Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 January	15 January >

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 redirect to Sololá . MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisandro Guarcax

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

Delete, appears to fail WP:GNG and mostly WP:ONEEVENT. Not finding any matches in google news [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That search only covers that last 30 days. You need a Google News archive search, as linked by the nomination procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources. fails WP:BLP--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Plenty of GNews (archive) hits, in Spanish and (for some reason) Norwegian. Enough of them look reliable to suggest that if the individual isn't notable, his death may be. PWilkinson (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:45, 7 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge as a new section within the article Sololá titled "Death of Lisandro Guarcax", as his death does seem to meet notability criteria of being reported by secondary sources.—Baldy Bill (talk) 15:04, 19 January 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. Weak consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Academy

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

Non-notable per WP:ORG -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Seems significant, based on a quick web search. Publishingt Chitral Vision would also be a source of notability. I would caution against deleting pages which might not have sufficient English articles at the ready, yet.
Sources and References provided as per request, please remove the deletion log: - Akbaralighazi (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered by reliable, independent sources. Does not appear to be notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:44, 7 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References included in the article by Akbar Ali, please do not delete this article and remove the deletion log. -- Mirajbibi (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Pakistani Literary association, please do not delete -- Zaheeruddin25 (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG: No coverage in reliable independent sources is cited. Sandstein 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cayuga's Waiters

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

Another in a long line of non-notable college a capella groups. Completely fails WP:GNG, as it has no substantial coverage in third party sources--the only sources are WP:SELFPUB. Nor does it pass any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Wikipedia:No one cares about your college a capella club. GrapedApe (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unlike many a capella articles about recently-founded groups, this appears to be a longstanding notable group. Apparently equivalent to The Whiffenpoofs[2], oldest group, biggest reputation, etc., even bigger than Here Comes Treble, which is the extent of my Ivy League a capella knowledge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That article merely makes a comparison that they are both a capella groups, not that Cayuga's Waiters is as well-known as the actually famous Whiffenpoofs. Also, you do realize that you just referred to a fictional group, right? How exactly does that show notability of Cayuga's Waiters?--GrapedApe (talk) 20:01, 12 January 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, —Theo polisme 17:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article has very few sources, none of which are independent of the group or its university. Cornell has so many a cappella groups that they have actually formed a council to coordinate their activities. And unlike The Whiffenpoofs, there is no indication that this group's theme song has been recorded by anyone as famous as Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, or Count Basie, nor performed in a film by anyone like Cary Grant or Ginger Rogers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Milowent - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:42, 12 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 14 January 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bansuri Guru The Film

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

Non-notable film, no sources, article created by username same as article, appears promotional. PROD by editor who wrote in edit summary 'good film'. Skrelk (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. What also needs addressing is Author's user page is identical to the article written by that user, and User:Bansuri.Guru.Film, as a username, is in violation of WP:PRODNAME. IF this film can be verified as existing, it is at least still be worth its mention in the Hariprasad Chaurasia article... but all I've been able to find is it being on Youtube. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Happy to change my mind. See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I'm unable to find coverage that would help indicate that this film meets WP:GNG or WP:NF at this time. Gong show 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep based on the sources presented below. Gong show 05:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've found one sole source about the film, which isn't enough to show that it passes notability guidelines. It would merit a mention in the main article about Hariprasad Chaurasia, but that's about it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's already shown somewhere the standards for notability won't be as strict, but it's fairly light. I'm willing to change my vote to neutral for the time being.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (read rationale) This IS notable. Documentary on a world famous musician by his son this is going to be an important movie. I have collected 1 or 2 sources below I am sure you'll get more sources eventually. But, yes, they have made it WP:TOOSOON. I don't know its release date, but we can keep it if it going to release in next 1-2 month(s)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Express
New Indian Express

Changing vote to !Keep. Missed that the film is already premiered at Pune International Film Festival! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they have added few newspaper cuttings in their website too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:NFF no longer applies as it has been confirmed that this film exists, has screened at a notable festival, and IS beginning to get coverage,[3][4][5] in sources that did not exist when I first commented for "delete" above. Quite happy to change my opinion now that WP:NF is shown to have been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Power Matters Alliance

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

Fails WP:ORG. As far as I can tell, there are no sources specifically about this organisation. There have been mentions in reliable sources, but the sources are really about wireless charging not this organisation. It might become notable later, but it is too soon to have an article about it yet. SmartSE (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their standard has been widely adopted, according to good references, so they are notable. If it was just wireless charging that was notable, I'd agree with the nom, but it's the standard they developed. I suppose we could change the name of the article to that of the standard. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the nom's assessment with regards to WP:ORG. I find significant coverage in the article's cited sources. -—Kvng 03:44, 8 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - whilst I'm still not sure the organisation is notable, the source added today shows that their standard definitely is. I will try and clean up the article when I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 16 January 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 per positive consensus and the fact the article's references assure that it meets notability requirements. A peek at Google Books [6] further confirms notability. At the risk of editorializing, I found the nomination to be very unusual - I believe that spending a little more time in researching a subject would be helpful before putting it up for deletion consideration. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days

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

Non-notable film. Virtually no coverage outside a, local newspaper write up a handful of raw food blogs and a single scientific skeptic blog. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing write ups in two newspapers (already referenced in the article), the Michigan-based Mining Journal and California's Marin Independent Journal. These would seem to demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" making this meet WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 09:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that these two small local papers do not provide evidence of notability. Papers like this often run short pieces on special interest topics, but in my mind a couple of these do not equal notability. --Daniel (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an argument could be made that the number, nature, or quality of the sources doesn't establish notability, but these pieces aren't so short that they don't amount to significant coverage. There's also this segment which appeared on a local ABC affiliate. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 03:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting notability criteria. Plenty of sources available showing this topic notable and article improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 16 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Computer Sync

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

As User:GregJackP wrote: "The article is promotional, likely fails WP:GNG, and not written as an encyclopedia article". See also Wikipedia's notability guideline for products and services.

I have more than once tried to clean the article up. But single-purpose account User:Omnipedia09 (contribs) and the page creator — single-purpose account User:Mfcmaster (contribs) — have reverted some of my work and/or deleted article maintenance templates.

It's not worth keeping such pages around. Doing so rewards the page creators, encourages them to start new low-quality articles about their products and services in the future, and encourages them to continue repeatedly violating Wikipedia policy. Unforgettableid (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am sorry Unforgettableid if you find this software to be "boring niche software", as you indicated in the comments, but there are others who find it useful and relevant. It has received 9,000 downloads on CNet's download.com.[7] There are many easy transfer cables (which cost $30-$40 each), and normally they can only be used once, to transfer one time to a new windows computer, with Windows Easy Transfer. If you use Easy Computer Sync, you can drag and drop files between the computers with the easy transfer cable, thereby not rendering the cable useless. As to the notability, both Slashgear.com[8] and GizMag.com[9] has discussed this software, and Gizmag.com brought up the point that Easy Computer Sync provides another way to use the cable. Also, Unforgettableid, you keep commenting on me personally, not on the content of the article. This could be considered an ad hominem argument. I have repeatedly asked you to discuss the merits of the article in the talk page, but you have ignored these requests. Omnipedia09 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)— Omnipedia09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note. The above commenter has only ever edited one article: the Easy Computer Sync article. Unforgettableid (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unforgettableid, that is precisely an ad hominem argument. Please talk about the content of the article. Omnipedia09 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, it is a legitimate comment under the deletion policy, and admin guidance for AfDs. It is not an ad hominem attack, as it goes to the weight of the policy arguments that are made. GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute says: "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI." As for your request to discuss the article's notability: It might be mildly interesting for me to debate with you about whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. But you have already taken up too much of my time by removing maintenance templates and such, and I have too many other things to do in real life. And so I respectfully decline to debate notability with you on the article's talk page. With kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not have a conflict of interest with regards to the product or article. I found the product through Wikipedia, and find the article useful and worthwhile. Unforgettableid, if you don't want to provide any reasonable arguments for why the article should be deleted, then I suggest you remove your request to delete the article. Omnipedia09 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are a contributor to the article; that is why I wrote the above conflict-of-interest note. My arguments are at the top of this page. Now all there is to do is wait a week and see what will happen with this deletion request. There is no need for either of us to spend more time on unnecessary further discussion. Kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a mere contributor or editor of an article does not have a conflict of interest based merely on his or her editing of the article. It takes an external connection with the subject of the article, such as an employee of a company, a familial relationship, etc. A creator or major contributor should declare in an AfD, but it is not COI. GregJackP Boomer! 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A checkuser says that Omnipedia09, who claims to have "found the product through Wikipedia", is a sockpuppet of the person who created the article. Also, both the accounts edited pretty well exclusively about the products of one company, and much of the editing appears promotional in character. Conflict of interest is pretty clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, per nom's quote of my earlier prod. I have no problem with a COI per JBW's comment above, however the reason initially stated did not meet policy for COI. Merely editing or contributing to an article is specifically listed as not being COI. Has an SPI been done? I'm assuming there has been, since a checkuser's involved. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. As for User Omnipedia09 i see an a WP:COI due to the fact that it the only article he edited. TheMesquito (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also user Omnipedia09 has been blocked due to being a sock-puppet of User:Mfcmaster. Not only a COI but just a page creator trying to use alts to prevent page deletion. TheMesquito (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While socking and a COI are not reasons to delete an article (unless they are paired with a G11 qualification), failing WP:GNG is. The references in the article are either not independent or not significant coverage of the subject (or both). A Google News search provides no independent and significant coverage from reliable sources that can be used to establish notability and either does a Google Nws Archive search. I should not though, that the archive search does produce one press release (not independent) and one article from a tech blog that I wouldn't necessarily consider significant coverage. Even if it did, one article will not satisfy WP:GNG especially since it's about three and a half years old and apparently the only time the product was ever written about. If the subject were notable, you would think it would have gained more than one small piece of coverage over that period of time. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be no evidence anywhere of notability. Certainly, the article itself provides no independent sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 16 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (1–190)

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

Also the following:

List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (191–390)
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (391–590)
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (591–790)
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (791–983)
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (984–1163)
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (1164–1343)
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (1343–1522)
List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (1523–current)

These lists are basically lists of every single issue of this manga and the titles of the chapters/stories/sections within them, they are unsourced except for links to the publishers website to actually buy these, they offer no real world context or content of any sort, and there has been no indication in the last 3 years (2 of which were spent as redirects) that this is going to change. Jac16888 ^Talk 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Good raise 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I agree with the nominator these lists don't serve much purpose especialy for those who don't know Japanese JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIR also redundant to List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo manga volumes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Manga chapters aren't arbitrarily grouped pages in graphic novels of Japanese origin. They are more akin to television episodes. They are published separately in specialized magazines and in case of success released in collected form (tankōbon), just like television episodes may be released on DVD. A manga's chapter titles are equivalent to an anime's episode titles. Readers will expect to find both in the main article of a short series. For longer series, we routinely create spin-out articles called "List of XXX episodes" and "List of XXX chapters" (here a couple hundred examples). For insanely long series (Kochikame (this series) happens to be the longest), we split episode lists into season lists with a "list of seasons" as their parent article. The chapter equivalents to "lists of seasons" we create are "lists of manga volumes". Now, I'd say that ten featured list (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (bolded ones from the same series)) establish quite clearly that the end product of this type of page is desirable Wikipedia content. Content which won't be created via incremental improvement to a page which is already too long to hold chapter titles, transliterations of chapter titles, translations of chapter titles and plot summaries, which has a scope limiting it to the manga volumes and provides no point of entry for inexperienced editors incapable of figuring out how to use that complicated template. Of course we could take the general lack of activity on Kochikame related pages as evidence of the series' low notability and assume that these pages will never amount to anything. On the other hand, it could have something to do with the fact that this series, which happens to be immensely popular in Japan and in continuous production since 1976, has not been released in English. Systemic bias anyone? Good raise 01:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodraise I can see why you want to keep these articles as they very well might be useful to use in the future for other purposes, but looking at "What links here" the only things that lead to these pages are wikipedia's mainspace and userpages, seeing that these lists are not in the mainspace they do count as lists. I would support a Userfy here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, you acknowledge that chapter lists once finished are useful. So the problem you have with these lists is not what's in them, but what's still missing. Right? If so, I don't see how you can still consider them to be in violation of NOTDIR or redundant to the list of volumes. I also don't see the relevance of incoming links. List articles split primarily because of excessive size (as was the case here) rarely get a lot of directly incoming links. Readers (aka. potential editors) navigate to them by following "Main article:" links down the hierarchy from the corresponding series article (which in this case has a plentiful amount of incoming links). As for userfication, that's a total non sequitur. If you think, as it would seem, that chapter titles are desirable Wikipedia content, then the alternative to keeping the articles would be merging them back into the list of volumes (turning it into a list of chapters again). Good raise 02:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG - there are no independent sources. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 16 January 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Res0rt

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

Procedural renom. The nominator of the original AfD requested undeletion after coming to the conclusion some sources do demonstrate notability. Overriding community consensus would be a bad thing, but a closer examination could be well warranted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the source I found. Notability is clearly lower for webcomics than most others (see similar arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlock Mercenary), and for a webcomic to get detailed coverage such as this is clearly a solid argument of notability. Also, this seems entirely superfluous to renominate IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my previous rationale -- worth note that a lot of the argument before was whether or not the sources found previously were "good enough", and TPH has decided that answer is now "yes". Since he was one of the major advocates for having it deleted in the first place, I'd think that's good enough rationale for keeping it now. I don't think this warrants a procedural renomination. Veled (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that 13 people agreed it should be deleted on the last AfD. That TenPoundHammer changed his opinion doesn't mean that their opinion is somehow invalidated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like last afd. A sentence and a quote from the comics creator is not in depth coverage. We comics do not have a special lower level of notability for inclusion. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source TPH links to is not new, it was included in the last discussion. There is nothing new here so this should be speedy deleted as a repost. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:38, 15 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CARBS RFC

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

Tagged for notability for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RU/N. Completely unsourced. noq (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually spend much time defending Welsh rugby union teams on notability grounds, but this team is not notable on any level of WP:RU/N and exactly the sort of article that needs removing. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot see how a studnet Rugby team can be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going to close this per WP:SNOW: it is not conceivable that the sources added by Uncle G can be countered, and at any rate the lack of sources appears to be the only rationale. That is now solved. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tui Delai Gau

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

I declined speedy on this because of the time scale and the former status of the author. The author, not seen since 2009, was an admin and bureaucrat, but with quite a considerable history on their talk page of copyvio problems and AfDs, etc. The reason given for requesting speedy was "There is no any reliable source for this deity. It is possible that there was some confusion about him, because Tui means "chief" in Fijian, so this can be a man, not a god.". I feel discussion is called for. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Knappert, Jan (1992). "Tree God". Pacific mythology: an encyclopedia of myth and legend. Aquarian/Thorsons. p. 305. ISBN 9781855381339.
- Waterhouse, Joseph (1866). "Tui Dela i Gau". The king and people of Fiji. London: University of Hawaiʻi Press. pp. 379–384.
Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's sources. At a first look I was concerned that there was a grave danger of citogenesis here, because the article has been in for ten years and many of the numerous Ghits are later, or undated, and use similar language; but the Google snippet view of the Knappert book, from ~~the same year~~ ten years earlier, ~~shows that it has additional information so was not copied from here~~, and the Waterhouse book confirms that this is not a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly sure that 2002 - 1992 = 10. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Facepalm JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now we know the other spellings of his name. Let this page stay.--Miha (talk) 08:09, 16 January 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Grace Reaves

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

Declining prod since article has been at AFD before. Rationale was " Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR, minor or background roles in credits or roles in non-notable projects. Two sourced mentions are not related to acting and are passing mention of work in creating a kid's fashion line with her notable friend, so not "significant coverage" per WP:GNG either." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orlady's arguments.Delete per nomination. The listed roles fall well short of WP:NACTOR. This is barely disguised marketing for the fashion business. Mcewan (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nothing substantial has changed since the last time it was deleted. Mcewan (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks to me like she's notable, even if she's only 10 or 11 years old. Among her multiple TV and movie appearances, she had a role (I don't know how large) in a successful movie (Hannah Montana); reliable sources have reported on the clothing line that she promotes (and that has her name on it); and Google search results (~782,000 hits, mostly to YouTube and various fansites) suggest that she has a substantial fan base. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are 4 credits at IMDb - an ER episode, the film you mention, a short and a video. For the last 3 she is not on the first page of credits which would indicate a minor part. That's not WP:NACTOR notability. As to the fashion line that she helped design at the age of eight, and the prurient interest from Fox News and the Daily Mail, that's a single event. And Youtube and fansites don't determine notability here. Mcewan (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little patience for pop culture, so I am not a good judge of the significance of things like the sequence of names on IMDB pages. Please excuse my ignorance on that point. Regardless of that ignorance, the Fox News and Daily Mail items constitute reliably sourced coverage of this girl; the judgment that their interest is prurient does not have bearing on her notability -- and her being in a popular movie and promoting a line of clothes are separate events, not a WP:BLP1E situation. WP:NACTOR speaks of "large fan base"; the existence of more than 700,000 ghits on her full name (all three names, in quotes) is suggestive of a large fan base; we don't have to cite all of those pages in order to be able to count them as an indication of something. Some of those hits probably are reliable publications -- I am not familiar with the fan zines that 8-year-old girls read, so I can't tell. --Orlady (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and on reflection I accept the argument that taken all together, notability is established. Vote changed. Mcewan (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has notoriety on the screen and with her fashion line. Several hits on Google along with multiple interviews on Youtube. She indeed passes WP:NACTOR. Tinton5 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasko Boljević

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

Athlete whose accomplishments would pass WP:ATHLETE if they could be verified; but they can't. All facts are cited from the subject's own web page. No relevant links to this name can be found online, and searches of the relevant championship webpages (where the relevant championship can be identified) do not show any record of this competitor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no independent sources and claims appear to be false. According to the International Judo Federation there were no world championship events in 2006 nor is he listed at judoinside.com as ever competing in a national or international event. Finally, the IJF doesn't have an 85 kg division--the cutoffs are at 81 and 90 kg. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, I believe Boljević competes in BJJ, so he may be listed in databases other than IJF or judoinside.com. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because of WikiDan's comment, I checked the IBJJF site. I looked at the world championship results for 2006 and 2007 (including no-gi) and did not find the subject's name listed. I have no idea what championships he claims to have participated in and the article doesn't say. There are also no independent sources in the article. Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 16 January 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 Procedural Close. After I looked at the nominator's edits, and at the history, it seems clear that the nomination is for a redirect - which goes to WP:RFD. I will advise The Banner as to how to proceed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ancient Jedi

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect is causing confusion. Repeated redirecting and restoring of information. All relevant information present in List of Star Wars characters. The Banner talk 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wait a tic, are you saying that List of Star Wars characters (the article you tagged) should be deleted? Or that the redirect List of ancient Jedi should be deleted? Or both? If it's the redirect, you need to head over to Redirects for discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:19, 14 January 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.

Oops... The Banner talk 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Murray School District. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creekside High School (Utah)

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Perhaps as an alternative to deletion (especially given that most high schools are considered notable in and of themselves), merger to Murray School District with a redirect would be in order? In addition, at least one credible reliable source about the school can be found here from the Salt Lake Tribune. Some other information might be found as well, particular about the closure. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Murray School District. It has been closed for a number of years and there is now unlikely to be much new material. However,it is an important part of the District's history and this seems a pragmatic solution. Certainly, deletion is off the agenda. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Murray High School (Utah), where there should be a section on history. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - though most of the students went to Murray High, this school wasn't actually merged into Murray High. In its time this was a District facility so that seems the better merge target. TerriersFan (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per TerriersFan to Murray School District, leaving a redirect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:06, 17 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EVOLUTION AND STATUS OF KALAPAI INDUSTRIES IN MELUR

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

Kalapai appears to be the Tamil word for plow. As such, this article would be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A10 except that it is written in such poor English that it is not immediately obvious that the article really means to talk about the current state of plow-making in a particular village Melur in Tamil Nadu. The article also seems to claim (again, this is uncertain due to the extremely poor English in which it is written) that the concept of an iron plow was unknown in India prior to 1948. However, according to History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent (a well-sourced article if not a definitive source), references to iron plows go back to the Vedic period (1000 - 500 BCE). Clearly, either this article's facts are wrong, or its exposition is so flawed that it cannot properly present the facts it is attempting to present. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is so appallingly written that it is beyond copyediting into sense, and its difficult to see what content actually worth an article would be left.TheLongTone (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better reason for deletion is that the article subject, the influence of one individual on agricultural practise in Tamil Nadu, does not appear to be notable, I can't find any references.TheLongTone (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Somehow this isn't a G1? Yet it's the most incoherent thing I've seen written here, and I remember when User:Danfifepsu still edited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I reserve WP:CSD#G1 for article such as
  adkfaie kd;lka io ; p j;lkj idacda ;lj ecdkl;jqepoi.
  
  This article at least made enough sense to guess that it was about plow-making in Melur (maybe). It's close to the G10 line, but not unambiguously so. I thought a community discussion was more in order. Call me crazy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment G1 does not apply to bad English or machine translations. This is reasonably coherent (compared with some of the stuff I've seen from native English users...), and if thought to have significance could go to WP:PNT to (one hopes) get tidied up. If not so thought, as I feel is quite likely, then deletion would be in order. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:PNT would only be an appropriate solution if the page were actually written in a foreign language that, presumably, some polyglot editor could then translate into English. I don't think there are people at PNT who are expert in translating near gibberish into coherent thought. If we were provided with the foreign language source, that might be a different story, but the author has not graced us with any sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section for bad translations, part translations, tidy-ups required and so on. I've sorted the odd one or two... Not volunteering here, though. Can't see it being worth it. Peridon (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. This appears to be some person's own written history of a particular industry, akin to Ann Dunham's thesis for her Ph.D., Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving and thriving against all odds. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 16 January 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E. David Cook

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, criterion 5 - named chair appointment at a major institution. St Anselm (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having a chair at an institution as notable as Wheaton clearly makes him notable -- not sure why tagged as UK=related. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – response to Peterkingiron, it was listed under UK as according to this that's where he is originally from. If you have any questions on deletion sortings in future best to ask me on my talk page as I can't possibly have all the deletion discussions on my watchlist & only just noticed your message. Best wishes ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 21 January 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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Young (football manager born 1975)

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

Telfordbuck (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No rationale presented by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for deletion due to the fact he hasnt managed or played for a league club, first team. Telfordbuck (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep now there's a rationale for deletion, IF [10] is independent enough (and, by extension, the lower league ones), then he'll pass GNG, due to numerous interviews there. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (obviously as I'm the article creator). The article was never intended to satisfy NFOOTBALL (which it doesn't), but rather GNG, based on a significant and growing number of secondary sources, including several newspapers and BBC Sport. DevaCat (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would strike that second sentance, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, consider it withdrawn DevaCat (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article is close on passing WP:GNG, and with one more good source I would be satisfied that this is a notable topic. I think we should give the article creator more time on improving the article, rather then deleting it. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - appears to just about meet GNG. Should be renamed to Neil Young (footballer born 1975) per standard conventions for managers who previously had a playing career. Giant Snowman 11:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that the article just passes GNG and ye, rename as Snowman said. Govvy (talk) 15:52, 16 January 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 Colerne. Courcelles 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colerne Water Tower

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Colerne There is enough in the article to show this as a local landmark with a history. My personal preference is to keep the article: it fits into the two category structures of "Water towers in the United Kingdom" and "Buildings and structures in Wiltshire" and sits within the gazetteer role of an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colerne. As a local landmark WP should acknowledge its existence, but I doubt it needs its own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Britton

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

WP:GNG - Fails
Article reads like a WP:RESUME (with cut and paste of CV)
Article was started by WP:SPA and heaving edited by similar. PeterWesco (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG LK (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search of google scholar has hits of him. and there are at least a few people out there citing his work. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:21, 7 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 17:48, 14 January 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 Mindless eating. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless Eating Challenge

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

There are no reliable, independent, secondary sources provided that demonstrate notability. At best, redirect to Mindless eating. Illia Connell (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New sources are provided. Including ones from as recently as a week ago.

The program was also published in a leading medical technology journal in the past month.

A number of additional outside sources -- including journalist and blogger coverage from the past week -- has been included. More detail about the results of the program and the broader implications for long term dieting programs and weight loss programs has also been provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimMom (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is its own entry -- and it has been the foundation of a number of other major efforts including research by the National Institutes of Health as well as commercial efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimMom (talk • contribs) 20:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Mindless eating. There is some coverage of this topic, but there may not be quite enough to qualify a standalone article on Wikipedia. Source searching is providing one short article and mentions. Examples include [11] (short article), [12] (mentions), [13] (mention), [14] (in Spanish) (mention), etc. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:12, 7 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 14 January 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 per unanimous consensus and the significant improvement of the article by Paul Erik. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SALT (quartet)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unimproved over 3 years since no-consensus keep. Not unlike Touché (quartet)Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG. More than half the references in this 2 sentence article are primary ones or to message boards. RadioFan (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The result of the first AfD was keep, with no consensus for deletion. No one questioned its notability for three years. Winning/placing in a major music competition is a criterion (No. 9) for notability, per WP:MUSIC. Contest host Sweet Adelines International is one of the largest singing organizations for women, as now included and sourced in the (expanded) article. Offensive "board" references removed. —ADavidB 19:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notability of that competition has been questioned and the consensus of a nearly identical AFD was that the competition does not help it meet WP:MUSIC.--RadioFan (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:02, 7 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I was able to expand the article a little based on an article in the magazine Pitch Perfect which I think helps towards WP:GNG notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:13, 14 January 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. Courcelles 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Records

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG. Unreferenced for six and a half years now. Proposed deletion contested by new account created today, whose sole edits so far have been to revert nine proposed deletions. Altered Walter (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree as one of the nominators. GregorB (talk) 14:01, 7 January 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) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:WEB at this time. Gong show 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is transcluded twice in the AfD page for this date. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, thanks. I've removed the duplicate re-listing, which was made just a few minutes after the first one - must have been an edit conflict. Altered Walter (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 20:21, 18 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franziska Wassmann

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

Being the last person on a list of over 1,200 people is not a reason for notability. Of the three sources, the first is a trivial mention, the second is a passing mention for the sake of a joke, and the third is a Wikipedia article, which is not allowed as a source. Howicus (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The wikilink is a difficult call. On one hand it would be better in an external link section, but on the other hand it is an internal link, a diff of the page cited, from 2007, before the page was trimmed and proves that it did exist at one time.--Auric talk 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how she qualifies as notable. Being mentioned in a Cracked article on trivia isn't grounds for notability, even if Cracked didn't publish everybody's nonsense with little or no fact-checking. If she doesn't even merit a place on the list of heirs to the throne, then delete. (I don't think even a merge to criticism of Wikipedia is called for.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is in reality no credible source at all for the claim made in the article. Therefore not a notable person. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is notable. The problem is that the dilution of notability is such that she actually ends up being not notable at all.--Auric talk 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so do you think she is notable or not? Howicus (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in that she is related to royalty, via the House of Reuss. Not notable is that she is the descendant of a composer. Not to mention that the German monarchy was eliminated in 1918. --Auric talk 12:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 1,269th person in line to a throne is not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot believe that any person with 50 people between them and a throne is notable;let alone over 1250. NN unless notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony Bradbury. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:06, 21 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of recipes

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

Obsolete-seeming article that began in 2001 as "Please put add any recipes you add to Wikipedia to this list." - the current article is just an arbitrary-seeming list of links to food articles (few if any of which contain full recipes) with occasional dead or inexhaustive links to Wikibooks. It's pretty much just grouped by nationality (it had a couple of unrelated categories for Forme of Cury and hash brownies before I tried to tidy up the article a couple of days ago), and this ground is already well covered by the Global cuisine article. McGeddon (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY and nom JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. There's nothing that isn't covered in these: Template:Lists of prepared foods. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being too broad per WP:SALAT, and because Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost completely unmaintainable as a discrete, summary style list or encyclopedia article. Way too broad. Actually rather well-covered by Outline of cuisines. Steven Walling • talk 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The categories of the articles in the list provide an automatically maintained list. jmcw (talk) 12:16, 20 January 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 nonnotable web content. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC dance party

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

Article lacks references and is clearly not notable. Suggest the article be speedily deleted, however an IP address, presumably that of the author removed the tag YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 16:07, 14 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanasak Srisai

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a possibility he may have played one professional game, but that's hard to prove (it's not a coherent answer in the source, and nowhere else backs it up) - but let's be honest, he fails GNG by a mile and thus isn't worthy of an article yet. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who ~~hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY. Also~~ fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he passes WP:NFOOTY, but the article should still be deleted for failing WP:GNG per Paul_012. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - this is a tough one, as many of the sources available don't confirm any first team appearances. However, this source indicates he's made six appearances in the Thai Premier League (and scored a couple of goals), and this match report on a rival team's website confirms at least one of those appearances; this league is listed as a fully professional league meaning that he would pass WP:NFOOTBALL. I don't know if he passes the general notability guideline too - the only sources on the article right now are a stats page and a very brief news article which on their own wouldn't be enough to pass that guideline. I found one or two news reports in Thai but I doubt they would be enough to confer notability either. So, it's a keep !vote from me on the basis that he just about passes a specific guideline, but a weak one due to a lack of available sources. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first linked source doesn't indicate six appearances. It says he played in the 2012 and 2011 seasons wearing number 3. He's played in several matches; these reports are from some of them in 2012.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like you're right - the word "เบอร์เสื้อ" translates as "shirt". However, it looks like the second column shows the number of goals scored in that season.★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 10:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete (see comments below) - Not sure where Lukeno94 is "getting the fails GRG by a mile" thing from, googling his name in Thai brings back nearly 90,000 results. Now I don't speak Thai, but a lot of the web addresses look like news sites and other football related sites. I can't comment on the reliability of them all, but there is no way someone without knowledge of Thai can claim without justification that a player who's native name is not written in roman script clearly fails GNG. As it has been shown that he has played multiple times in a fully professional league, the number of sources clearly related to football that a google search of his Thai name bring back would suggest to me that he does in all probability fulfill WP:GNG, if only we had a Thai speaker to confirm. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remind me where ghits was remotely a reliable test for notability? Especially as you don't have any knowledge of Thai, so we have no idea what they are. Take a random Evesham United F.C. player without an article, Jake Meredith. He has 7.2 million ghits. And still fails WP:GNG. Your argument doesn't convince me in the slightest, but the others showing him to have played matches do - so I'm changing my vote to Keep. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't and that's not my point. My point is that you don't speak Thai (and neither does anyone else in this thread) so blunt comments like "fails GNG" are not valid, because you cannot tell. The reason you can tell with Jake Meredith is because you speak English. To narrow the search, here are 2,000 ghits for a search for "Tanasak Srisai" and Buriram United FC. Could you please tell me what any of these sources are about? No, you can't. Neither you, nor anyone else in this discussion are able to make any comment about the reliability of these potential sources. No claim of "fails GNG" so far has any validity, because there is no one in the discussion including myself who haseven the vaguest ability to read the language that majority of sources would be in. This is not to say that the article should stay or go, merely to observe the point that there is no merit in any of the points that have been made here. My view is that there is every chance that the player achieves GNG, we just can't tell and we should take it on good faith until shown otherwise. Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, you can't just guess at an article passing GNG and vote keep. If it cannot be proven that it passes GNG, then delete is the answer. Also, see the comment below me. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read Thai, and as with Yosapol Tiangda (also at AfD), couldn't find what I consider to be in-depth coverage in the first few pages of Google results. There are many news reports, mostly covering club movements and team arrangements. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to make that clear in the other discussion then as though he might have played a few games, you seem to be saying that even in Thai he seems to fail GNG, I have adjusted my !vote accordingly. Fenix down (talk) 15:43, 18 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yosapol Tiangda

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL by a mile. Remake if he does become notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who ~~hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY.~~ Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per everyone else - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not providing any coverage in reliable sources. As such, the subject does not meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not going to !vote since I'm not familiar with the specific guidelines, but I'd like to point out that some of the above "delete" !votes may have been rather premature. The subject has played multiple games for Buriram United.[23][24] He will also be on the national team for the King's Cup next week.[25] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the playing in the King's Cup count as a full international appearance? It appears to be a friendly tournament (sometimes involving League XIs and youth teams), whereas the specific guideline calls for appearance in a FIFA-sanctioned senior tournament. On the other hand, the links you've provided prove that he has played in a fully professional league, which satisfies the other specific criteria. In that case, I'm striking my vote. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 10:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the subject has played in the Thai Premier League, which is listed as a fully professional league and therefore meets the specific guideline for footballers. However, I'm not sure if there are sources available which would meet the general notability guideline, hence the Weak !vote. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 10:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Delete - could someone please provide a translation for the Thai, I can see the players name is mentioned, but am not sure of the context. Maybe it is my browser but I cannot copy/paste the text on those pages. Is there any proof he actually played. Regardless, the fact that his name brings back precisely 49 Ghits including WP, suggests that he probably fails WP:GNG, particularly since a lot of these articles deal with the upcoming King's come and give specific mention to the fact that a number of people have been rested including their goalkeeper (and I assume as he is the third mentioned keeper, he is the third choice keeper as it is not in alphabetical order). He does seem pretty close to qualifying and seems he will have an article in the future, but not just atthe moment. Fenix down (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed my mind based on my comment here. Player has played in a fully professional league and his name pulls back over 40,000 google hits when entered in Thai script. I would prefer to err on the side of caution and note that quite few of the links seem to be football related and as such are probably reliable sources for attaining WP:GNG. I am a little concerned that there are a lot of blunt "delete" comments when there does not seem to be anyone here who can speak Thai and is genuinely capable of commenting on WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He's contracted to a Thai Premier League club. However, can either of the two people whom have voted Keep verify that he has actually played a game for this club? In my search, he hadn't. This is why I voted delete, and I stick with that vote at present. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Match reports appear to have been supplied above. The name of the player in Thai script is clearly seen in each one.Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] The first two links I posted above, as well as these two,[26][27] are match reports which describe him playing. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on assertions he has indeed played in a fully-pro league. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There does seem to be an indication here from Paul012, who reads Thai that this player fails GNG due to lack of reliable sources even in Thai. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved from above to make more visible] I speak Thai, and having looked through the first few pages of Google results, haven't found what I consider to be in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. There are database websites noting basic information (age, weight & height) but the news articles mentioning him are brief. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I'm not sure how the guidelines should be implemented in the case where a player passes WP:NFOOTY but fails WP:GNG. There are a whole lot of articles on such Thai football players, though. If this ends up deleted then the whole Category:Thai football biography stubs will probably need to be checked. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of these sorts of articles fail GNG, but if it passes NFOOTBALL, then it should be kept. It's been established that it does pass that. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeno94 - WP:NSPORTS (which NFOOTBALL is a part of) states "Please note that ... the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." and that "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." This means that all footballers that has played in the Thai Premier League (or any fully pro league), but fails WP:GNG, should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 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. Delete all ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 European Golden Shoe

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

Unnecessary content fork from European Golden Shoe. This magazine-voted award is not the topic of multiple independent resources and the important information (winner and number of goals) exists at the parent article. Note that this nomination extends to all season articles of the aforementioned award; a total of seven related articles for deletion. C 679 14:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as indicated above:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, no evidence of independent notability for these forks. Giant Snowman 09:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - while the award in itself has received coverage in multiple independent sources, that is not the case for the yearly articles and those should be deleted or redirected to the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - It's not that notable. -Koppapa (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As above. Kante4 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 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 and renaming to 100-nengo Wifione ^Message 13:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100年後

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ogre You Asshole#Discography per WP:NALBUMS. I couldn't find any coverage of the album online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per Michitaro's sources. Nice job on finding those - my Japanese Google-fu obviously still isn't up to scratch. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might need to search with both the artist and album name to get any relevant results. The term "100年後" means "100 years later" in Chinese/Japanese. A quick Google search throws up this and this, though I'm not quite sure how reliable the articles are. Maybe someone fluent in Japanese could take a look at it. Funny ^Pika 15:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article survives, it has to be retitled per MOS. I'll do some more searching, but this album did chart in Japan (#47 on Oricon). Michitaro (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After more searching, I found a number more articles on the album and the tour supporting the album, such as [28] and [29], including some on major sources like Yahoo Japan: [30]. There were also a number of reviews of the album: [31], [32], etc. Combined with the charting and what FunnyPika found, I believe this passes WP:NALBUMS. Michitaro (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per WP:MOS. Has received coverage, including reviews, by reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then rename to 100 Nian Hou per WP:UE Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is Japanese, it should be "100-nengo" (as in [33]). Whether the "n" should be capitalized is debatable. Michitaro (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to go with "100-nen-go" because 年後 seems like two suffixes joined together. I wouldn't capitalise either, but as Michitaro says, it's debatable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went with "100-nengo" because that is Library of Congress romanization (as evident from the citation I gave). There are of course other romanization schemes, and WP:J-MOS has not determined that LC style is house style, but that's another discussion. Michitaro (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not 100% sure on the notability of the album, but it appears that some was established (add it to the article guys!). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:20, 20 January 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. Wifione ^Message 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flower punctuation mark

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

See also WT: Noticeboard for India-related topics #Flower punctuation mark ⁕. Apparently not notable enough. Even it is notable, then a red link is better than a stub based on yet another piece of Unicode Consortium's trash. When I contacted the author (off-wiki), he replied that the only source was a chart from unicode.org. Unicode’s list of characters is notorious for its incompetence, especially on names of characters. I propose to delete the stub and make ⁕ a disambiguation between General Punctuation (currently a redirect, but may eventually become an article about the Unicode block), Flower, and Red Hot Chili Peppers who uses this symbols as their logo. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for some reason the nominator listed AfD another AfD - I have now logged it properly. Giant Snowman 11:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have also notified the article creator. Giant Snowman 12:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because no source has been provided to verify the information, which seems to be in question. I also wonder if WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary would include punctuation marks in other languages. BigJim707 (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let you wonder. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"phul" (more properly फूल) is simply Hindi for "flower", and "puspika" (पुष्पिका) is simply Nepali for "flower". It's fairly easy to turn up grammars and other sources that tell one outright that Bengali gets most of its punctuation from English, and that before the influx of English punctuation marks, which most attribute to Vidyasagar (although some state that it wasn't all his doing), Bengali had just two punctuation marks (danda and double-danda). This mark is neither of those. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Agree with Uncle G on this; there appears to be no flower punctuation in the Assamese and Bangla languages; the danda (or dadi) and doubled versions seem to be the only traditional punctuation and modern punctuation is derived from European languages. There do exist Unicode flower symbols, for instance 'FLOWER' (U+2698) and 'FLOWER PUNCTUATION MARK' (U+2055); the latter is presumably what is meant here. Update: There is a page listing star glyphs that looks like a good candidate for merging this symbol. Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above. I also agree with Mark viking that a small blurb about the character itself (not its supposed South Asian usage) on the Star (glyph) page would also be appropriate. Bensci54 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge for reasons listed above. It looks similar to an asterisk, which sometimes appears in Indic publications, but that is an artifact of European typography and the "flower" is not an Indic mark that I am familiar with. Has anyone presented a scan showing an example of its use? I was able to locate a discussion of a mark referred to as "flower" by the Vedic Extensions working group for Unicode on page 2 of their notes at [[34]]. That group noted that the mark was in the general punctuation category of Unicode and so they set it aside for Vedic standardization. The committee must have thought it had some relevance as a Vedic mark because those minutes report "The symbol flower 0974 in N3235 was removed from the revised proposal N3290 because a flower symbol is included as U+2055 in the General Punctuation page [2000-206F] of the Unicode Standard." In another Vedic marks working group paper [[35]] there is a mention that "There are many decorative flower symbols used as fillers. There seems to be a need to define some separate area for decorative symbols such as Flower 0974." That suggests they considered the mark to be decorative in nature, not a form of punctuation. The group did propose standardizing U+1CF1 as a mark called "VAIDIKA PUSHPIKA" but the mark does not have a symmetrical star shape. The final version put this mark as "DEVANAGARI SIGN PUSHPIKA" AT U+A8F8 with a usage note that it is often used as a placeholder or filler, often flanked by double dandas. [36]. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:38, 15 January 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 EMBnet. Sandstein 11:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EMBnet.journal

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

No evidence of notability: No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Article dePRODded by anonymous IP, without explanation. In the absence of sources: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Randykitty started the discussion to delete the entry of EMBnet.Journal. I do not agree that one user alone has the authority to delete an entry related to the journal published by the oldest bioinformatics organisation (est 1988) created by EMBO in the first years of the disciple that today we call Bioinformatics. This journal is following the most strict philosophy of Open Access and strict rules of peer review. To vote for deleting an Open Access journal because it does not pay to Elsevier indexing services is a contradiction in the rules and a contradiction with the Wikipedia philosophy of Open Access. [EMBnet.journal]] has a huge reader community in many continents where Universities cannot afford paying for the expensive subscription methods used by more traditional publishers. I think that Randykitty can be very alone in the opinion of deleting this entry if we take in account the opinion of the big reader community that this journal has. I vote for Keep. Leifuria 14 January 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Leifuria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please read WP:AFD: no user alone has the authority to delete an entry, the community will decide. Also note that to be included in databases is free for any qualifying journal, I don't know of any respectable indexing service that charges journals to cover them (this includes Scopus and the Science Citation Index). Things may be different for services that provide access to journals, of course, as they are basically re-sellers. That the journal is published by a possibly notable organization is interesting, but notability is not inherited. Being open access is certainly not justification alone for having an article here (note that there exist nowadays many so-called "predatory" OA journals, trying to make a fast buck; of course I am not implying that this is the case here). If this journal has indeed such a huge reader base, then certainly there exist independent reliable sources that establish notability. If you know of any such sources, please add them to the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. But in the absence of such evidence, I maintain my opinion that this rather new journal is not notable and that, at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The EMBnet.journal is not a new journal, it has a very long tradition. It is the successor of EMBnet.news magazine, published by EMBnet and which first issue was released in the far 1994. From 1994 to 2009 EMBnet.news published 44 issues giving voice and visibility to the most advanced bioinformatics laboratories in Europe and responding to the need of hundreds of researchers who needed support for both the development of their own bioinformatics infrastructures and best practice in the field. The decision to move forward a peer-reviewed edition was taken in 2009 because of the growing interest in the journal from outside the EMBnet community. Publication in the EMBnet.journal is free of charge and is carried out by few people working for free and hardly in the name of the EMBnet community, which is spread all over the world and that strongly believes in the value of cooperation and collaboration for research advance. The EMBnet.journal has a big community of users who benefit of its publication, the presence or the absence of EMBnet.journal in Wikipedia will not change much in the life and success of the Journal but for sure will change most in the opinion of many people on what is the true meaning of open access and democratic research. ~~I vote for keep.~~ --Domenica999 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote for keep. --Domenica999 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Domenica999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The journals website has more than 17000 visits per year - which is not an irrelevant presenze as a specialised journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea62 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Andrea62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Howicus (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. For this article to be kept, more sources would need to be found. Howicus (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Howicus and Randykitty, you cannot have deep and/or long knowledge about the European and Global Bioinformatics community. EMBnet.journal is the continuation of EMBnet.news the official journal of EMBnet. In EMBnet.news, a very specialized magazine for informaticians in the field of Biology, many of the first bioinformatics tools and databases were for the first time presented, more notability in the area of Bioinformatics is difficult to achieve. In the 90´s the first articles published around new bioinformatics tools and databases were published on Meeting Proceedings and online systems. EMBnet.news was created to fill in a need in the young bioinformatics community. Most leading bioinformaticians in Europe have published in EMBnet.news: just to give a list: ftp://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/embnet.news/ here you can dig into Bioinformatics History. Some of the most used databases and tools today (EMBL-database (nucleotides), SwissProt (proteins), ClustalW (multiple alignment), EMBOSS (Classic collection of bioinformatics tools)) were once announced in EMBnet.news. I think that some more people will soon provide you with more information, but please take your time and read the issues of the journal (1994-2012) before voting delete. 14 January 2013 Leifuria (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some articles in EMBnet.news are cited more than 400 times, Some examples:

(1997) GeneDoc: analysis and visualization of genetic variation, KB Nicholas, HB Nicholas Jr, DW Deerfield - EMBNET news, 2009 EMBnet.journal as its continuation has already articles cited more than 20 times: Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads, M Martin - EMBnet. journal, 2011 - journal.embnet.org The extensive citation record to EMBnet.news and EMBnet.journal is proof enough of the journals notability and importance for the Life Sciences community. Leifuria (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a secondary ref from a reliable publisher in the field. The main question in my mind is whether EMBnet.journal is different enough from EMBnet.news to be considered a new journal. If so, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON unless we can find another secondary source. If it isn't a new journal, then EMBnet.news does have a lot of history behind it and secondary sources such as [37] and [38]; in this case, the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leifuria, I could now start this comment by saying "you cannot have deep and/or long knowledge about Wikipedia", but don't you think that such would perhaps be counterproductive? Howicus and I are not here to somehow destroy worthy things, we're here to build an encyclopedia (have a look at AGF). And you shouldn't judge people by their pseudonyms here either: for all you know, we're well-established European bioinformaticians... So, to explain WP a bit: "notable" in the WP sense has nothing to do with "worthy", "valuable', "good" or "bad". It simply means that something has been noted. And that has to be established by independent reliable sources. Thus, there is no need to "read the issues of the journal" and arrive at a totally subjective judgment about its contents. Just a few good sources will be sufficient. Whether I, or anybody else, thinks this is an important publication or not is completely immaterial. As for the citation data that you mention: citation analysis is tricky. Even assuming for the moment that EMBnet.journal could inherit its notability from EMBnet.news, a search on the Web of Science (less sensitive to false positives than GS) indicates that only 83 items have been cited one or more times, which is not a very impressive number. On a more general note to the different SPA (single-purpose account) editors popping up here: AFD is not a vote. The outcome of this discussion will not be decided by counting votes but by evaluating policy-based arguments. Hope this explains this process ale to be fou bit and will help you navigate WP. --Randykitty (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 3 apparent SPAs concern me greatly. Especially as all 3 have suddenly come out of the woodwork after months, or more, of not editing to vote here. The number of visits each year is not evidence for notability. A lot of these so-called "citing articles" don't, on the face of it, appear to have anything to do with this journal, and if they do, they're not all exactly WP:RS. Also, I'm pretty sure that arguing the journal is notable for having notable editors fails WP:INHERIT, as does any links between EMBnet.news and EMBnet.journal. I have not, however, searched for sources myself, and as such, won't vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, Lukeno94, I can undertand your concern, but this entry was created 6 months ago without anyone reacting. It was only when one week ago the page started an upgrade to follow the Wikipedia format that Randykitty reacted against. Randykitty started his/her work with Wikipedia articles just two months ago, Howicus history in Wikipedia is mostly related to deletion of pages. Some users are very focused to a few articles of their expertise and do not see themselves as experts in all areas of Wikipedia therefore the activity is related to subjects that are of their expertise, which is good for Wikipedia. Leifuria (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The length of time an article has been at Wikipedia is irrelevant - I've seen articles that are several years old get deleted in their first AfD. Randykitty's (perceived) inexperience is also not a valid reason for arguing against the AfD - 2 months is more than enough to familiarize yourself with the basics of WP:GNG. I've now run a quick Google search myself, and all I can find is a few blog sites, forum posts, direct links and primary sources. Nothing that satisfies GNG, which asks for non-trivial, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thus, I will vote Merge to EMBnet - outright deletion here is not the right procedure, but this stubby article can easily be included in the main EMBnet article. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Thinking about it, EMBnet.journal is more than just a name change, the publishing model greatly changed as well, so it can't really be thought of as the same journal. EMBnet.journal is verifiable and has at least one secondary reference, as noted in my comment above. While it may fall below threshold for notability, it is a good candidate for merging to EMBnet. As a relatively new journal, this topic has WP:POTENTIAL; anyone recommending delete rather than merge should justify why deletion is necessary, as merge is the preferred action for such topics. Mark viking (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with EMBnet. Article subject doesn't meet WP:NJournals at this time, doesn't appear to be properly indexed by Scopus (searching there throws up two articles, one with 11 citations) or Web of Knowledge Jebus989 ^✰ 14:24, 18 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Berlanga

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This page has been deleted before under same circumstances. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 - I have tagged the article and will let another admin decide. Nothing has changed, this article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've declined the request for speedy deletion because in my opinion the article is not substantially the same as the previous article, but I agree that this article still fails to demonstrate notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and NSPORT at present, but remake if he does become notable - which could be soon. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if one of the criteria is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 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. - filelake shoe  13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalija Ugrina

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

As of Jan 2013, this actress has only appear in one film as a supporting actor, judging by the placement of her name on the imdb article on it, hence the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Article also lacks references to substantiate her position as a notable figure. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 10:05, 14 January 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 January 14. Snotbot t • c » 10:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are insufficient credits for WP:NACTOR. Mcewan (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her only film, for which she is way way down the list of credits, is still in post-production for Pete's sake. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 16 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TEN Music Group

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

The group has notability as per it is founded by a notable person but the notability was not inherited per WP:INHERIT. This article may also be speedy-deleted as I see because it really have no significance. But because of its founder and it is associated with other companies. Mediran (t • c) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above was refering to this since removed contribution. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: - This is not promotion, these are facts about one of swedens foremost independent music companies. Please do not delete, feel free to proofread. Sam.malmaci (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently fails to support such a claim. --No unique names 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would seem to absolutely fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Begging for mercy doesn't really help - you need to tell your employers that Wikipedia has specific criteria to determine what should be included in this encyclopaedia and that at the moment, their company does not meet those criteria. Primary among them is Wikipedia's general notability guideline which requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Facts and claims also need to be verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or a guide to music companies and whether the article is written from a neutral point of view or not, Wikipedia is still not the place to raise awareness of or advertise for your company. If you want the article to be kept then you will need to demonstrate that the company is notable. Beyond that, editing with a very obvious conflict of interest is always strongly discouraged. So even if the company were notable, the article itself should really be written by neutral editors who are not employees of the company itself. Stalwart111 23:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails even GNG --No unique names 16:50, 16 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wood

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

Promotional piece by articles agent. Lacks assertion of notability satisfying WP:ENT or WP:BIO. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary, press releases, imdb, listings and variations of this article. None are relible sources that provide any level of independent coverage about Wood. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of info out there for Josh Wood, just not this one. Delete per nom. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-significant roles as actor and non-notable films as producer. Fails GNG, NACTOR and all the related guidelines. At best, WP:TOOSOON Cavarrone (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution from two now-blocked sock-puppets.

Keep as notable person in the film industry, significant role as a film producer and quite significant role as an Productions Executive in New Line Cinema, I am the only one here relying on sources. Josh Wood has been involved in 14 worldwide noticeable film projects including The Hobbit: There and Back Again (2014); The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013); The Conjuring (2013); Jack the Giant Slayer (2013); The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012); Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012); New Year's Eve (2011); Horrible Bosses (2011); Valentine's Day (2010); The Final Destination (2009); Appaloosa (2008); Hairspray (2007); Final Destination 3 (2006).

The article has been on Wikipedia for years, after correcting/adding references all of the sudden it was considered for deletion. The main reference is IMDb and IMDb Pro which shows significance of the person and the notability of facts through many 3rd party websites. Studio executives don't get as much attention as actors working on films, that's a fact. So, far no one here really about filmmaking industry.

"If the person was not significant he would never be published in the Getty Images with BAFTA winning actress Helena Bonham Carter. --AllisonID (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:AllisonID showed up just yesterday and every one of her posts have concerned Josh Wood. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMdB is a user edited site and as such not WP:RS. Does nothing to show notability. Having your picture taken with someone notable does not make you notable either. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gtwfan52 Note that before any credits posted on IMDb page is being verified through out by the IMDb staff. Second of all Getty Images is one of the main notable sources in the world. It was not self taken photograph and it was not self credited nor self edited. --AllisonID (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allison, that is not my opinion, it is in WP:RS. IMbD is not considered a reliable reference by Wikipedia. You have no argument for that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gtwfan52 I am new in Wikipedia but I decided to contribute yesterday by adding/corrected links to improve the article not get it deleted. If IMDb was not a source on Wikipedia I think it wouldnt be quoted all over the Wikipedia on entertainment articles. --AllisonID (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

User:Gtwfan52 Many other international articles are not self edited. However administrators ignore all the sources by trying to prove their side of view. That is not neutral. Why are you trying to delete this article so bad? The article has been here for years. I just added citations and it made you all want to get it out of Wikipedia badly. --AllisonID (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

IMDB can be used to source certain "facts", but can not be used to establish notability because they are not professionally vetted and include virtually everything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gtwfan52 Exactly! But you are not accepting any fact at all. And you seem want to get rid of the article rather than having any other issues. --AllisonID (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Notability established through many other international articles. If you dont understand some of the articles, you can use Google translate which translates whole page at the click --AllisonID (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

User:Gtwfan52 The sources are published on the article. Even BBC is not reliable source as anyone can tell lies and that can be published on their channel, website and other media quickly picks it up. It was a big scandal in the UK about notability of such a large media corporation. (refer to the case of Jimmy Savile when the accused man was not even involved in the case) and after that BBC faced the large criticism from the public and the government. This clearly means that there are no NOTABLE sources except documentaly proven facts. In this case the ENTIRE Wikipedia can be wiped off as all of the articles lacking the actual NOTABLE and reliable sources. --AllisonID (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep as significant person. Agree with Allison. You have to be significant person to be at the Golden Globe Awards, attend Moscow Film Festival, BFI London Film Festival, to attend BAFTA Film Awards.--RachelKart (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — RachelKart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The best source we have is IMDb and the credits in there are not enough for WP:NACTOR. Mcewan (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 18:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Contribution from now-blocked sock-puppet.

Keep The article being attacked. IMDb and other international sources standing strong for the significance and importance of the person. The article has been on Wikipedia for more than 2 years and now being attacked and administrators have strong desire to get rid of the article. Other articles about actors and producers must be deleted as well as their sources are not notable nor reliable at all. Anyone can say anything to the journalists but that is not a prove of the fact nor it's notability! IMDb is reliable source worldwide. If you could easily submit information on IMDb without confirmation check run by the staff, I think everyone would have an IMdb page like we all do have a facebook page. --EmilyGlat (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article keep being vandalized! --EmilyGlat (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — EmilyGlat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

More like this AfD keeps getting vandalized by SPAs. He hasn't directed a notable film, and nor has he had a major role in one. Thus, he fails WP:NACTOR. IMDb is a long, long way from passing WP:RS. As for my search for sources: [39] appears to be someone else, as does this [40], and the majority of sources I can find are on this person. So this Josh Wood fails WP:GNG as well. In fact, to be honest, I would almost suggest nuking this article, and rewriting it about the hairdresser, whom actually appears to be notable! (there are also multiple mentions of him in styling articles online, and the like, such as [41], [42] as two examples) Delete this current article certainly. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has a snowball's chance of being kept. The subject is clearly not notable and the desperate sock-spam here is hilarious. AFDs are not decided on the basis of "votes" so registering multiple accounts to vote multiple times is a complete waste of time, especially if none of your alternate accounts are going to make policy-based arguments. Stalwart111 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd suggest salt too.~~ Repeated recreation. Joshua Wood, Josh Wood (I), Josh Wood*. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, except the hairdresser I found with this name might pass WP:GNG! Lukeno94 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Oh the irony! ~~Agree with salting~~ (though Josh Wood (hairdresser) could be created). I see the subject's company was co-nom'd here (but not linked?), I have now formally AFD'd it on its own - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wood Productions (3rd nomination). Cheers, Stalwart111 10:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is ironic, your suggestion does violate naming policies however! When I originally looked at this, the company hadn't been nominated, unless I wasn't paying attention properly (wouldn't be the first time!) Lukeno94 (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concede it does, yes. We'll need to work that out if you genuinely think the other Josh Wood is notable - then watch it like hawks to ensure it doesn't get reverted back to this one. Yeah, not sure when the co-nom note was added but it doesn't matter - it's up now. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm more than willing to have a discussion on a talk page or here. I can tell he passes BLP1E as the Telegraph article is about his new salon, and the Independent one is an interview with him. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have started a thread on your talk page on that basis. Stalwart111 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is here for anyone who wants to join in. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The co-nomination was not part of the original afd (the second article was under duiscussion at DRV). It was quietly slipped in here. After significant discusion and without notice. I've now removed it as an inapropriate addition. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second article was not under discussion at DRV or else I would have not added it. It was an obvious addition as it was effectively an extension of this article (similar to adding articles about a band's albums when their article is under AfD). Still, it's got its own AfD now, so it doesn't really matter. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my statement, The article was at DRV when I nominated it for deletion. I did not intend to infer that it was still at DRV when it was added by Black Kite. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of salt replace this with an article on the hairdresser. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG Go Phightins! 20:59, 15 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Owen

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and references consist of brief mentions in trade publications and websites of subject's company. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom., no credible establishment of notability: Sovereign Capital, the company he works for is a pretty shaky article as well.TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heavily weighted in primary sources with no WP:RS. At such a time with out introduction of such it should be deleted under BLP. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 19 January 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 Haynes International. Courcelles 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimet

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

No special reason for claiming notability identified. All references are the company's own. Fails notability guidelines. Reads like an advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with article Hastelloy as well) to Haynes International): search Google Books, and you will find many independent references, but nothing indicating independent notability. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there are 337 results at Google Scholar, all of which seem to be about the subject. Hastelloy gets many more results, but Hastelloy is a series of alloys, while Ultimet is one alloy. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 01:20, 8 January 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, MJ94 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 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 January 14. Snotbot t • c » 05:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haynes International. I have merged Ultimet and Hastelloy in to Haynes International. Please consider merging WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. -—Kvng 20:56, 20 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rule zero

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

Article isn't encyclopedic, rather, it is more like an urbandictionary definition. Bensci54 (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced urban unsense, like the author's additions to the Dilbert and the Peter principles. The urban dictionary more than covers what needs to be said on the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact a properly verifiable Rule Zero. It was prepended to Codd's 12 rules by Edgar F. Codd in Codd 1990, p. 16–17 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCodd1990 (help). If there's nothing left after the unverifiable nonsense and stuff sourced to a book self-published via Lulu is excised, I suggest a redirect to Codd's 12 rules. Yes, I realize that our article doesn't even mention that RM/V2 had 333 rules, or that Rule Zero was an addition to the original twelve rules from 1985, or really explain any of the history adequately. Anyone reading this should feel free to take the three sources that I've just added to the article, or indeed any of the many more that exist that I didn't, in hand and make it better explain all this, if only for the benefit of the people on the talk page who have been wondering why there are thirteen rules since 2004. ☺
- Codd, Edgar F. (1990). The relational model for database management: Version 2. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 9780201141924.
Uncle G (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation of specific articles. There are a few sources there for specific contexts, but that's not really what you want for an article (unless the article is a list, which this clearly doesn't qualify for.) But split out, these topics are too narrow to stand alone, though I honestly don't know where you might merge/redirect them. In role-playing games discussion, Rule Zero is actually cited pretty often, but I'm surprised the author actually came up with some references. - Sangrolu (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. KEEP. Do not Delete. Article describes useful alternative definitions of a frequently-used term. It may be worth adding material from Codd, or linking to Codd. EMScatt (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMScatt (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument, and that WP:NOTDICT says Wikipedia is not for definitions of terms, frequently-used or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable trivia with no reliable source. Mcewan (talk) 16:05, 19 January 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. (NAC) Till 12:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife Sessions

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

Subject lacks notability and is not supported by any references. As indicated in the prose, it's merely a web series hosted by Youtube and Vimeo. On Vimeo, their introduction video has only received three views, which reaffirms the fact this web series is not notable. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 05:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm working extremely hard to get this page up and running, please make my day and quit giving me so much trouble. It exists, an original idea, and a passionate crew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afterlifesessions (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I admire your attempt to start a video project, Wikipedia is not the correct place to promote it as it fails to meet WP:Notability and isn't supported by reliable reference. Once your web series meets Wikipedia's guidelines, feel free to create an article. Also I'm not disputing the existence of your web series. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 05:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - the article has now been blanked by the original author; presumably an acceptance that the article failed our notability guidelines as explained above. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:PROMO your latest project. Stalwart111 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Article was speedy deleted (for the second time). --Drm310 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 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. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preston King (academic)

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

Non-notable person, only notable subjects is his father and his children. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professor King is a noted political theorist, who has held various professorships around the world. He's in the Georgia Encyclopedia [43]. He's in Debrett's [44]. He's in Gale Contemporary Black Biography [45]. He's in this Encyclopedia (whatever it's called) [46]. The 2000 pardon received a lot of national level press coverage in the USA; [47] [48] [49]. The notable relatives add to the already established notability. There is an important story to tell about his exile as well. Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has basically admitted that he nominated this incorrectly and wants to close this silly deletion attempt [50] Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an incorrect reading. What he actually said is that he is unwilling to withdraw the nomination until the subject's notability has been justified, by adding appropriate information to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? He's admitted the subject is notable (as evidenced by the links given in the article) and that he should withdraw the nomination. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay now you're just being immature. I told you there was potential for the article to assert why he's notable if you just fix it up, but instead I guess you just want to put words in my mouth instead of actually doing anything about it. So I'll reiterate myself, fix the article and assert his notability or it may be deleted! Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 22:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are enough in-depth sources on him to pass WP:GNG. I did some cleanups to the article, enough I think to demonstrate notability — it still needs a lot more, and Barney Barney Barney's stubbornness in insisting that it's ok as it is isn't helpful, but AfD isn't for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources discuss this man, including his having an entry in the New Georgia Encyclopedia. This is a silly discussion. LadyofShalott 01:23, 16 January 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) 02:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Story time 2013

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

Independent film that hasn't even started shooting yet. No notable cast or crew. Page author, who claims on the talk page to be the film's writer, says the page is for promotional purposes. InShaneee (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. InShaneee (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article lacks sources, which reaffirms the fact that it's clearly not notable. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 05:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SNOW YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedy deletion nominator. --I dream of horses (T) @ 05:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search and was unable to find anything that would show that this film passes notability guidelines. Or really any sources at all.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable unmade film. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete spam, not notable, probably won't be notable even if it does get made. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete Non-notable JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - With zero hits in GNews archive and GBooks, the topic appears to fail WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability in any sense. Recommend immediate deletion and closure per WP:SNOW. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total failure of policy WP:V. Nothing in the article is sourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 16 January 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. Wifione ^Message 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE '14

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

WWE '14 only has one reference. And, all of the information except the THQ bankruptcy, is not sourced. In other words, the article is mostly speculation. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 03:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE '14 should be redirected to WWE (video game series) until more information becomes available. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources and mostly speculation TheMesquito (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure speculation, As THQ is selling assets January 22, this is very unlikely that a WWE '14 would be made. Cheetah255 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources and original research. This belongs on a gaming wiki, not here. BlueRoll18 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawn nomination. Anyone wishing to discuss a merge can do so on the parent article's talk page. Non-admin closure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! broadcast history (3rd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

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

In my opinion, a separate article on the broadcast history of a television program is completely unnecessary and inappropriate for Wikipedia. I have relocated all useful content from this article into the main Jeopardy! article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this project page states, "Notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child tree) does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." For these reasons, I feel that no amount of notability pertaining to the broadcast history of any television program ever conceived will ever be able to warrant an entirely separate article from the parent article. Plus, I want the parent article to balance the focus it places on the Art Fleming versions with the focus it places on the Alex Trebek version. — Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) Monday, January 14, 2013, 02:30 UTC.

keep Jeopardy's broadcast history is more complex than most shows. There is enough notable content available to sustain an article. I can see an argument to merge. Is this correct procedure for a merge, move content to the main article and submit the other article to AfD? I have a strong bias against resubmissions to AfD. Its almost like double jeopardy.Tjc (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a good question, and the answer is generally no, that is generally not advised procedure for a merge. Suggest that nominator start a merge discussion and close this discussion unless the nominator's intent is to argue that the content of this article has no place on Wikipedia (which does not appear to be the nominator's intent). For what it's worth, I think this is probably an appropriate split of the parent article, given the length of the resulting section, although I echo the nominator's skepticism that this subtopic is really independently notable (bearing in mind as I do that Jeopardy! has a lengthy and interesting history). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per valid sourcing in article; suggest that nominator open a merge discussion instead. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Useful content that can be used in Jeopardy!; if merged, it cannot be deleted per WP:MAD. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to support the existence of an article. —Ed!^(talk) 16:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources in the article demonstrate that this topic is in accordance with WP:N. This is a very reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the Jeopardy! article, which is currently at around 100 kilobytes in size. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles this size should "Almost certainly should be divided," although this is a guideline and rule of thumb. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep!! - Given the concerns that all of you people have addressed and the guidelines set forth in WP:SIZERULE, although various main articles on U.S. television programs have over the years been allowed to exceed 100 kilobytes in size (which is part of why I wanted to make the parent of the article discussed here the first game-show article to achieve that distinction), I guess this spinoff is indeed reasonable and the broadcast history of Jeopardy! – unlike those of most other shows – is independently notable enough for a separate article. I am sorry that I had to nominate this child article for deletion in the first place; I felt that I would side with one of those "deletionists" who want to limit the contents of Wikipedia on the basis of notability – which I have seen said is purely subjective and outright questionable. I have decided to condense the "Broadcast history" section in the main article to just a couple of short paragraphs and a link to the child article, let the child article speak the rest of the information for itself, and have this discussion closed. - Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 15:37 UTC.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArchE17

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

Non-notable software, not reliably sourced FrankDev (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks references that are not from a primary source. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 02:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself notes that the OS was just released a week ago, so I doubt there's going to be any notability to be found. InShaneee (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are little or no reputable sources. Non-reputable Linux distributions, Wikipedia already has far too many of these. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the distribution's official webpage, it was released on January 5, 2013. Google News and archives searches provide zero sources. The same (predictably) goes for Google Books searches: zero sources. At this time, it's WP:TOOSOON for this topic to have a Wikipedia article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:29, 15 January 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Downtango

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

Software piece. We are not softpedia, and this seems to fail WP:N (and the sole reliable ref in the article, from NBC news, does not seem to mention the product at all...). I discussed this with the creator briefly, his counterargument was that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sadly, this does not fly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] - probably not the classic definition of reliable sources, but there's lots of these review sites, and it's free software, so they're unlikely to have been payed-for reviews. The article needs renaming to DownTango if kept. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references quoted by Lukeno94 seem independent of the software creator and of each other and are all reasonably in depth. Some references are borderline reliable--sites such as http://www.techfeb.com are blogs, but with likely thousands of followers. I agree that the article should be renamed to DownTango. Mark viking (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a notable piece of software. The reviews found are not suitable for use as references. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources above are "acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" per WP:USERG. Unfortunately, none of the sources meet the above criteria which means it has yet to attract the attention of the "professionals in the field". I've noticed that it is still a new software, so there might be better sources about it in the future. Nimuaq (talk) 00:30, 7 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 7 January 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) 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nimuaq above, mostly. What strikes me as strange is that almost all of the reader comments attached to those "reviews" are negative, to the point of ultra-hostility. Far from having made a notable contribution to its industry, the software in question seems best known for having developers who don't answer user questions or concerns. Very strange. Stalwart111 02:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:25, 14 January 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. Courcelles 00:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komera Rwanda

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

Non-notable organization lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing some stuff out there in google.it but it's mostly blogs and listings. Doesn't seem to be notable enough at this point, perhaps too soon. I would have expected a lot more coverage by Italian media. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear FreeRangeFrogcroak,
  thank you in advance for the attention paid to my page. I'm vice-president of Komera Rwanda. I wrote this little page to know our volunteering in Africa which, though very small, is important because it helps the poors in a remote village of Africa frequently close to other bigger organizations such us United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
  Our association is very well known in Italy at the local level. You can get more details about Komera Rwanda looking at the page we have on Italian Wikipedia. Komera Rwanda in a non-profit association and volunteers are not paid, and they pay themsenves travel costs.
  Thanking you again I'm waiting for your kind reply.
  --Huye (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of which has to do with deletion policy, notability, and whether this is a properly documented part of human knowledge that gets to be in an encyclopaedia. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:RS and therefore notability. Huye the creator of the article - is Vice President of the association = WP:COI. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 12:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who makes a valid argument, in accordance with deletion policy and based upon the provenances and depths of sources, is welcome to participate in AFD. We don't exclude people for being close to the subject. We generally exclude them for acting like children, and mucking about with sockpuppets and the like, which is not so far the case here at all. Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be so, but has the editor provided a reasonable rationale to keep the article they created on their organisation? -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 13:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, I have re worded, as I can see how it may have been taken out of line. Thanks, -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 13:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you all for attention paid to my page on Komera Rwanda. I only tried to explain what's the aim of Association and what Komera Rwanda does in Africa. Komera Rwanda is a non-profit association and there is no economic interest in publicizing it. The page describe objectively the facts and activities of Komera Rwanda (without further comments, praise or exaggeration)and all of these are documented by references. I should like that Komera Rwanda has a page on English Wikipedia to allow at non-speakers of Italian language to know the existence of the association. The only advertising that I would get is to raise awareness of our work, alongside that of many other voluntary humanitarian non-profit associations, in order to improve the conditions of the poorest people in the world. I remit to you the choice whether to delete or keep the page. I'll respect your decision. I thank you all, however, for the attention you paid to my page. Best regards. --Huye (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several items of coverage around, but nothing really substantial, e.g. La Repubblica, Vivere Genova, Prima Da Noi, Citta Di Genova. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 13 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and also, in my opinion, WP:RS. Organization is still too small and local to be notable, and no realistic indication that it will become notable in time. The WP:COI issue does not help, although I accept the good faith of the author. David_FLXD (Talk) 05:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably good faith edit, but still WP:COI and not notable. Creator's defense is just WP:NOBLECAUSE, which doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. --Drm310 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:26, 14 January 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. Giving credence to the sequential tilt in the !voting towards delete, and considering the 'time' factor involved in such an incident, I'm deleting the article. Wifione ^Message 13:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Aurora shooting

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

Just another US shooting, not notable, fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N/CA, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, such incidents are fairly common. This one isn't extraordinary or sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's receiving an exceptional amount of media attention because it took place in the same town as last year's cinema massacre, which appears to have been the primary motivation behind the article's creation. (Before WWGB intervened, it focused more on this coincidence than it did on the facts of the January 5 shooting, with multiple mentions of the movie theater's proximity, its photograph in the infobox, and a claim that the two events were "similar".) My heart goes out to the people who lost loved ones in this shooting, but it doesn't inherit the notability of the massacre that occurred nearby. —David Levy 11:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Too much recentism also....William 11:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS + details regarding the incident are far too premature at this stage. Condolences to those affected, -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 11:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragic event, but happens all the time, sadly. Possibly due to the movie shooting is why this was made. Violates WP:NOTNEWS, and has just about as much relevance as 2012 Oakland hit and run (has happened already). Zappa O Mati 16:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG~~ Weak Keep Article is properly sourced, even has sources from international news organizations. This passes WP:NEVENTS, WP:GNG, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE. WP:INDEPTH. Also keep per WP:RAPID JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep because it passes WP:GNG but doesn't seem to be a big event. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why our guidelines are tagged with a notation that they're "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A topic that's received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject usually is sufficiently notable, but this is an exception. (As discussed, the event received such coverage because of its coincidental proximity to an earlier event, not because it was highly noteworthy in and of itself.) We mustn't blindly adhere to the letter of WP:GNG instead of recognizing the spirit. —David Levy 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As JayJay said, the article is properly sourced and meets the WP:GNG; the question (as was the question with 2012 Webster, New York shooting) is rather or not this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Like with the Webster shooting, I think it is too early to tell, but since it meets the GNG, we ought to keep it for now. Re-nom if it is later shown to be insignificant. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DavidLevy: this wouldn't be receiving nearly the same amount of press if it hadn't happened in Aurora. Sorry to say, but this looks like another domestic dispute gone wrong. I'll be happy to revise my assessment should other information become available, but I don't see the need for an article right now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the full week before making a determination on this AfD. It's too early to tell whether this is going to turn out to be notable. Right now this look like a nonnotable event that doesn't merit its own article (although it might belong on a list of shootings). However, there's still very little information available about the background of this event. Let's wait a few days (at least) to see what develops. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this particualr shooting is more than run-of-the-mill crime. --Orlady (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/comment - I'll have to agree with what Orlady said above. It's just too early to see the lasting effects, if any, the event will have. There has been more than enough sources, however, if the July 2012 shooting in the same city did not happen, then this event will only have routine coverage. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - and renominate in a weeks time if no major coverage is done. It is way to early to talk about lasting effects and coverage. However it doesnt fail WP:GNG so in that my !vote on the next afD will likely be Keep. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now That the shooting took place in the same city as the Dark Knight shooting has given a wide variety of sources. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 23:36, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Delete for now If it turns out to be notable in its own right, not just "newsworthy" by association, it can be rewritten. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this incident is particularly notable as these things go. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as events like this happen with (admittedly disturbing) regularity. Police respond to incidents like this frequently, and there's nothing particularly exceptional about these events aside from the fact that they occurred in the same town as another, larger mass shooting. Per WP:NOTNEWS, I advise deletion. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 03:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP FOR NOW -- For at least the next two weeks. Too little is currently known about whether there were enough similarities between this and the July 2012 Aurora incident to make this story newsworthy in the long run. There are also significant unanswered questions as to the relevance of this incident to the ongoing nationwide discussion/debates concerning availability of weapons vs. gun control, that has been a highly significant ongoing news story ever since the December mass shooting in Newtown, CT. Petronius2 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base the assertion that "too little is currently known about whether there were enough similarities between this and the July 2012 Aurora incident"? What evidence is there of any significant similarities beyond "shooting that occurred in Aurora"? Are you arguing that the article should be kept in case some heretofore unknown connection comes to light? —David Levy 02:30, 12 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Incident is covered in the New York Times, BBC news, USA Today, the Times of India, and the Huffington Post. ^King Jakob _C 01:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No new coverage in the last week; these kinds of standoffs happen all the time. Nothing resembling the theater shooting besides occurring in the same city limits as it, this would be only of solely local interest in other circumstances. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS PianoDan (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soft delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. There seems to be no reason to believe that coverage will be significantly sustained. If later it is found that coverage was sustained, the article can be recreated. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and one event policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The connection with the 2012 event is too tenuous to warrant an article. Agree that NOTNEWS also applies. —Ed!^(talk) 16:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Jucchan (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to 1 or 2 sentences and put it the 2012 article with the other related incidents with an anchor. Leave the history in a re-direct in case it becomes more notable--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; strong delete - sadly, just more American murders. Not really connected to 2012 mass shooting, itself an act of an individual.Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Afd has a majority of delete !votes. The keep !votes, significantly, acknowledge that the list is apparently better as a portal. Considering that the keep !votes numerically are close to half of delete !votes, and considering the supporting arguments, I'm currently deleting these list. However, in case someone wishes to start a new portal with the current contents, I can give the deleted data on request. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 13:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations articles

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

Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete indiscriminate list - Nabla (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator and as a useful navigation article. It is discrete as it has a clearly defined boundary, and is very useful for analysing the varying quality of different Wikipedia articles that share a common thread.--Coin945 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need an index for loosely-connected Wikipedia articles. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this the perfect time to discuss consensus for naming of these types of articles? You've seen the list. You've seen the many different naming anomalies.... Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Far too self-referential. Is it a notable phenomenon that Wikipedia has many such articles? Has it been prominently discussed outwith the project? As for the article's usefulness I refer you to WP:LISTPURP: "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space." Rubiscous (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion with the article's creator at another AfD I realise I should have said Move to Portal:Awards and Nominations. The WP:SELF issue I mentioned above only applies to the article space (as do my arguments on the other AfD based on not passing WP:GNG which would also be relevant here), this list would make a good basis for a portal. Rubiscous (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but we need to find a better wording: its more a portal of a nav feature than an article. The concept of having something to do this function is correct, however DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a top-level navigation page. All the articles on the list are notable in their own right too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles are already there and easy to find. This list appears to be superfluous.--Zananiri (talk) 14:50, 13 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is doing no harm and may help. At WP:MOS/Lists see "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two formats work together". More in depth explanation at Categories, lists, and navigation templates. I agree with DGG, this is more like a portal. Maybe we need to add "Portal pages" to Categories, lists and nav templates? David_FLXD (Talk) 03:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article is one of a series that have all received AFD's. Feel free to check out those other AFD discussions. Some of the articles may have already been deleted.

List of comparison articles
List of bibliography lists
List of controversy articles
List of criticism and critique articles--Coin945 (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might work as a category, but a page isn't necessary. —Ed!^(talk) 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that a category would work better. Jucchan (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too indiscriminate. It would be like having a list of sports championships and listing every Super Bowl, World Series, NBA title and Stanley Cup championship on the same page. The list is far to expansive to make searching through it meaningful. The category Category:Lists of awards by award winner seems a far more valuable place to sort through and locate these types of various lists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On Wikipedia, we have this thing, called a category. Yeah... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:56, 20 January 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 nom withdrawn - article was speedy deleted by Acroterion (non-admin close). Stalwart111 01:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faylian

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

Article lacks references and a quick google search could not verify the existence of this breed. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - An edit conflict caused the article to be nominated for both AfD and speedy deletion. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 00:14, 14 January 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 January 14. Snotbot t • c » 00:54, 14 January 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. Courcelles 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keizoku

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

Non-notable television show - I couldn't find independent reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:Notability (film). Prod tag was removed without comment by a new editor whose only edits have been to remove several prod tags without improving articles. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this seems to meet the criteria for films, e.g. review by Mark Schilling in Japan Times. I expect this film was reviewed in multiple Japanese language magazines and newspapers which will be hard to track down just using online searches. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This original drama was one of the hits of 1999, successful enough that they not only made a movie, but also a sequel (Keizoku 2: Spec), which then had a movie made of it. Here are just some of many RS on the net about the various elements in the series: [56], [57], [58], etc. Miki Nakatani even won an award based on her acting in the series: [59]. Michitaro (talk) 21:59, 10 January 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, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no idea why this was relisted, since a show with two movies, a sequel, awards, and reliable coverage is sure to be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 15 January 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. Wifione ^Message 13:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable luxuries

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

Advertising and promotion for http://www.affordablelux.com/ - also Unreferenced. CZmarlin (talk) 00:33, 14 January 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 January 14. Snotbot t • c » 00:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, do not delete but rather revert to its first revision as a redirect (and see the talk page as for why one editor found this unsatisfactory). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not opposed to reversion to a previous redirect, I can't really see how either of the subjective words in the title (especially in combination) could ever be quantified sufficiently to form a coherent article or even a "meaning" enough for a worthwhile redirect. We would be redirecting because it has the word "luxuries" in it, but should we then also create "unaffordable luxuries" and redirect that too? The sources don't even seem to agree on a definition and one is clearly just an advertisement for a company that offers products under the (very) broad moniker of "affordable luxuries". Who is to decide what is affordable? Who is to decide what is a luxury item? It's all very abstract and the one reliable source is basically an op-ed with the author's take on what it might mean. It sets the benchmark at US$200 - beyond the average annual wage in many 3rd world countries. Hardly affordable. So what that source would actually support is an article titled, Luxury items that could potentially be considered affordable to those living in the US with an annual household income of USD$100K or more. Yeah, no. Stalwart111 01:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've sort of revamped the page. Here's my issue: even when stated that the term is predominantly used by Western and European countries and stressing that it differs depending on the income, this is little more than a dictionary definition. It also suffers from it being a potential neologism. It's more predominantly used than other terms and has been in use since at least 2008, but it's still sort of a neologism. At the very best we might transfer something over to Wiktionary, but I'm not seeing a lot out there to merit an actual entry because it's so subjective depending on the individual. A $10 dinner isn't an "affordable luxury" to someone in Africa or even to some living in the United States.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a definition. Affordable luxuries are luxuries that are affordable, to a nebulous someone somewhere. Wikipedia can't afford it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply the lexical sum-of-its-parts. Per the article affordable luxuries are "non-necessary items" (i.e. luxuries) "that will fit into a person's daily budget" (i.e. are affordable). Pointing out that the phrase is mostly used in Europe and is only vaguely defined does not rescue it from being a dictionary definition. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 16 January 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. A clear Keep, especially with the post nomination edits (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House band

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

Deprodded with examples. We have plenty of examples, but they're all primary-sourced. I can find hundreds of books using the term "house band", but little to none that explain it. This is pure and simple, a WP:DICDEF and WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Merge~~ with Musical ensemble. (Band is a disabmig page.) The article only defines the expression (in violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) It doesn't tell us anything about the history or nature of house bands. The examples are not bad, but they don't justify an article. The article has now been edited to WP notability. BigJim707 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real 'thing' and the article goes beyond a dictionary definition. Several record labels and recording studios had associated house bands, as did many of the top Jamaican producers in the 1960s and 1970s. There is plenty of scope for expansion. --Michig (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This entry in Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World demonstrates that the topic has been treated as an encyclopedic concept. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article a bit and added some references. There's still room for growth, but it's apparent that the topic has been sufficiently covered in reliable sources to warrant a page. Gong show 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing has been improved to including cites that explain the term, as opposed to merely using it. Even though it still needs building out, it clearly exceeds the scope of just dictionary definition. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG per [60], [61]; it's more of a concept rather than a simple dictionary definition. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:18, 15 January 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. Wifione ^Message 13:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuton

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

Not notable artist. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I see, no brittish artist walking by the streets of Rio would be able to meet WP:GNG with YouTube videos. Also, even with it, it would still probably fail WP:MUSIC, as he has not released an album, or released a single.... or nothing, really. He seems to have got a record contract, but until he releases an album and becomes widely known, he can't have an article. Heck, I have released 7 singles and 3 extended plays and I still don't meet GNG :( — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the fence here - I did find a couple more reliable sources:

http://www.timeout.com.br/rio-de-janeiro/en/music/features/231/jesuton-interview

http://www.correio24horas.com.br/noticias/detalhes/detalhes-1/artigo/das-ruas-do-rio-para-a-som-livre-inglesa-jesuton-encanta-pela-voz/

Not sure it is enough to constitute significant coverage at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Still NN to my mind. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 19 January 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. Courcelles 00:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Lord

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. References are not independent of subject. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although he has founded a company, Vitamine C, I haven't found any coverage for that but I have found some links for Julia White Group (French) here, here (only mentions him through the photo), here (the same topic as the previous link but this actually mentions in the text), here (NASCAR as the same topic), here (relevant text is not shown in preview), here (another brief mention) and a blog here (in which Alain himself comments in the "comments" section). Like his Wikipedia article, his LinkedIn profile doesn't provide much of a career and mainly for Julia White. If an article existed for Julia White, I would have suggested redirecting. Too soon and he hasn't established any notability for himself. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BIO, there are millions of successful businessmen but like most of them this gentleman has not attracted significant press coverage. Page created by possible WP:SPA.—Baldy Bill (talk) 14:31, 20 January 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. Soft delete Courcelles 00:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zafer Aracagök

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

Doesn't appear to be any sources supporting that he passes WP:ARTIST as either a writer or composer. Please note that WP:EXIST is different to WP:NOTABILITY 1292simon (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:47, 7 January 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, MJ94 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With no knowledge of Turkish, it to me that the subject is a moderately well known academic and composer—short of the relevant guidelines, in other words. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:18, 14 January 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. Wifione ^Message 13:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform of the Air Cadet Organisation

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

Lack of apparent notability and suitability to be in an encyclopaedia. Whilst this may be of interest to members of the organisation, I fail to see the relevance to anyone who is not a member of the organisation. Lack of reliable sources cited indicating significant coverage. Rob 301 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the detail standards for the uniforms fail WP:GNG. (Perhaps the editor may consider adding to the main article for Air Cadet Organisation as that is barely more than a stub.)Blue Riband► 00:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about doing this, but as I understand it, this article was diverged from the main article on the Air Training Corps, which is itself already far too long and too detailed in my humble opinion. The Air Cadet Organisation is an article which, having looked at it, could well be merged into the Air Training Corps, and a redirect left. Any thoughts on this? Rob 301 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, because this page is so large, it needs to stay as-is. The Uniform is a major part of Cadets (as a cadet myself, I know). We have inspections every meeting. Keep them coming :) --Mattios550 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mattios550 - This is true, and I do not dispute it, however, these facts do not cause the article to meet WP:GNG Rob 301 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mattios550, What is the exact relationship between the Air Training Corps and the Air Cadet Organisation? The ATC article says it's "part of" the ACO, but both articles appear to be talking about the exact same thing.Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:NOTMANUAL. The "argument" that it's too big to delete works for banks, not articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 15 January 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. Courcelles 00:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Akita

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

Non-notable sports reporter; self-promotion UW Dawgs (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a single reliable source in the article (the one second-party source, the Seattle Times, confirms that he writes a column for that newspaper; searching the article creator's username online find a close connection to the subject of the article. Virtually all results online (which, considering the subject's preferred medium, is an accurate measure here) are from social media sites. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 23:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be nothing more than an attempt to make the subject seem important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.90.104 (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources (the ones here that are reliable sources) don't discuss the subject much. Simply having a somewhat popular sports blog does not meet the grounds for notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:34, 14 January 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. Wifione ^Message 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Santa Cruz

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

I believe the article has become a WP:CONTENTFORK for Maya civilization and Maya religion. If sources can be found regarding the town itself under the previous name, the text could be included under the town's current name, Felipe Carrillo Puerto. 1292simon (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article's lead is slightly confusing at first reading, its subject is fairly clearly the indigenous Maya state established (and then effectively destroyed) during the Caste War of Yucatan in the second half of the 19th century. It is thus completely outside the purview of the article on Maya civilization, which deliberately stops with the conquest of the last pre-colonial Maya state around 1700, and the Cruzob faith associated with it, (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) while undoubtedly a variant of Maya religion, was (and I gather still is) distinctive enough to warrant treatment in its own right (though the Religion section of the article may need editing to ensure that it is doing this - and, conversely, the Maya religion article need editing to ensure that it is not conflating accounts of religious practices and beliefs from very different times and areas into a single homogenous account). Otherwise, however, there is therefore no reason to regard the article as a content fork. The article is also generally well-sourced, though the style of the bibliography and inline citations should certainly be improved to current Wikipedia standards. PWilkinson (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWilkinson, then it seems that the article could be better named. Can you suggest a new title please? 1292simon (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't currently think of anything that feels like a better name for the article - I have, however, tried rewriting the article's lead to make it clearer, and made some other alterations to the article (in particular, removing most of the places where the state is referred to as the State of the Cross - while the designation would be reasonable enough, I could only find one source, apart from mirrors of the article, that even mentions it). While the article needs quite a lot of rewriting - it seems to have been largely the creation of one IP editor with a definite view of the subject - I am unfortunately unlikely to have time to do this within the period for this discussion. But there are some immediately relevant reliable sources (for instance, Villa Rojas, Reed, Bricker and Sullivan) already used in the article (and others need to be checked not so much for reliability as for their relevance to the Chan Santa Cruz area and period rather than other times or parts of the Yucatan peninsula) and a GBooks search seems to produce quite a few more that haven't been used (and a GNews search some interesting effectively primary contemporary sources). PWilkinson (talk) 12:48, 12 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still nominating this page for deletion, after the original nominator seems to be pondering renaming it instead? (I am just trying to move things along...) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:23, 14 January 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.