHOUSE. In lots of other ways real people will volunteer to help you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Blue Rasberry, I appreciate your response and appriciate you taking the time to explain it, instead, of just writing a quick response and leaving me wondering "what I did wrong." After looking over the web I could not find enough information either and also agree it does need to be deleted. You do have to excuess me I am a new user who just started using Wikipedia for the first time and had to ask a friend of mine to give me adivce. WikiDan I do appreciate your knowledge of Wikipeida too and ask to take the time to explain things further and in more detail to the new users, I see where you are coming from because of other users who will ruin the experiance for all if not carefully watched, but please make sure it don't scare off the ones who want to contribute and make them feel unwanted within the first day. I have learned a lot from my adventure and look forward to my next attemp at a wiki page, but will first take your advice and slow down. :) now for the four taps MajesticWriter (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, I honestly believe this wiki page should stay alive, this is a company from North Carolina that has made some exceptional achievements and while they may not have the most "significant coverage" this should not mean they are not Wikipedia material. I thank you for your time. ℳajesticѠriter^t@lk 21:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need more, not fewer editors. Unfortunately I think too many do WP:LAWYERING instead of helping new editors. All too many times I have been read the rules while getting absolutely zero help even though I did everything except getting down on my hands and knees begging for help. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage cited in the article does not establish notability because it is not by reliable independent published sources, or mentions the company only in passing. Sandstein 10:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of any improvement over the last few weeks, and with no sign of substantial independent sources, the subject does not reach the threshold of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for ("accelerated technology laboratories") turned up lots of directory-type listings and a few passing mentions in articles on other subjects, but nothing that looked like in-depth coverage: the closest thing that I could find was the NVIDIA piece, discussed above. A Google News search for the same terms turned up no hits at all. There doesn't appear to be enough coverage by independent sources to confer notability here. Ammodramus (talk) 15:56, 15 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur R. Thompson[edit]

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

PROD removed with a "reason" of "probably notable ; needs further sources" with no effort to identify sources. article has existed since 2007 with no independent sources. WP:BLPPROD doesn't apply since the article is so old. Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Here is one source
- Terry, Don (2013). "Bringing Back Birch". splcenter.org. Retrieved 21 November 2013.

If other sources are found then maybe this person is notable. He is the head of an organization which used to be influential. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - In addition to the source presented by Blue Rasberry, I also found this [6] and [7]. An argument could be made that the article meets criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO. - Mr X 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue that he meets WP:ANYBIO then you should do so, instead of a chickenshit and vaguewaving at some guideline that doesn't apply. If someone wants to write an article about this guy, then do it. But it's been a potential BLP target (see link above) since 2007. If there were any admins with balls left, they'd delete this POS asap. But there aren't. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you let it compost, it makes an excellent fertilizer for your vegetable garden. Meanwhile, feel free to rage this article into the cornfield. Here's my vaguewave scarecrow, straight from the '80s.

- Mr X 18:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the significant independent coverage about him. The book linked above is probably the best coverage out there. The other two links are not significant coverage. My own searches only turn up more passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 26 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Borderline situation, but this source offers more than a passing mention. Otherwise, a redirect to John Birch Society would be something to consider in lieu of deletion. Super Mario Man 16:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough information from pro, anti, and neutral sources to construct an article explaining Thompson's background and beliefs (note when searching that he's often called Art Thompson). I've expanded the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 6 December 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 nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harcourt Clare[edit]

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

I don't see much more than brief mentions here and there[8] or any significant claim to notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As a knight, he easily meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. This is long established at AfD (I can't remember us ever deleting an article on a knight or even on someone awarded the CBE). If he was considered notable enough to receive one of Britain's highest honours, then he's surely notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia? As clerk to a county council (i.e. chief executive of the county government), especially of one of England's largest and most important counties, and formerly town clerk of Liverpool, one of England's most important cities, he also held two very important positions. He was also a member of several Royal Commissions. Clear keep. Clearly not in any way WP:MEMORIAL. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a British clerk isn't necessarily what comes to my mind? If the position is that important, I may have to withdraw my nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scrooge and Marley might be a valid comparison to some in deepest darkest Burnley... but I'll make a note of your objections in my diary. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

No, a clerk to a county council was the official, usually a qualified solicitor, now known as the chief executive of the county council. A town clerk performed the same function in a city. "Clerk" was often used in the title of senior officials in the British Civil Service too. But the fact he was knighted is what clinches it. That's quite an honour. Only the clerks of the most important councils would be knighted (as the chief executives of the most important councils still are today). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As per Necrothesp above. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per enlightenment. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:24, 8 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christeena Michelle Riggs[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously a successful actor that has played a number of stage roles over the years. There are a number of very brief mentions e.g. [9] [10], the Hartford COurant calls her "engaging" [11] and the LDS Church describe her as a "Broadway favorite" [12] but I don't think these amount to general notability. Looks like the article was originally authored by Mr Riggs. Sionk (talk) 19:43, 28 November 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Replacement roles as Eponine and Cosette in Les Misérables[13] aren't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 6 December 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 Natural Law Party of Ontario. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Parker[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. The article as it stands appears to represent the entirety of sourceable content. Spicemix (talk) 15:26, 27 November 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 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- In the prior nomination in 2008 (seen here) the BLP was a unanimous keep. But that was based on the premise that he was the leader of the Natural Law Party for ~~Canada~~ Ontario. This was implied in the article but was never cited by any sources and that text has since been removed. The sources that I found (election records) say he was a business man. Can anyone access the Ottawa Citizen source in the article? I could not find it even in the Ottawa Citizen archives.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parker was the leader of the Natural Law Party of Ontario, not the Natural Law Party of Canada. Evidence of this can be procured without difficulty, if need be. There was a general consensus in 2008 that leaders of registered parties were notable, though I'm not sure that this consensus still holds at present. No vote for the time being. CJCurrie (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks CJ, I've corrected by comment above to indicate Ontario not Canada. However, I am unable to find a source (in the Natural Law Party of Canada or Natural Law Party of Ontario articles) that supports the assertion that he was party leader for Ontario. Can you point us to one? Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's an online reference: Eye Weekly, 20 May 1999. CJCurrie (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I've added it to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge -- After careful consideration.....I don't see any notability here as there is no significant coverage, only minor mentions in a few sources. It's clear he does not have "significant coverage" in the media and WP:Politician does not contain any special clause for party leaders, especially those that are only leaders of the party in a state or province. I agree with User:Squareanimal that WP is useful for minor facts, like who was the province leader of a defunct independent party with no electoral success, but a redirect/merge into Natural Law Party of Canada would retain that info just as well. I don't see any reason to maintain a stub on a non-notable, non-active, never elected politician.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep / Neutral Not sure this meets WP:GNG, but in general party leaders, even of Provinces rather than countries, should qualify for Wikipedia. It's for things like this that Wikipedia is useful.Squareanimal (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Always at the political fringe and often derided for its kookiness, It's not as if the NLP was ever a mainstream party. I get next to zip when searching "'Ron Parker' natural law". There might be something in the local printed press, but all signs are that Ontario NLP leader doesn't add up to much, and he doesn't meet our WP:GNG. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I feel delete is still justified, but I'd go with a merge/redirect to the NLP of Canada article. Ron Parker appears to have no notability beyond his role as an unelected provincial party leader. Spicemix (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For leaders of political parties, the current practice is that they're allowed to have standalone articles, regardless of the party's mainstreamness or fringiness, if the resulting article can be properly sourced. Sometimes there are sufficient sources to make them notable enough to stand on their own, and sometimes there aren't — but if there aren't, then the person should be redirected to and discussed briefly in the main article on the political party itself rather than having a separate standalone BLP. The sourcing here is weak; two of the four references are to election results tables on Elections Canada (which serve to verify his vote totals, but cannot demonstrate notability), and the other two references are not sufficient to pass the substantial coverage test. So unless somebody can spruce it up with much better referencing than this, he needs to be merged into the party's article. Redirect to Natural Law Party of Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 6 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mooseheads, Canberra[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. small mentions in trove [14]. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a bar. It's been a party in at least one lawsuit that obtained press coverage. Ordinary coverage for the industry. No assertion of significance. Carrite (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless noteworthiness can be shown - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning delete This bar has attracted a fair bit of coverage over the years in The Canberra Times, but aside from the fire and the bar's subsequent reopening, the stories have mainly been about misdeeds by the bar's patrons and so aren't very useful in establishing notability. The bar is certainly well known in Canberra, but I don't think that an article on it is really needed in an encyclopaedia. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 7 December 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsOnStage Award for Best Actor in a Play[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced list article. The one reference, which is probably press-release-driven, does not list the award winners or discuss them in any detail. The source merely links to the the WhatsOnStage website. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. - Mr X 13:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you let me know how best to reference award winners if not by linking to the official awards archive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the tony awards page for best actress doesnt reference an external source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Award_for_Best_Actress_in_a_Play — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References have to be from reliable sources and independent of the subject. They also need to discuss the topic (WhatsOnStage Award for Best Actor in a Play) in some detail and not simply mention it. The Tony awards get substantial media coverage each year and they have a ~65 year history, so that's really not an apt comparison. - Mr X 14:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Whatsonstage awards get substantial media coverage (are you in the US by any chance)? The awards are regularly discussed by national press and influential people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21466222 - http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/feb/18/sweeney-todd-whatsonstage-theatre-awards - http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2013/02/chichester-festival-theatre-wins-six-prizes-at-the-whatsonstage-awards/

The same goes for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whatsonstage.com_Awards (how can you say that the article is about a non-notable website?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibenh, please sign all of your future talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end like this ~~~~

Let me quote from the notability guideline "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...". In my view, the sources that you presented are insufficient for meeting this standard. If there are good sources that discuss the Awards for Best Actor in a Play collectively, mentioning that they have been awarded every years since 2001, then perhaps this list article would be warranted. - Mr X 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I skipped over the main awards page AfD because I'm not familiar enough, but this one is crazy (especially in addition to awards by year when notability of the whole thing is barely established. Indiscriminate, fails LISTN per above. --Rhododendrites (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibenh (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC) I've added the results history to the main article Whatsonstage.com Awards now, so I'm happy for these seperate articles to be deleted. Thanks, Ben[reply]

Keep and wikify -- We do not allow Awards categories, and instead expect the awards to be listified as an article. The corollary is that we should keep the awards articles, even for not very notable ones. IN this case, it is obvious to me that many of the recipients are notable, as would be obvious if the appropriate links were made. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that we don't allow awards categories? What about Category:Theatre awards and its children? - Mr X 22:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up -- Category:Theatre awards is a category of articles on awards. The normal outcome of a WP:CFD on an award (winners) category - which is what these are - is "listify and delete". It follows that we should keep the related list articles: see WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the perfect example of how to mess up AFD's, there are three separate AFD's ongoing one failed because the main awards are notable and now thats at AFD which given meets GNG and is unlikely to be deleted. Simple checks have not been carried out here and sources that cover are available. AFD is for notability not for editorial decisions that should be made through normal processes. This is a clear case of something that is notable and shouldn't be at AFD the following sources about the main awards all talk about best actor in play and this is for this years awards and it doesn't take long to find similar for all previous years including more in depth once the awards are actually awarded. BBC, The Guardian, The Express and the Belfast Telegraph. Nominator should not of made three nominations virtually at the same and should of waited for result of one or the other.Blethering Scot 12:32, 7 December 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky O'Neill[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. The subject has only had 5 roles in various films and TV shows and most of them were as unnamed characters. They don't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Dismas|^(talk) 08:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support First, I notify you all that I nominated it for deletion the first time (successfully), I tried then to find more sources than IMDB and also left a non-generic paragraph of advice to try to help the user with the article to give it a chance of being kept, but so far it doesn't look like they've taken the advice. CaptRik (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did try a reference tvrage but it is unfortunate that is on the Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist. The newspaper article is a cpoy of of tvrage article I really don't qualified to try to fix this article. Perhaps it should be deleted.......... Venustar84 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 6 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecola Creek Watershed Council[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this very local organization. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage although notices of meetings for the org seem to be published in the local paper. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. and no relevance outside the small area this council is for. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 6 December 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Valley (Arizona)[edit]

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

An article on a neighborhood in Arizona ... Google search turns up nothing that if I googled the title of the neighborhood in which I grew up would not turn up (i.e. Mapquest, Zillow, perhaps an elementary school site, etc.) ... does not meet WP:GNG Go Phightins! 05:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the USGS (25035), Rainbow Valley is a populated place, a U6 unincorporated community. There is also a valley by same name nearby. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading some notability guidelines and failed to find any that seemed specifically applicable, but places are not my area of expertise, so I will defer to you—does that automatically confer notability? Go Phightins! 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy, but WP:GEOLAND spells it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By longstanding general consensus, populated named places are notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated places are considered notable as part of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer, according to longstanding precedent. The page should be moved to Rainbow Valley, Arizona though, according to WP:USPLACE. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 09:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's note - I could not tell whether or not this qualified as a populated place and was solely judging it on GNG, which it does not meet, however if it is considered a populated place and thus meets notability consensus, would anyone object if I withdrew my nomination, closed this discussion, and moved it to Rainbow Valley, Arizona per TheCatalyst31? Go Phightins! 12:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Life (Isis Gee song)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources indicate that the songe meets either WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - song has been performed twice as it made the final of the worlds biggest music competition on television. Perhaps some source of this could be added though.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being performed at a notable competition does not make the song notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Probably should be merged into her article with a redirect left behind. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered in her article so there's nothing to merge and the complex qualifier makes this a very unlikely search term. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FFS it's a Eurovision entry that made the finals. Which means it was the one song picked that year to represent the country of Poland. It then made it through the semi-final. As such, making a Eurovision final is the equivalent of winning a fairly serious award (although normally goes to a different type of song). On the other hand given that she sounds in my opinion like a Celine Dion knock-off and there's nationalism involved, the articles about her will be in Polish and published in Poland. No, I don't speak Polish so can't find them. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking part in a notable contest gives a song notability for the fact that A) it qualified from the semi-finals; B) was performed in the finals; C) was viewed by over 125,000,000 people worldwide; and D) was on the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 compilation album. And I feel discomfort in the method the nominator replies back to everyone who has posted "keep" as if to force them to change their mind by dismissing their personal rationale for wanting to keep the article. Wes Mᴥuse 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the song contest does not and cannot impart notability to the songs performed in it. Nor does its presence on one album or another. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the way you hastily respond to everyone who "keeps", comes across as intimidating and pointy. You had your say at the time of nomination. Please allow others their right to express their opinion and rationales, without intimidation. Thank you. Wes Mᴥuse 04:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for the nominator to respond to every non-agreeable 'vote'. While responding to guestions, etc. is acceptable, I thought the nominator was expected to leave the result up to the ones responding and to the closer. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somerhill Gallery was nominated for deletion on the same day as this for alleged "failure of WP:GNG" and was granted notability and the article only had 276 views. This song article has had twice as many views and is being questioned for notability? Something seriously wrong in this world. Wes Mᴥuse 04:25, 8 December 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. Keeping for now, feel free to propose merges on the article talk page. SarahStierch (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olympians (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appear to be very few things that all the Marvel Olympians have in common, so I don't think anything would really be lost by deleting it. Everything else can be covered in the individual articles. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gods (Marvel Comics) or delete. I agree with Howicus. There's little to be lost here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Gods (Marvel Comics). BOZ (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable characters are Olympians, primary sources are available. Interviews where Olympian characters are discussed or reviews on comic books where Olympians appear exist, secondary sources are available. Studies on representation of mythology in comics exist and one of the most well known mythology is the Greek one, especially the gods, so comparisons are made, tertiary sources exist. In conclusion without any doubt, I choose keep. --Crazy runner (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Gods (Marvel Comics). VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:02, 7 December 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 Ulla Jones discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulla Jones discography and filmography[edit]

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

The discography was split by the author as Ulla Jones discography, the filmography is sufficent in Ulla Andersson (perhaps the discography should be merged, too). The name of the article doesn't present an obvious redirect. Maybe a histmerge with the discography page would be more appropriate. Anyway, this is a bit of a mess right now, and it seems we can do without this one based on what else exists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to subject's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 11 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias Svensson[edit]

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

This BLP about a Swedish political writer has no independent sources, and the one (non-independent) source in the references is a deadlink. It is possible that there are sources in Swedish that I can't read, and if so I'm happy to see those added so the article can be kept. However, I looked to the the equivalent article on Swedish Wikipedia for pointers, and it is unreferenced and even shorter than the article here. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per nom at first. I have now changed my vote to Keep per the !vote below. It is correct.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While mostly active in Sweden, he's a rather high-profile and active commentator who gets regular attention in national media. (Agree that the svwiki article is quite poor, will have a look at it.) Tomas e (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 6 December 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. Opinions remain divided about whether the article about this silly topic should be deleted because it has insufficient coverage in reliable sources and is an indiscriminate collection of information, or whether the opposite is the case. Because valid arguments can and in part have been been made for either case, there's no clear policy-mandated outcome and the article is kept by default. Sandstein 10:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding animal[edit]

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

I understand that this article has been nominated for deletion several times before. That it has continued to survive these nominations I find surprising. The topic "exploding animal" is not a topic for an encyclopedia-- yes, as the article says, some whales have exploded when people have put explosives inside them, and one time there was a snake in Florida that no one saw explode but that had no head when it was found, and there were some German toads whose livers became delicacies for local crows and they exploded in defense. But these things are not interconnected, and simply creating a list of such events might as well go on to include "exploding things" and we can add rockets, cans of paint, my uncle's temper, and the sewer systems of 19th century London. The fact remains, these things are not related other than that they happen to explode... Which is not a basis for an encyclopedia article. In fact, people also explode— when they have bombs put inside of them, or when they are hit with grenades. But this does not make them a topic for a Wikipedia article, and a list of valid "citations" proving that animals do, in fact, explode, does not justify the existence of a Wikipedia article on that topic when the fact is that lots of things explode that do not warrant articles, even if citations can be found to prove that such explosions do happen. The topic, "Exploding animals" is not itself a notable topic, and this is why I propose that the article be deleted— even though some animals have exploded somewhere for some reason.

I would like to add to this that the justifications given for keeping the article in the past have often been flip and irrelevant. I ask the closing admin to consider this fact in evaluating whether or not to delete the article this time, given whatever "Keep" votes appear below, and to remember that the question is not how many votes to delete or to keep but what the reasonings are behind those votes— things like "Keep because exploding animals are cool!" is not a meaningful vote. KDS4444^Talk 19:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear and obvious delete - reliable secondary sources don't discuss the topic of exploding animals. There might be incidental cases of a toad here or a different animal here that are mentioned in reliable sources, but the topic as a whole simply isn't, making the article completely arbitrary, as the nominator notes above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage by reliable sources abounds. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did I just say? Did you read what I wrote above? KDS4444^Talk 22:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Dolphins used in warfare is a topic. This or that species which explodes should be covered in the article on that species. Pigs killed by the military not notable. Pretending that all of these things are somehow related is silly. Carrite (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is, in fact, notable, being covered in detail in sources such as Greek fire, poison arrows, and scorpion bombs: biological and chemical warfare in the ancient world, Kaboom!: Explosions of All Kinds, the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends and Exploding Pigs and other Bizarre Animal Stories. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN while the objections to this material just seem to be personal opinion which ignores the Keep established at the last discussion. Warden (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets the GNG with over 15 citations. The only objection seems to be that this is "exploding things that aren't connected". Except that they are connected - they are all animals. As far as I know, this is fine. It isn't even an original way to organize explosions, as seen by the titles of some of the books mentioned by Warden. Lets face it, animals exploding is unusual, and stories of such things are collected into books. This is nicely reflected by the FOUR previous nominations, all of them clear keeps. The Steve 13:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden. Coverage by multiple reliable sources, passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN easily. Nomination is mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as is the argument by Carrite.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Nomination is "This topic is unsuitable for an encyclopedia", not "I don't like it". Nothing was said about its likability: it was called "silly." Please do not misconstrue this as a dislike of the subject (to which I am utterly indifferent). KDS4444^Talk 22:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean you don't like the topic, it means you don't like the article being here, and that this is all your argument. Merely saying "is unsuitable" or that is "silly" is exactly what WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:UNENCYC, take your pick) are about. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. I have said that I do not think it warrants existence as an article, and I have explained why on policy grounds— that is procedural, not emotional. It is unsuitable for an article because it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. It isn't that it is unencyclopedic per se (that would be a judgement call), it's that fails to meet the guidelines for inclusion (because it isn't really a topic, and because a collection of disparate citations, even a large collection, does not make it into one). It is on those grounds that I propose it be deleted. That it seems silly to me is, I grant you, not fair— my objection to its inclusion, though, is not on that ground. KDS4444^Talk 08:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the comments here reflect fundamental ignorance of Wikipedia notability policies. It's not enough to find a bunch of different sourced examples of exploding animals - the whole overarching topic of exploding animals as something significant must be specifically covered by reliable sources, which it isn't. Otherwise, I could make a million articles by simply putting a couple of arbitrary things together. I can find a thousand sourced examples of churches with red roofs, but an article wouldn't be notable because the topic as a whole is not notable. There's a reason there aren't articles called Animals Hit by Lightning, Animals with Broken Legs and Animals Run Over By Motorcycles. There are plenty of sourced examples of those events, but the events are incidental, not connected.Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vaguely related anecdotes and quirky trivia. I don't see how a dynamited whale corpse is related to an ant that sprays poison. This is almost the very definition of an indiscriminate collection of information. I agree with Nwlaw63: no reliable sources have connected these disparate bits of trivia, and it's synth to do so ourselves. WP:LISTN does not seem satisfied. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an odd topic, but I think the concept of "exploding animals" could be considered notable, and it seems like a logical way to organize coverage of apparently notable instances of animals exploding. Everyking (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for no other reason than that it has gone thru this four previous times with two being speedy keep. There should be a limit on the number of times an article can be put thru this. I suggest four as the limit after which any future AfD is automatically closed as speedy keep (unless there has been a major MOS/policy change since the prior AfD). VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been plenty of notable animal explosions. Those animal explosions wouldn't suit well enough with each of them having a Wikipedia article of their own (excluding the infamous Exploding whale incident in Oregon), so being in an article of all types of notable animal explosions is appropriate enough. I say keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ug5151 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History Note that, in past discussions such as this and that, there was a consensus to merge content about the various types of exploding animal into this article. It is therefore no surprise that the page now covers such a variety of cases. If we now wanted to reverse these mergers and unbundle the article, then this would be done by splitting rather than deletion. Warden (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this has enough citations and examples of a odd, but notable topic. Sleepinabanana (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Nwlaw63 points out, the whole overarching topic of exploding animals as something significant must be specifically covered by reliable sources, which it isn't. This is a trivial collection of vaguely-related occurrences, not a specific topic. — Scott • talk 16:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Per Warden, consensus over the past ten years has been to keep this article, at least if only as a place to redirect or merge all the other expoloding animal articles. In any case, what is notable or encyclopedic is defined by WP:GNG and what the community decides is notable. Currently it has 15 good sources, and thus the rebuttable presumption is to keep it. The nom has not rebutted the presumption by merely waving words around. Nominating this yet again is untenable, in the face of past keeps and plenty of available seocndary sources. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 23:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There used to be a Wikipedia article titled "Animal aggression"— it was merged (the article was turned into a redirect and none of the content was preserved) into the article on "Aggression" because of a community consensus that "Animal aggression" was not a distinct or meaningful thing aside from aggression (though animals are aggressive and the article was drowning in citations to prove it). The same thing here. Paintings are nice, cars often rust, and some animals actually seem not to explode— this does not justify articles titled "Nice paintings", "Rusty cars", or "Animals never known to have exploded". And lastly,

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

KDS4444^Talk 22:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we can delete doesn't mean we should. Just because we can nominate something for deletion doesn't mean we should. At this point, I propose that any one who renominates this for deletion in the not distant future be subject to sanctions for disruptive editing. Five nominations is at least two or three too many already. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, this article shouldn't be deleted if it's survived 4 nominations for deletion. Sleepinabanana (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it has been nominated so many times is a testament to its highly dubious status as a valid article for an encyclopedia, not a here-we-go-again round of some sort of inquisition. If you want to bring on charges of disruptive editing, then bring it on. Nothing I have done here is in violation of any existing Wikipedia policy; I stand firmly behind my deletion nomination. And I still think this article should be deleted, and I am not at all afraid to say it. Congrats on trying to make it personal. KDS4444^Talk 08:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps what this article needs is a slightly more "scientific" title. Perhaps Exploding animal (phenomenon) or somesuch. As it stands now, the title of the article sounds more sensational (or perhaps even a good name for a band) than encyclopedic, which I suspect triggers nom for deletion almost as a reflex. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:53, 13 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent stops[edit]

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

Non-notable film that seems poorly translated Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. After nomination, article was retitled Paradas contínuas. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is the actual name of the film. The problem was that someone used Google Translate on the article on es.wiki, and translated everything, including things that shouldn't have been translated, like the title of the film, the names of songs, the names of musical groups, etc.
  As for the nomination, I don't have an opinion about whether it's notable or not, but "poorly translated" is not a criteria for deletion, it's a criteria for improving the article, which I have done to the extent that I can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of press coverage on GNews. Easily passes WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE and per numerous sources available for improvement (thanks Pburka). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Pburka. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kikin Inc.[edit]

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

Nothing that distinguishes this webware app provider from the tens of thousands of other; i.e., fails WP:GNG; moreover, it is written less like an encyclopedic article than a promotional piece, most likely written by someone with a WP:COI, so if kept it would likely have to be entirely re-written solely from sources that are reliable, rather than employee linked in profiles as now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, and just over the cusp into blatant advertising. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 6 December 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. Much work has been added to the article including references. As I am the nominator I will withdraw the nomination and close it as a Keep JodyB_talk 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions[edit]

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

After a discussion regarding merging most, not all, felt that it was best to delete the article. I agree. However, CSD is probably not the right venue as there are some who would challenge it. It should be deleted because there is neither significant nor sufficient notability for this article. JodyB_talk 01:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm digging for sources, but so far I'm finding evidence to show that it looks to have been (and still be to some extent) fairly influential in its time. I'm finding places where it's used as a source and it's even quoted in the Oxford Dictionary of Medical Quotations. I'm not voting either way just yet, just that I think that there might be enough to establish notability for it if we continue to dig. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took a little digging, but I found several mentions of this in various locations where it's considered to be a rather influential text as far as homeopathy criticism goes. I've found where it's sourced in a lot of different works ([15], [16], [17], [18]) and I'm still finding more. It's not as well known as On the Origin of Species, but it does seem to have gotten quite a bit of notice in its sphere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expected to be reading a POV essay. But this is a sufficiently sourced article on a book by Oliver Wendell Holmes. A GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or Keep. I think a merge would be better, but we can discuss that later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. JodyB's analysis of the merge discussion is faulty. There were two !votes in favor of deletion, and one "keep or merge" from Guy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tokyogirl79 has now added many sources which have improved the article. I am happy to let this run its course or if SNOW begins to fall I will be pleased to withdraw the nomination.JodyB_talk 12:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has !voted delete, so you can withdraw the nomination. If someone does !vote delete, the nomination would need to run its course. (For this purpose, merge would be part of keep, although I'm not whether a userfy !vote would qualify.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 6 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds & Wakefield Futsal Club[edit]

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

No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Appears not to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, very minor local futsal team. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – due to lack of significant coverage. C 679 09:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails GNG. Giant Snowman 22:27, 7 December 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. postdlf (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Llewellyn separator[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Accepted from AfC, but I can;t think why. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A scattering of cites on GS indicates that the name is recognized but the article is poorly written. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 29 November 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a great article, but discussed in detail by a fair number of scholarly sources in the field --_nonsense ferret 03:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nonsenseferret. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no content left after copyvio has been deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11 AM[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional article about a very new television program. No evidence of notabilty. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 30 November 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real content or context, no verifiable notability. Appears to be self-promotion. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:24, 12 December 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Treasure (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. No independent sources attest to the notability of the release, no indication the album charted anywhere. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 30 November 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough web references to be notable. Current refs need updated. Whether it charted or not has no bearing on notability. Probably should be merged into a list of her albums. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific independent reliable sources do you believe meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:GNG? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chart number 1463? That's not going to make wp:HEY. ~~Delete~~ Neonchameleon (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts she only just missed the top 40 in the album chart with Hidden Treasures (#44) - with 40 being the normal notability threshold under WP:MUS I think. But due to the rerelease having a Eurovision entry on it there were two separate releases of the album which was, I think, worth the equivalent of the four places needed to slide it just inside the top 40. Keep (and page edited to make clearer why the album in question was notable). VMS Mosaic, if you can track down the album position for her other album up for deletion it appears to have sold more copies and should therefore be direct top 40 Neonchameleon (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge to Tamara Gee discography. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 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 Tamara Gee discography. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Angel (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album given away free with purchase. No sources attest to its notability, no indication it charted anywhere. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 November 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Nominator appears to misunderstand notability. It has nothing to do with being famous, popular or charting. There are enough available refs to prove notability. Probably should be merged into a list of her albums. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article cannot be both kept and merged, something you don't seem to understand. Please specify which exact independent reliable sources sources meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:GNG? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? You do know the meaning of the word 'or'? If I knew Polish, the RS refs would be easy to find, but I don't. But as I already said, the album image, track listing, etc. should probably be merged into an album list or into her main article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a discography in her article and a separate discography article so there is no need to merge anything, and an image of an album cover in an article not specifically about that album would be deleted as non-fair use under image guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only reference I see on that page is the artist's own website. Which is fairly clearly not enough. At the moment I have to say Delete pending further information - but as it's implied that album significantly outsold her other one, it should be possible to find some chart for the time period (probably the Polish charts) where it makes the top 40. I, alas, don't read Polish... Neonchameleon (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the main problem here. The powers that be have scared off not only too many English speaking editors, but also far too many non-primary-English speaking editors. I eventually see any article on a non-English foreign subject being deleted from the English Wikipedia. An extremely bad outcome IMHO. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The "powers that be"? Who would that be exactly? Wikiproject:Poland has close to 100 active or semi-active members, many of whom note their fluency in Polish. Your assumption that there simply must be sources out there in Polish which you could easily locate if you spoke Polish has no bearing on the discussion. Facts and reliable sources, please, not conjecture and conspiracy theories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh as much as you want, but it is neither a conjecture or conspiracy theory that the number of active editors on the English Wikipedia is in significant decline. I have put up with a huge amount of total BS, but unlike many who are driven off by Wikilawyers, I am too stubborn (maybe stupid I suppose) to quit. LMAO, the number of editors listed on a Project page is almost completely meaningless. The one project I am active on has a list of editors, but maybe four (counting me) of them actively edit pages related to the project. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to her discography...perhaps reliable secondary sources exist in Polish, but I'm struggling to find any in English at least. If Polish reliable secondary sources are found, perhaps a reconsideration for it to be kept, but, I suggest merge. SarahStierch (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge to Tamara Gee discography. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:06, 13 December 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 15:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert J. Davies, Cwrtmawr[edit]

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

No references, and couldn't find any extensive coverage in reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 minutes is not enough time to evaluate sources from someone from that era. Sources may not have been digitized and may be in printed media from that era. Dloh cierekim 00:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article was sourced by creator. WP:GNG applies. For people of his era, this constitutes significant coverage-- someone wrote about him in a book. There may not be much available to Google. The information we want may be rotting on some shelf in a library somewhere. Dloh cierekim 21:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claims of notability, and no sources – even if offline, there is no reason not to cite sources, if there was any. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources have been provided, now passes GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I share your view, and have been trouted for sharing too openly, not everyone is as good at citing sources as we are. Also, some still feel this is a collaborative effort, and that helping source an article is part of the fun. Dloh cierekim 09:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of significance, not a single footnote. Not ready for prime time. Delete without prejudice to recreation if any sourcing can be located. Closing administrator should offer to userfy the article for the content creator if they so desire. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did offer. Dloh cierekim 09:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? - There is mention of Robert Joseph Davies [19] in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, but he falls under his father who I believe is far more notable, being a leading figure in the Calvinistic Methodist faith. Robert J Davis claim to notability is that he was a Calvinistic minister and was the treasurer of their General Assembly, which is yet to have an article. It may be better that we follow this example and create an article on Robert Davies, who could easily be linked to Calvinistic Methodism, and then lay mention to Robert Joseph as his son. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? That speaks of Robert Jones. Or have I just demonstrated my ignorance of the Welsh? Dloh cierekim 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong site, I work off the actual book and made a bad jump. It's corrected now. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator has assured me that sourcing will be forthcoming. As it is now "tomorrow" on the far side of the Pond, I wait with eager anticipation. If not, will switch to "delete". If I had some idea of how to search Gale for this subject, I'd try. Dloh cierekim 09:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to the article. Dloh cierekim 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does being a Treasurer of the Calvinistic Methodist General Assembly count as being notable under WP:GNG or WP:BIO? Because other than that I see a failed candidate for MP, and a county counselor. Under WP:POLITICIAN I'm not sure county counselor qualifies (it's certainly at least one level below state representative) and the only press coverage appears to be in the same local newspaper? Neonchameleon (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not, there are several hundred, at least, entries which should be considered for deletion. Puzzled as to why there is such enthusiasm to delete this!! Macs15 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:OSE. Jinkinson talk to me 20:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robert Joseph Davies is a figure of importance in Wales and serves a place in Wikipedia. This is a democratic site after all?? Macs15 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Common misconception. Important decisions are made by WP:consensus. This is not a vote. It is a discussion from which consensus will perhaps emerge. Dloh cierekim 00:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy is not necessarily about majorities. Consensus, however, either requires agreement OR acceptance of differences. I see no reason why this article in its current form should be deleted.Macs15 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG is a threshold you need to pass with the default being that most people don't, as per WP:BIO. In his case he definitely doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN - he was only elected to local office (and definitely fails the Historical Record test of books). A footnote in the biography of his father doesn't go far to establish notability (although it does for his father). Which leaves the attempt to establish notability resting on three newspaper articles in his local paper and a single short paragraph that mentions him fundraising for someone else's memorial. Honestly I doubt that it would have been nominated for deletion in the state it is currently in, but when it was first posted and nominated it looked like a Whac-A-Mole piece of spam that just makes Wikipedia look bad. Had it been me and I'd found that page I'd have just WP:PRODded it or even nominated it for speedy deletion using WP:A7, both of which are extremely useful for removing spam and pointlessness but can easily be dealt with by improvement (there is no way this article as it stands now would be in danger from a WP:A7). Instead it was given the full WP:AFD treatment despite being only three minutes old (which is questionable practice due to the time required to run the checks involved in WP:BEFORE). And once it gets into that state with no references, the best way out is by improving the article (see WP:HEY for details). So in my opinion it took two decisions I wouldn't have made and some bad luck to bring the article to the scrutiny it's receiving (the first being to post two lines and the second being to run a full scale AfD). Unfortunately it's here now and it's the article in front of us to be judged so it's receiving closer scrutiny than anything short of a featured article, and more dangerous scrutiny than featured articles do. The research and writing that have gone into the page has been excellent so far as I can tell - and it's mostly bad luck he appears to be both here at all and on the wrong side of the notability threshold. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 December 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.