Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 January	28 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 delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Train2Game[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. Please see discussion at Talk:Train2Game#More sources needed. Note: I am also nominating related page Skillstrain for the same reasons. If there is a consensus that the lawsuit is notable, I will create a page for it. Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline delete without prejudice - these appear to have been promo spam that then had WP:RS evidence of odiousness added. They may or may not be notable as a scam, I suggest that at present this isn't quite noteworthy. It may become more so over the course of this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, from a survey of available sourcing, that this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:CORP. It's also apparent that, while the article may have had its start as WP:PROMO, nothing has been offered to lift it above that level. Qworty (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RS only extends to the Controversies of the company - not the company itself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO, and any claims of notability only appear to lie within the controversies surrounding the company. Zappa O Mati 05:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is clearly conflicts of interest and nothing to enhance the name of Wikipedia is retaining an edit war. Nor can it be proven that those editing the article have contacted the interested parties directly to verify claims. The claims only appear to be based on third party references which could also be from conflicts of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — 84.16.42.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - for the reasons stated here, not that it also overlaps substantially with Skillstrain which is also up for deletion. Shritwod (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above reasons Adycarter (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zappa. – SJ + 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As well as per my comment at Skillstrain's discussion. I mostly fail to see a significant claim of notability (supported by the correspondent independent, third party reliable sources) to establish how this topic meets the required notability guideline. Also, the controversies section (as I said on the other discussion) is made up of separate, trivial coverage that cannot be weighted in for notability. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but do the page for the lawsuit, and try and mention as many of Jan Telensky's puppets as you can Of course, I'm a little petty, but it's probably worthwhile keeping something around about it. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or we can just file it under WP:DGAF. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I slightly feel it is of value to let people know their training is junk. As I infer from random Googling - yes, a totally reliable source, etc - people are being actively stiffed; the business model is to sell loans to people to buy crap training. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff-piece about (by?) non-notable person-or-small-group with big ideas but no properly verifiable footprint in the industry it claims. --AlisonW (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This could have been a snow delete a few days ago. Not enough reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:CORP. Mkdw ^talk 00:52, 2 February 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skillstrain[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. Please see discussion at Talk:Train2Game#More sources needed. Note: I am also nominating related page Train2Game for the same reasons. If there is a consensus that the lawsuit is notable, I will create a page for it. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, from a survey of available sourcing, that this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:CORP. It's also apparent that, while the article may have had its start as WP:PROMO, nothing has been offered to lift it above that level. Qworty (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RS only extends to the Controversies of the company - not the company itself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the article Train2Game has largely the same content. This is the trading name of a not particularly notable company (Metropolitan International Schools Limited) which is effectively its parent. Perhaps there is scope for an article about its parent company, but I don't see that this is notable enough, and besides it seems to be primarily a criticism of the company rather than an NPOV article. Shritwod (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adycarter (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RS appears to only be related to the company's controversies. Asides from that, WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and WP:CORP failed. Zappa O Mati 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – SJ + 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, because I fail to see reliable sources covering the main topic under a non-trivial fashion. The controversies section is mostly made up with information from trivial, separate coverage that happened to be related with the topic. Also, the claim that it is notable for "its role in a British legal case regarding the Internet" is not in itself important enough to make the organization deserving of an article (and it is not referenced either). — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to understand from the article what Skillstrain is supposed to be, other than a company investigated (and found wanting) by BBC's Watchdog. Move the legal stuff to a relevant page on internet content/carrier liability and zap this. --AlisonW (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no lasting effects of the controversy and the school does not meet WP:CORP nor show that its an officially recognized institution per WP:SCHOOLS. Mkdw ^talk 00:53, 2 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Phoenix[edit]

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

A case of too soon, I don't believe this person passes the general notability guidelines or WP:PORNBIO. Most of the sources cited just mention her briefly and do not fully support some of the assertions in the article. There seems to be some original research in the article that I wonder if the creator is somehow connected to the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your feedback, it would seem to me that WP:PORNBIO under paragraph (3.Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.) her appearance in Mainstream Films (21 and over), TV (Maury Show) and Print credits (Penthouse), and also references in Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Weekly, Getty Images and other mainstream news sources mentioning her specifically.... would more than qualify as "featured in mainstream media". In addition, her appearance on the MGM billboard campaign, which according to the articles I have found is first ever for MGM, and it's coverage in multiple adult industry news sources would indicate to me that she more than qualifies under paragraph 3, not withstanding her other credits. I'll continue to work on the article this week while we debate here, but if it's too soon by consensus, then it's too soon. However, please don't fault me for being passionate about my point of view as I make a point to be respectful towards everyone even when debating with them. :) Art javier (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment, possible criteria to keep As a porn star, she clearly does not qualify for an article. However, she may qualify as a model and, in the future, as an author. Those who see her advertising campaign in the MGM may wonder "who the fuck is she" and then look up Wikipedia. Look into what are qualities necessary for notability for an interdisciplinary type person, not just a porn star. By labelling her as a porn star, we are being the jerks by pidgeon holing someone trying to make a non-porn career. Spevw (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spevw I'd need some guidance on that as that's a little out of my element but anyone that can point me in the direction of the right pages to study to adjust the article accordingly or can help do it themselves I'd appreciate! Art javier (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON appears to apply here. Not finding any significant coverage to warrant notability at this time per WP:GNG. If the primary editor of the article wants it can be userfied until sufficient references are found that can verify notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:TOOSOON. Andrew³²⁷ 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RightCowLeftCoast that sounds like a great idea, I'll look up how to do that and that way the material will not be lost until notability requirements are met! Art javier (talk) 19:54, 29 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 deleted under WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Data Bank[edit]

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

Someone's personal idea, no evidence that this has been implemented anywhere. Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, unreferenced, non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio of [1] -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 30 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 01:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Peterson[edit]

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

A convicted criminal, seems to be a run-of-the-mill case, no notability demonstrated Ymblanter (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article needs some work, however it should not be deleted. Much is being done about this case and its more than "run of the mill." His guilt is highly debated and there is no physical evidence against him, much like the trial of the West Memphis Three of which there is significant info about them on Wikipedia. I can continue to gather more information and develop the article, but it shouldn't be deleted just yet. TinyWing (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not going to be deleted within 6 days, and most likely also some time after that.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user-space. Who is debating Peterson's guilt? Where is it being debated? Is there evidence that it is being debated?

Suggest that if it is decided to remove the article, it should be moved to user-space so that it can be developed, and not deleted.

I have removed the paragraph comparing the case with another case, because it appears to be original research. If local newspapers, etc. have made the comparison, then it can go back, but with citations for source of the comparison.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Addressing the person, this fails WP:BIO and WP:PERP. Addressing the event, this fails WP:EVENT. Current version cites primary sources and Wikipedia. Location (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think there was any intention to cite Wikipedia, that footnote looks like it was intended to be a link - made by someone new to Wikipedia who didn't know how to do it. There is some secondary sourcing, but it's very limited. The article is poor. The author needs to show that the campaign has had some public impact. Also, the author seems to know little about the case, referring to the 68 year old widow who was murdered as "Miss Montgomery". Paul B (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This case is taken out of the run-of-the-mill category by virtue of its false confession claim, substantiated by expert forensic psychologist opinion.. This fact is accompanied by Peterson’s 100% exclusion from the DNA profile which was entered as evidence in the case. Add the fact that the employment of up to 15 police detectives produced no objective physical evidence implicating Peterson.

Steps are in process to post the transcripts of the trial online in digital form, including transcripts of the actual confessions. This will permit pro and con evaluation, using the original source. As always in criminal trials there are two sides, and it is appropriate for this article to anticipate pro/con debate.

As recently as July 30, 2012 the Michigan Supreme Court recognized the validity of use of expert psychological opinion testimony to aid the jury in evaluating false confession claims, in People v Jerome Walter Kowalski, Docket No. 141932, saying “ in some instances . . . without the enlightenment of expert opinion the jury's ultimate determination may not be arrived at intelligently.”

This topic is of current public interest, due to the large number of wrongfully convicted prisoners that have been exonerated in recent years. In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

This article should be linked to the following Wikipedia articles: “National Registry of Exonerations” and “False Confessions.”Big Al 300 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some great suggestions above and we can address them all. We can add to the article where Peterson's guilt is being debated, where she is called Miss Montgomery, what the campaign is currently doing, etc. The author (me) knows plenty about the case. However, I am new to Wikipedia. It takes time to compile everything. I am making mistakes about citations, etc. I have more citations to add as well. It was suggested above that the article be moved to a user-space to be developed, and as I was unaware of such a space, I agree that would be an appropriate move as it might take several weeks to polish it. I appreciate some of the work other Wikipedia authors have done on it. Thank you. I would also like to add the links that Big Al 300 mentioned above. I agree with what Big Al 300 has to say and hope we can continue to see this article developed adequately for Wikipedia. TinyWing (talk)TinyWing —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not exactly a run of the mill case, but there is not sufficiently widespread notability to overcome BLP problems. The article--and this discussion--are being used for arguing one side of the case; they may well be right, but that is not our role. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 February 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 Magnatune. Without prejudice to a redirect to BookMooch MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Buckman[edit]

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

Self-promo that has basically not changed since Mr. Buckman himself wrote it in 2007 [2]; I fail to find any articles about this guy from after 2007. Article is sourced mostly to press releases, blogs, and corporate sites, with only one SELF-AUTHORED WP:RS. Shii (tock) 02:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep while AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, the article (in its current form) clearly falls under WP:NOTPROMOTIONAL. That being said, the subject does appear to haved received significant coverage per WP:GNG in order to meet notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources used here are really borderline -- his projects are notable but he himself may not be. Shii (tock) 03:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'm not finding any of that "significant coverage". Neither John Buckman ~~nor Magnatune~~ (my mistake, it has an article here with some half-decent references) appears to be notable. Google News finds only press releases and mentions/reports from non-Reliable Sources. None of the references cited at the article qualifies as a Reliable Source.--MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Redirect/Merge to Magnatune, which has a claim to notability that he does not. The Magnatune article seems better sourced than the alternative, BookMooch. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a merge would be a better option, seeing the lack of sources for a proper BLP. Shii (tock) 10:53, 24 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) 21:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should we consider past discussion, the consensus in the last discussion was to keep it, why is it being brought in here again. The case is, notability is not inherited, if he created a company, this doesn't mean that he is notable. If the article is not able to sustain its relevancy I think that the content of this page should me merged into BookMooch. --Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person, non-notable company, self-promotion inadequately supported by outside sources. --tgeller (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cinema Digital Sound. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Radiation Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No redeeming characteristics to justify a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per lack of notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema Digital Sound, the company's one notable (joint venture) project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Saddle Club. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Luby[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Elizium23 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, Kia Luby is an actress, she is only known for a children television series, but the fact is, she has no other work in any other media outlet other than that, I don't see her article entry being relevant to wikipedia, unless someone could expand it, but I don't see it having any consistence which would enhance its notability factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduemoni (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NACTOR. WWGB (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Saddle Club. Had a long lasting part in the show and is mentioned in that article. Reasonable search term. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Saddle_Club#Cast - Obviously not notable as she has only achieved two roles, Blue Heelers and The Saddle Club, with the latter being her best known role with three Google News results here (one British link and the other two Australian). I found nothing substantial for Blue Heelers and there isn't any evidence she has performed in theatre productions. Unsurprisingly, Google Books only provided this. There isn't an official website for her but I did find a Twitter account which also mentions her The Saddle Club role. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Saddle Club As mentioned above, redirect to the cast. Does not meet WP:NACTOR and a redirect seems appropriate per WP:REDIRECT. Mkdw ^talk 00:56, 2 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Such[edit]

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

Non-notable person with an article very much like a resume. No reliable sources are provided, and I couldn't find any myself (in English or in Russian). A recent BLP violation nightmare was successfully overcome; now it's time to judge the actual content. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability not established per WP:ENT. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing evidence of notability either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom, I don't see any evidence of notability either. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I ran my search for Полина Сухинина, numerous hits but nothing counting to GNG. The issue of protracted BLP vandalism aside, I'm not seeing this as an inclusion-worthy subject. Carrite (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs are almost entirely to youtube videos. The out-of-policy inline links are to "sources" that can barely be called sources, at all.
As an aside, after looking through the POV stuff, I conclude that not only is this an article crying out for deletion in its own right, it's also a weirdly powerful magnet for bad wiki-behavior. That's not exactly a reason for deletion. I guess it's more akin to a fortuitous collateral by-product. David in DC (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed to be one vandal who produced the BLP violations, the persistence of which suggests a personal vendetta. The business could have been shut down early had one of the intervening editors taken but a moment to report them. But yes, that aside the subject doesn't seem notable. Since deletion appears likely, perhaps watchlisting this is necessary in case it's recreated. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - 99, my apologies for not getting to it in a timely fashion. Maybe you should just run for admin. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies not necessary--you're invaluable here, and the only thing I'd run for is the train, though at this point I'm pretty much limited to a short brisk trot. Of course I was referring to the lengthy and appalling edit history, and am happy that this was dispatched the same day I reported it. Thanks again. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article without reliable sourcing. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little research on this one. Clueless twerps with pseudonyms discussed this on WWW discussion fora well before the existence of this article. (It's not hard to turn up one such discussion dated 2010, for example.) This is in no way to suggest that the assertions, and the absolutely ludicrous way that they were sourced, are validly supported by said clueless twerps. (The clueless twerps used the same "sourcing" methods; they aren't identifiable; and their reputations for fact checking and accuracy are evidently, from this alone, atrocious and incompetent.) But rather it is to point out that the other clueless twerps with pseudonyms who then came to Wikipedia to repeat the same, a year and a bit later, probably didn't do so as a personal vendetta, as 99.136.252.89 hypothesizes. They were simply uncritical of received knowledge and obsessed. (We've all seen obsessives edit war for years, ne?)
That said, my searches for proper independent biographical sources turned up nothing from which a proper, reliable, thorough, neutral, and accurate encyclopaedia biography can be validly constructed. David in DC is right about the flimsiness of the sources given in the article. (Although the external hyperlinks are probably intended as mere hyperlinks, not sources, note.) The content is in several cases an extrapolation from the sources, which don't actually say what the article does. And in other cases the sources are not independent of the subject.
For the record, I have my suspicions that Image:Brownhat.jpg and Image:Brownhat-with-flower2.jpg are not the own work they are claimed to be. I haven't located the originals from which these have been fairly obviously extracted and modified, however.
Uncle G (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for sharing your research, Uncle G; Not that motive matters very much at the end of the day, but I'd be pleased if my takeaway re: a personal angle is incorrect. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree this subject fails WP:BASIC due to WP:RS and substantial coverage. She also fails other criteria to the point that none could be seriously considered as applying to this person and her achievements. JFHJr (㊟) 23:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the requirements for multiple, independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. Also, the youtube videos are copyvios and need to be removed from the article as a violation of policy, but the page is locked. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Beverly, Chicago. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Beverly, Chicago[edit]

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

This area is just one area of the Beverly community. There are no articles about North Beverly and East Beverly. This area is not notable by itself. It is worth noting in the Beverly, Chicago article (along with North and East Beverly) but definately not as it's own article. Also, there is only one line of text which anyone would be able to figure out just by reading the Beverly, Chicago article. Andise1 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beverly, Chicago (which could have been WP:BOLDly done, perhaps?) for the reasons described by the nom well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless sources are presented that clarify independent notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

حيدر أبو العباس[edit]

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

Promo-only page, not written in this projects language (English/Arabic). Trijnstel_talk 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. no claim to notability, just another vanity page.TheLongTone (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and nominated as such (CSD A7). No credible claim of significance and notability is not inherited. - Mr X 19:49, 27 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 redirect (Non admin closure/retraction) Osarius - Want a chat? 19:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) '[reply]

LG Cosmos Touch[edit]

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

This article seems to duplicate information found in LG Cosmos. I don't see a need for it to be merged, and there's nothing significant to be kept. Article too old for CSD A10. Osarius - Want a chat? 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've "merged" the infobox, nothing else is worth merging. Article is redundant. Osarius - Want a chat? 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article redirected. AfD retracted. Osarius - Want a chat? 19:03, 27 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) 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Vidyapith[edit]

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

I have searched but I am unable to find independent reliable sources to establish notability for this school. Article fails the GNG and fails WP:ORG. All hits appear to either be primary ie Facebook, or generic directory listings. Ridernyc (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:NHS. Please, also search using the term "Chittaranjan Colony Hindu Vidyapith". I see many schools here[3] without a single source. NickAang (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
once again sources that establish notability? As for the second part please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ridernyc (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, places of secondary education are generally kept, provided it's not made up and one reliable source shows it actually exists (which we seem to have consensus on). Nickaang is on point here, as internet coverage of sources that we would expect to see in the US for a high school is not necessarily as readily available in India, and deletion may contribute towards systematic bias. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would also like to reiterate that Nick has shown very credible evidence to suggest this meets WP:NHS. I think this AfD has a WP:SNOW chance considering OUTCOMES. Mkdw ^talk 06:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable secondary school. Few more citations can be found in Bengali lang web! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS and reasons above. Lyk4 (talk) 14:13, 31 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 19:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinotab.com[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about a web site that lacks notability. Unable to find any sources in Google news, Google books, HighBeam, Credo, Questia and NewsBank. - Mr X 18:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I previously placed a Prod on this: "No reliable 3rd party evidence that the subject of this article meets the notability guideines." That and the maintenance tags were removed by the article creator without comment. The article remains referenced only by its Alexa rating page; not enough for notability. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search under its current name and its past name and was unable to find anything to show that it is ultimately notable. On a side note for the article's creator, most websites aren't notable. Alexa ratings don't count towards notability. A high ranking only makes it more likely that they will have received coverage, but doesn't guarantee notability per Wikipedia's guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 31 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. Swarm ^X 05:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thambipillai Thanalakshmi[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two books cited her name and the incident.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the Amnesty Report and the mention in two books, there is not enough for WP:BIO. Mcewan (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Can this be redirected to an appropriate article in the series of articles about Sri Lankan civil war ? Kanatonian (talk) 15:13, 14 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, Courcelles 01:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per this two books cited her name and the incident mentions in two books is without a doubt notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per BabbaQ and HudsonBreeze .In the Sri Lankan civil war over 100000 people died and the fact that two books cited her name and the incident make clearly notable for a Sri Lankan individual without even considering the local Tamil and Sinhala sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for multiple reasons. WP:BLP1E, we don't have articles on low profile people involved in one event except in unusual circumstance. WP:VICTIM, same with victims of crimes. WP:BIO, a mention of a name is not in depth coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 25 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, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments have not addressed concerns about WP:BLP1E nor the fact that mentions in a book are simply mentions, and not the same as books or large publications where she is the focus of the article. Furthermore, it seems there have been no lasting or historic consequences to this crime per WP:CRIME. Mkdw ^talk 07:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per duff and Mkdw, who make persuasive points. Jus da fax 07:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per BabbaQ 174.91.154.167 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShe is a native of Karampon and the rape incident was widely published in local Tamil newspapers.Kaytsfan (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention at Sri Lanka and state terrorism#Torture and rape. It would help if you could link some local newspaper sources because I'm currently not seeing much international coverage. The two aforementioned books, [4] and [5], are closely paraphrased and mention her in the passing. One is sourced from this Amnesty International source [6] and I wouldn't be surprised if the other was as well. It just doesn't seem to meet WP:BLP1E. Funny ^Pika! 02:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though she is in fact mentioned in these books, she is mentioned in passing and in my opinion not substantively enough to exempt BLP1E. It is likely but not sure that both books cite this incident (or person) from the Amnesty International source. That possibility aside though, it is worth a mention in the article mentioned by FunnyPika above. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:58, 4 February 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 - blatant hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight at 10 o'Clock[edit]

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

Unsourced British TV chat show. Prod removed. Google search returns nothing and there's no evidence that this exists. Funny ^Pika! 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. No mention of even a projected programme by this name on either the Channel 4 or Alan Carr official websites. --AJHingston (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. At the stated times on channel 4 it's actually "Paddy's TV Guide". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - if you look at the history of edits made the program has lots of different made up details, with different channels/years/presenters - and has never existed. Some school kids have too much time on their hands :) ---- _nonsense ferret 00:11, 28 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelina Fedele[edit]

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

Notable only for giving birth to the world's largest healthy baby, which probably qualifies as one event. And she doesn't actually hold the record for heaviest birth, only the heaviest healthy birth. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination is solid against WP:BLP1E. Mkdw ^talk 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 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 deleted. Peridon (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AdsPonder[edit]

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

no references given, and i was not able to find any reliable sources which indicate notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I nominated it for CSD A7. The article makes no credible claim of significance. They haven't even been in business for a year. The article has an overly promotion tone and appears to written by an SPA. - Mr X 19:43, 27 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 redirect to DeSoto County School District. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES usually redirects the article to the school district that that operates the subject. There is nothing that says a common outcome is a keep. A redirect to the school district is the most appropriate in this case. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Cormorant Elementary[edit]

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

Elementary school. One-sentence article indicating that it exists. Zero refs. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards, though there is a small amount of standard non-notable, run-of-the-mill, largely local coverage (and it certainly does exist). Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Desoto County, Mississippi~~ DeSoto County School District per longstanding practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DeSoto County School District would be the proper target, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it satisfies the relevant notability guideline WP:ORG, and nothing in that guideline calls for a redirect rather than a deletion when the subject isn't notable. Edison (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A "common outcome" is not a guideline, and is a pretty weak authority to cite as a keep argument (though I've done it, I admit). There is too much circularity in citing a "common outcome" as if it were a guideline. There was a recent discussion of this very issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Fix the guideline, or establish a consensus in the guideline's talk page that merger to the district is the correct outcome for the typical elementary school. Edison (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DeSoto County School District per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DeSoto County School District School does not establish individual notability under WP:GNG and subsequently should be a redirect. Mkdw ^talk 07:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 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 defeated by spiral power (delete). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedean–Galileo_spiral[edit]

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

Non-notable and contains original research. Maxal (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. There are no references cited, and no mentions of "Archimedean–Galileo_spiral" or plausible variants in ZMATH, suggesting that there is no literature on the subject. Deltahedron (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just to be clear, Maxal is the one who proposed the deletion; Deltahedron is simply giving a recommendation. Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for a question posed on MathOverflow and the OEIS reference, I could find no references for "Archimedean Galileo spiral" or "Archimedes Galileo spiral" on Google Scholar or in Google books. Hits in Google seem to be connected to the Wikipedia article. Without secondary sources and only a primary source on OEIS (which itself has no references), this topic does not meet notability guidelines WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any reliable sourcing, and without any representation of this term in the scientific literature, it is too close to original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Please note that there were other opinions on Wiki early from other users. Generally the article needs improvements for sources, no doubts. On the other hand it is very unclear why to delete it completely. The equiation exists. It's just to popularise math projects on Wiki. Why not to keep it somewhere ( not necessery as an article)? —Migvnk 31 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migvnk (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The articles hosted here must be solidly grounded in material that has already been published in reliable sources. Several people, including myself, have looked for these sources but have been unable to locate any. So the problem here isn't that the article needs improvement, but rather that (as far as we can tell) nothing has been published on the topic - and that makes it non-notable from the standpoint of a tertiary source. As intriguing as the math may be, it's simply not a good fit for Wikipedia unless existing secondary sources demonstrate its notability. Otherwise it is original research which is best published in places other than Wikipedia. Now it is possible that we missed something along the way. If you happen to know of any additional sources containing discussion of this topic, or the "other opinions on Wiki early from other users" mentioned some, please feel free to provide the citations. Anyways, hopefully this helps to answer your question. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some searching, but could not locate any discussion in reliable sources. I find this situation curious though; the article suggests that this spiral is a generalized form from which both the Archimedean spiral and the Galileo spiral emerge as special cases. It would seem surprising to me if no mathematical literature at all took an interest in that. It is (at least remotely) possible that the article's title is a neologism and that the differential equation described therein is better known under some different name. But right now I'm simply not seeing any indication of notability. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This is the second time discussion on English Wiki from where it was clear that the name of the spiral was granted for Wiki.. There was a link in Wiki, but I can hardly find it now ( it was on 7 Jan 2013 or so). But the second round of discussion appears again raised by the same user. Well, at least Mike Agricola agreed that math is an intriguing area. It is still unclear what the notability in math is. For eg, If a proof of Riemann hypothesis is published in Wiki despite that it’s not a “publishing platform” and there are no sources in science literature, will it be deleted too? If a person can understand that is true, shall he/she should delete it from WIki? Mike Agricola wrote: “It would seem surprising to me if no mathematical literature at all took an interest in that”. Yes, it surprisingly to me too. Well, you can easily see that for a well-known Archimedean spiral there is a property that for large angles the point, which forms the spiral, is moving along the Archimedean spiral with uniform acceleration (the error is about 1/(1+\pheta^2)). I cannot see sources to that property of Archimedean spiral which is known for years. But why do we need to delete it keeping is as a secret - a very unlcear way Migvnk 3 Feb 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migvnk (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are not just rules that were made up for the sake of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia in which material is based on what can be verified in independent reliable sources. If there are no such sources, there's nothing we can use to verify the validity of material. Hence it is impossible to write a verifiable article on a topic that fails to meet the notability guidelines. If, to take the example quoted, a proof of the Riemann hypothesis were to be found, it would soon attract independent analysis by reliable sources and we could then summarise the results of that analysis. Indeed, something similar recently occurred over Shinichi Mochizuki and his claimed proof of the abc conjecture. Deltahedron (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Beyond nomination, no arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced article about a non-notable future film fails WP:FFILM and WP:CRYSTAL~~ - Mr X 14:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does have some sources, and the fact that the lead roles are played by James McAvoy and Jessica Chastain suggests that the films (this ia a two-film project) are notable enough to warrant an article prior to release. WP:FFILM does not apply; the project has already completed principal photography, and WP:FFILM is for projects that haven't started filming yet. The project is notable under WP:NFF which covers as-yet-unreleased films. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Initially the article was rough, admittedly, but a search brought up multiple sources that showed that the film had moved into post-production and looks to pass WP:NFF. Easy keep.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The film is receiving significant coverage and looks to meet the threshold for retention. Seaphoto^Talk 02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability guidelines for future films. MrX, WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid reporting properly referenced discussion about a film in production. Rather, it is about the placement of information, and the consensus is to use the start of filming as a threshold for creating a stand-alone article. Before that, there is not a strong guarantee of a final product, and early coverage tends to be merged elsewhere. If filming does start, it is much more likely for there to be a final product for which we will ultimately discuss film "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". Erik (talk | contribs) 13:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Obviously I erred in nominating this article. I almost always look for sources in Google news at a minimum, so I'm not sure what happened here. In any case, could I ask an uninvolved editor or admin to please close this? - Mr X 13:37, 28 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh FM Top 92[edit]

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

Music award from a local station. While we include most FCC (and equivalent) licensed FM/AM stations as notable, we hardly include their regular promotional material. This is exactly that. No outside notability either. Shadowjams (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These countdowns have two purposes to exist; act as a promotional tool and a very simple way to have station staff pound out 40-60 tags on tape and have a (insert holiday here) break. No need for this as information is solely of use to listeners in Adelaide, if that. Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never should have been an article in the first place, in my view. Highly unencylopedic. Jus da fax 08:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plainly not notable. and not encyclopaedic. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is, in my opinion, clearly not notable. Here we have a list of songs that were picked (under an unknown methodology) by a single radio station. Per our common music and chart guidelines (the latter may not be applicable but it counts as a general rough guideline of which to include and which not to) this kind of information should not exist, as it has no encyclopedic value. Also, this information comes from a primary source (which is de facto deemed as not notable) and has not been discussed by other sources of information. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:19, 31 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. KTC (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glamoč municipal elections, 2012[edit]

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

Local (read: mayor) level elections in most communities are not notable. Major cities probably qualify, but this is certainly not that. Widespread non-local coverage is an easy metric, and it's not met here. Shadowjams (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What we have here is a failure of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:15, 3 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lewis III[edit]

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

Non-notable high-school football player, just entering college. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, WP:NSPORT. Also, notability is not inherited. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might become notable anyway, but it's too early to tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not "one of the top rated football players in class of 2013", as the article claims. Not even close. Therefore, not notable. --bender235 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable other than being the son of Ray Lewis.--Yankees10 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ray Lewis Unless a high school football player somehow scores 12 touchdowns in a game, they're never notable to anyone except local fans and the niche HSF scouting community. Redirect to subject's father is appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 08:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete high school players are rarely notable. What little interest there seems on this particular subject is directed to the primary article as mentioned above. No prejudice to re-create, as the player may likely become notable later in life.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bongwarrior. Too early....William 02:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding the number of Google hits and some substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, I believe that the overwhelming majority of the coverage is derivative of his relationship with his clearly notable father. Yes, it is a judgment call, but I generally err on the side of not including high school athletes. As others have rightly pointed out, it's a rare high school athlete who is notable in his own right, and I don't believe this subject is one of those rare exceptions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Razana[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP. No suggestion that the serials are significant. None of the movie roles are significant. As such, fails notability for actors (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no assertion of notability per WP:NACTOR and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Creator's account is an obvious sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhil.s.vijayan), and will probably be blocked shortly as well. Altered Walter (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And may I suggest bundling the article Shanti Williams here, by same creator, on the same grounds of notability. Altered Walter (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see any significant sources having had a bit of an old google ---- _nonsense ferret 12:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no notability proved. Lyk4 (talk) 14:15, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoss's Steak and Sea House[edit]

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

1. no secondary source fails WP:ORG 2. quick search didn't find any 3.advert for local chain - what's notable? Widefox; talk 09:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any significant sources, so not notable, but I did find this oblique reference [7] which says it all really ---- _nonsense ferret 12:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ - I'm actually fairly familiar with the restaurant chain but I'm not convinced it's notable. There are some local news articles and reviews along the lines of this one but these aren't extensive. This may be a problem of sources not being available but it does also speak to lack of notability. §everal⇒|Times 18:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind to a Weak Keep - I believe there is just enough material to establish notability, especially with what The Bushranger found. §everal⇒|Times 18:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I searched Google to see what there is about Hoss's. The info there seems to be mostly online reviews on Tripadvisor and a few other sites. Tripadvisor does go beyond a simple 1 thru 5 star rating. It asks online reviewers for ratings concerning the food, service, value and atmosphere, which requires more than simple impressions of the restaurants. There are about 32 Hoss's, which in itself should go a long way toward establishing notability. It appears many or most of the locations are rated on Tripadvisor. There are some brief mentions of individual Hoss's restaurants on other sites. This article needs to reference that something other then the company website has info on the company. Bill Pollard (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tripadvisor is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the number of established restaurants helping with notability, there could be hundreds of locations but they don't contribute to notability unless a reliable source states as much. §everal⇒|Times 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After a search (including for 'Hoss's Family Steak and Sea'), I believe sufficent sources exist that notability can be established. [8], [9] Note especially [10], [11], [12]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources establish notability and noteriety, which I'll bet Hoss's was hoping would not appear here. Oh, well, we are to write and edit articles with neutrality and let the chips fall where they may. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per my comment below, which satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH / WP:ORG? seems run of the WP:MILL, even if there are RS. Widefox; talk 10:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the news articles are employment advertisements or local gatherings such as wedding receptions, church events and post-sports games parties. At first, I thought they gained the most attention for the 2007 E. coli incident but after more extensive searches, it was the contrary. I found a 2011 news article here after a flood damaged the restaurant and two articles here and here for "new restaurant" announcements. What made me lean towards keep is that, although it is best known in the Pennsylvania area, the restaurant has achieved several "Best Places to Work in PA" awards, apparently in 2008 and "is the second consecutive year and the fourth time Hoss's has made the list". The restaurant also received news coverage in 1998 for building a bathroom at a park through a construction company that they owned. This news article is also fairly significant and even hosted a car show in 2009 which isn't proof for notability but it is interesting. The restaurant, as of 2005, has also received news coverage for its decor of "dozens of old framed photos, newspapers, and antiques on its walls'" and mentions the foundation in 1983 by Bill Campbell (not shown in preview). The article could have a "controversy" section for the lawsuit from the two waitresses (it received good media attention) and, of course, the E. coli incident. The information listed above should hold and I found this which supports Willard Campbell as the founder. A Google News search for "Bill Campbell Hoss's Steak and Sea House" provided additional evidence confirming he has always been the chairman and CEO with this talking briefly about the history and these links suggests it is still based in Duncansville. I plan to improve the article by tomorrow afternoon or night. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)2[reply]

Appreciate the research work. I see local press adverts and individual news events. Struggling to see wheat for chaff..although willing to give benefit of the doubt. Which of these are a couple of reliable sources (context WP:ORGDEPTH) about the organisation? doubt "Best Places to Work in PA" makes it over the bar. Dropping down to weak delete. WP:MILL seems appropriate. Widefox; talk 10:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While not a nationwide chain, people from Pennsylvania are familiar with the chain, as if it has become a part of their culture. Numerous articles cited above could be encorporated into this article if it were rewritten. For example, this article could be used to describe the impact of flooding in 2011. Fightin' Phillie 22:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightin' Phillie (talk • contribs)

yes that source helps for writing, although I believe a reopening article (essentially a local press promo) is below the threshold for a WP:RS. The fact that it exists is not relevant for the notability. Widefox; talk 19:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when notability is established. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Schmitt[edit]

(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 has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that USL Pro is a fully pro league and that the player has signed for Phoenix FC. Doesn't matter, if a player doesn't play in a fully pro league match, a competitive cup match that features two fully pro teams or a senior international match (and this guy has done neither) he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and more importantly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played matches in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 30 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tenhemad[edit]

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

I nominate this article for deletion because it has a lack of sources. In fact, it has none at all. Haberneroboy16 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the village shows up on an official census then I think the norm is that villages and cities are considered notable. (WP:NGEOG) It would be good to have sources, but a lack of sources isn't always a rationale for deletion. An absence of sources on the net or beyond that would prove the article is notable would be, though.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sources have been added, and per WP:GEOLAND, officially recorded villages as this one are considered notable. De728631 (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look's ten times better, I will remove the prop deletion. --Haberneroboy16 (talk) 22:14, 27 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 Speedied via G11 and A7. Article was deleted by User:Jimfbleak under G11 and A7. (Non-admin closure) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Durgaprasanna Paramhansa[edit]

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

Since there are no references and I can't definitively discover who this might be via Google, there is no evidence of notability, that this individual, lived and died, or even whether this is a myth or hoax. I am One of Many (talk) 07:18, 27 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 redirect to Wayne Toups. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZyDeCajun[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. UnbelievableError (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:41, 14 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, Courcelles 01:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wayne Toups; this is the name of his band and one of his albums as well as the word he uses for his musical style.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objections to this. I wish I had been bold enough to do that in the first place. - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:21, 25 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, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 06:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wayne Toups FurrySings (talk) 06:25, 27 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. Vandalism WP:G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2Fae Animated Emoticons[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Nor is it a dictionary for neologisms. To the creator, I'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and Wikipedia:Original research. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something made up one day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Rasor[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much for this American pioneer, just this mention in the book Historic Downtown Plano. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to see an article talking of 2010 in the future tense. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 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, Courcelles 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local heroes are not necessarily notable. Shii (tock) 11:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I pumped it up a bit. Enough people in and around Plano, Texas have thought this farmer is notable enough to deserve a published mini-bio, and that is sufficient. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:17, 26 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, Courcelles 04:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I heard of this guy in a college American history class, and I neither live in Texas nor specialize in Texas history. Bacchiad (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is something here that I am not seeing. The claim of notability is that he was a "pioneer", which can be used figuratively but the usual meaning in terms of western American history is one of the earliest European-American settlers of an area. He simply wasn't a pioneer. Rasor came to Plano, Texas in 1883, when Texas was thoroughly settled. Texas became an independent republic in 1836 and a state of the union in 1845. It seceded from the union in 1861 and returned in 1870. The Plano area was settled in the 1840s, and it isn't exactly remote, as it is only 20 miles from Dallas. Railroad service came to Plano in 1872, the town was incorporated in 1873, and it was described as a flourishing business center in the 1880s. So, in what sense was Rasor a pioneer? He was simply a successful cotton farmer. He's mentioned in a local history book by Arcadia Publishing which isn't exactly a university press. He has a local elementary school and a road named after him. He's just like millions of other solid non-notable people around the world. I just don't see the notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not really to do with achievement, which is a very subjective concept, or even with fame, also subjective. The test is that multiple independent sources have written about the subject. He is notable because various sources have found him worthy of note, researched and recorded his life. Millions of people are indeed notable. Most are not. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think having a school named after him is enough to show notability.[13] FurrySings (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly appropriate for wikipedia. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is the namesake of an elementary school, that gets us pretty much to the finish line, notability-wise, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if somebody wants to run Rasor Elementary School to AfD, I have another opinion about that... Carrite (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly a "pioneer" per Cullen, and fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was a pioneer of Texas cotton farming, but that is not relevant. The basic criterion for WP:BIO, which this person clearly meets, is "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject appears to cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the emerging consensus to keep, and that's OK with me, I guess. But I really have a problem with this term "pioneer" being applied to this man. I demonstrated clearly that he was not a Texas pioneer in the conventional sense, because he came to Plano in 1883, well after it was a thriving commercial town served by a railroad. Now, we have Aymatth2 saying that instead, he was a "pioneer" in Texas cotton farming. Hmmmm, interesting. Anglo-American colonists farmed cotton in Texas starting in 1821. There was a sharp rise in production in the 1850s, and the state produced 431,645 bales of cotton in 1859. Rasor came to Texas a quarter of a century later. So, in what sense was he a "pioneer" of Texas cotton farming? Why is he notable? Because of some trivial local press reports. A school district website has published a little biographical sketch of dubious reliability. Arcadia Publishing, which publishes local books by the thousands written by local writers, has mentioned him in a couple of sentences. Are those really truly reliable sources, with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Are a handful of mediocre published sources enough to establish notability for a biography, especially absent an actual reliable claim of notability? Is every farmer and life insurance salesman and car dealer and pharmacist who has accumulated a few press clippings "notable"? Then why do we delete biographies of young musicians and models and soccer players and minor league baseball players and managers? Most of them have a handful of press clippings as well. I simply don't think this ordinary cotton farmer was notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, but I must accept the consensus decision, whatever it may be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glaring factual errors All of the stuff in the article about the self-sufficiency of the earlier settlers comes from the Arcadia Publishing book, but applies to an entirely different Plano family called the Formans. But the author of that amateurish book about the old days in Plano didn't have a photo of the Formans, did have a photo of the Rasors, and stuck that in instead. Pasting in an available photo turns the Rasors into "pioneers". The source conflates hunting wild hogs with slaughtering commercially farmed hogs. This is what passes for a "reliable source" establishing notability. Sorry, not for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to doubt that the Rasors hunted and gathered wild food, particularly when they were getting started. That is what all rural people did in those days, and what many still do, which is why I have venison in my freezer. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rasors well have done so, but perhaps they were too busy raising cotton and hogs. We don't know. The cited source simply doesn't say they did these things. The source says that another family called the Formans engaged in those activities, but not the Rasors. To say the Rasors did these things is pure speculation, and we aren't supposed to speculate in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets GNG. The argument about the school being named after him should not be a factor in determining notability, it should be based on reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really consider these sources "reliable"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I knew the Wells, Harrington, and Schell families that provided some of the information, and unless you can show me that it's not reliable, I'll stick with my position. You have two published works, both by reliable publishers (and neither are self-publish houses). You have a news article (obit) from the Star-Courier, which is reliable. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I came to this thinking I wold vote delete, but I'm not naturally a deletionist. My main prolem is this: he didn't do anything notable except own a lot of land. Maybe if he owned a quantifiably and unusually large amount of land (4,000 doesn't seem unusual for a rancher), I'd make this a strong keep. If he held any office, I'd also say tis was strong. Otherwise, I'm voting keep solely because I think local history gets undercut on Wikipedia by AfD-happy editors, and although not all local heroes are inherently notable, Wiki isn't so small of a place that it can't be inclusive. I do agree with Cullen to the extent that everyone here is forgetting that WP:GNG states tha being found in reliable sources creates only a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. Cdtew (talk) 02:57, 2 February 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 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Allen (gridiron football)[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Mayumashu (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search of Google News reveals a good number of articles specific to this individual. Passes based on WP:GNG easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query. I did a Google News archive search as well and found mostly stuff with passing references to Allen. Paul -- If there are particular articles that you think reflect substantive coverage, it would be helpful if you could link a couple. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I'm finding far less material for this subject than the former Stanford player we just agreed to delete. What substantive content are you finding in multiple, independent, reliable sources which I'm not? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a few minutes to patrol discussions but not to really dig in. The KC Star articles in the link above look good to me but I'll grant that others may consider them "local" even though the star is a national paper. The Wichita Eagle articles also come to mind. Sadly, they're pay-per-view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 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, Courcelles 01:05, 20 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, Courcelles 04:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He never played a professional game in any league that matters, and his college career was unremarkable. This isn't even close. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not seeing enuf coverage that is focused on Rodney. Willing to reconsider if a couple specifics can be highlighted. Cbl62 (talk)<
Delete per Cbl62. cmadler (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I did a search of him on HighBeam Research and came up with this, this, and this, all of which are articles from the Journal-World regarding Allen when he was in college. They seem to collectively demonstrate notability, albeit not terribly strongly, per WP:GNG. Go Phightins! 04:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two passing mentions, one of which is a one sentence mention that is career was "ended" by a neck injury, the other source mentions him as a backup, again with a two sentence passing mention, the third source is borderline typical coverage. Not strong enough sources for WP:GNG, nor I don't see much happening anytime soon, especially with the two damming sources in the end. Delete Secret ^account 06:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Funker Vogt. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code 7477[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years now; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 18 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, Courcelles 01:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Funker Vogt. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this release, but a redirect seems appropriate as it's a plausible search term (release by a notable artist). Gong show 07:58, 20 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, Courcelles 04:06, 27 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Chiba Stearns[edit]

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

No reliable sources, tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tending towards keep. The subject seems to get quite a bit of local news coverage around Vancouver and quite a lot of awards (some of which might help towards notability - but I'm not much good on any but the most major film awards) - but leaving these aside, I've been able to find three at least moderately in-depth discussions in apparently reliable sources of individual films: this of What Are You Anyways?, this of Yellow Sticky Notes, and this of One Big Hapa Family. To be honest, I'd like to see a bit more, but on the basis that what is important about an artist is their work, these discussions by themselves seem to bring the subject close to notability. PWilkinson (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very nearly speedy keep. He's made a bunch of films. They're exhibited at festivals, they're shown on television. It's a bit of a neglected page, but deletion won't improve it. Plenty of sources appear to by lying around Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 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, Courcelles 01:11, 20 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, Courcelles 04:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in reliable sources[14], winner of multiple prizes covered in reliable sources, discussed in a scholarly work[15]. Passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per analysis and comments of User:Arxiloxos showing reliable sources are available and lack of improvement for something ultimately improvable is not a valid rationale for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 31 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 01:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChatterEmail[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; I couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - google search turn up coverage in reliable sources PC Magazine, and PC World ([16],[17]). Article was, however, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 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, Courcelles 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just an app, and those sources don't provide any significant information about it. Shii (tock) 11:27, 20 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, Courcelles 03:58, 27 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 redirect to Bellowhead. Jujutacular (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mellon[edit]

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

A musician known for his membership of the notable folk group, Bellowhead. I can find no evidence of reliable coverage about Mellon and the article makes no claims of notability either. At best this should be redirected to Bellowhead, he does not seem to be independently notable. Unfortunately the authoring IP has reverted the redirect so I've bought this to AfD. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the original members of Bellowhead, composed for the Cultural Olympiad, and is award-nominated for his composing. AfD is the wrong place for this as it would be a redirect to Bellowhead at worst. --86.40.107.199 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? He was one of five people nominated for composing 'Fables', one tenth of Bellowhead and one of 25,000 artists taking part in the Cultural Olympiad. None of these mark him out. Sionk (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #8, which states that a musician is notable if:

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

BASCA is evidently considered a "major music award" for which Mellon was nominated.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:16, 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 01:11, 20 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, Courcelles 03:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main subject of the sources is the band Bellowhead and not Andy Mellon himself. WP:NMUSIC states "that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." BASCA is definitely a notable award to be nominated for, but the song The Hartlepool Monkey is written together with another Bellowhead member, Paul Sartin, and performed with musicians from Bellowhead. So, if we think it counts as an "activity independent of the band", the article should be kept and it also means that the second composer and Bellowhead member Paul Sartin is notable as well, and if not, it should be merged into the band's article. Nimuaq (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a clear argument for redirect ;) Sionk (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nimuaq. Writing a song for the band doesn't seem to me to be "activity independent of the band". Storkk (talk) 17:26, 4 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Toronto Youth Services[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't verify notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The nominator's motives are irrelevant as long as it is a good-faith nomination, which it clearly is. But the question of notability is relevant. The organization may have enough coverage to meet WP:ORG. It has quite a few references at Google News Archive and I will attempt to add some of them to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF states that it is usually best to address conduct without mentioning motives. We can assume that the nominator acted in good faith in these nominations and add no conflict with SK#2. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 21 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, Courcelles 01:15, 20 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, Courcelles 03:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject of the article gets a large number of hits, 475, in my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles. The articles range from 1975 to the present day. Unfortunately the search function is not so good at sorting by relevance, so it is tough to sift through and find the best to add to the article here. But I've added a few more to the ones that MelanieN added. I think it's also worth noting that this organization's studies are often cited by others, as shown in the Google Scholar link, above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 27 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karst Hoogsteen[edit]

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

Notability of this article is in question. –BuickCentury Driver 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 04:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your reasons based on Wikipedia policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. When I first saw the article it looked like utter crankery, but Hoogsteen pairs really are notable (maybe 500 hits for that phrase in Google scholar), and (assuming it's the same Karst Hoogsteen) he has citation counts of 1234, 271, 264, 210, etc., a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. But it seems very difficult to obtain any reliable information about him. He worked for Caltech in the 1950s? And later for Merck? Even that much is hazy. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six papers with over 100 cites each. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 20 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, Courcelles 01:17, 20 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, Courcelles 03:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's no more info on him, a merge to Hoogsteen base pair might be justified. It depends on whether there's a realistic likelihood of this article being significantly expanded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:48, 27 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. Fram (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Grant[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:BLP1E, and an unsourced BLP at that. Someone who posts a Youtube video is not notable. Author has a history of creating non-notable, unref'd BLPs. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. –BuickCentury Driver 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This is the crux of this issue. Victoria Grant was covered in numerous online sources, including HuffPo, Forbes and the Financial Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/15/victoria-grant-12-canadian-banking_n_1518953.html http://article.wn.com/view/2012/05/17/The_Victoria_Grant_Video_The_Early_Phase_of_a_Viral_Video_Ag/ http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/16/william-watson-no-victoria-there-is-no-money-monster/ She has a wikipedia entry not because of a youtube video, but because it has sparked conversation across the web regarding central banks, governments, and deficits. -- Marc Armstrong (ED of Public Banking Institute) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arips1 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would happen on any slow news day. There's no lasting notability here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:55, 15 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, Courcelles 01:18, 20 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, Courcelles 03:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Victoria Grant's notability: [which addresses the issue of notability as referenced by Marc Armstrong]

1) William Watson, a distinguished professor at McGill University, addressed Victoria in the National Post http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/fps-william-watson-no-victoria-there-is-no-money-monster/

2) CTV News interviewed Victoria Grant on two separate Occasions http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/cambridge-girl-criticizes-canadian-banking-system-becomes-youtube-hit-1.830144 http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=835317

3) Laura Macnaughton of CBC News interviewed Victoria Grant http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/19/girl-finance-youtube-speech.html

4) Victoria Grant was Interviewed by Leslie Scrivener of The Star, a national newspaper in Canada http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/05/18/how_a_speech_on_banking_by_12yearold_victoria_grant_12_went_viral.html

5) The Huffington Post presents a significant article on Victoria Grant addressing her knowledge of the Banking system http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/15/victoria-grant-12-canadian-banking_n_1518953.html

6) Yahoo Finance addresses Victoria Grant's topic of Banking and her notability http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/victoria-grant-video-canadian-banking-123700315.html

7) Victoria Grant was interviewed by Michelle McQuigge of The Canadian Press on two separate occasions and was noted as one of Canada's most notable persons of 2012 http://metronews.ca/news/canada/225707/pint-sized-financial-pundit-goes-viral-with-banking-system-rant/ http://metronews.ca/news/canada/491158/victoria-grant-to-tackle-private-banking-in-new-video/#

8)Victoria Grant was interviewed by RT TV http://rt.com/news/canada-banking-child-economist-811/

9)Victoria Grant's speech has been translated into numerous other languages across the world.Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8z-dhpgUHE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkv9ZYfk7fs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVE4JD_Mq_A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyPDRL9v3xg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YqnUp0crHw

10) Victoria Grant was interviewed by Luca Bergamin of Grazia Magazine in Italy

11) There are even more notable statements that could be made but I believe the above addresses the concerns of Lugnuts and BuickCenturyDriver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.54.5 (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Addition to the above List:

12) Victoria Grant was asked to speak at TED in Vancouver BC: [Here is the personal request from TED talks]

Dear Victoria,

We were so impressed by the speech you gave at the Public Banking Institute Conference and are excited to invite you to come and give a short 6-minute talk at our TED@Vancouver salon event, taking place the evening of Thursday May 31, 2012.

Some of the speakers for TED@Vancouver have applied to participate and have been chosen from a group of applicants … but we wanted to be sure to involve people whose work we've had on our radar and admired, and that's why we're writing to you.

TED@Vancouver is part of a series of TED salon events taking place between April-June in 14 cities around the world to help us discover a broad array of thinkers and doers. With our Worldwide Talent Search, we are inviting 20-30 people to join us in each city to give a 3 to 6 minute presentation in front of a live audience of about 200 passionate local TED supporters.

All of the talks from TED@Vancouver will be filmed and will go onto a special section of our website. Some presenters from these events will be chosen to participate at TED2013 in Long Beach, California, with the theme The Young. The Wise. The Undiscovered. We're planning to curate half of the TED2013 program with speakers from these salons. But the salons stand as events in their own right, and talks given there could resonate widely online as well as live.

We'd love to have you participate and are willing to pay your travel and hotel costs. What do you say?

All best,

Nick Weinberg TED Content Coordinator

Kelly Stoetzel TED Content Director — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.54.5 (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but this is still a big pile of WP:BLP1E. So she got a few newspapers to cover her Youtube speach? So what? There's nothing outside of this 2 minutes of self-promotion that makes her notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, thank you for your input, although the evidence strongly disagrees with your conclusion. This is not a few papers that have interviewed her. This is continued notable recognition from reputable tv news shows; reputable radio shows; reputable internet shows; reputable news papers; one of the most reputable advanced thinking organizations (TED); and her talk has influenced a worldwide discussion on the topic she addressed. Her name is now connected to this topic in dozens of countries worldwide. Your comment that this was simply 'self promotion' is not based in evidence. The evidence clearly demonstrates that she can articulate, did articulate and has continued to articulate a position on the corruption within banking that needs to be stopped, that has in turn influenced hundreds of thousands of people around the world to research and address this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.54.5 (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So because someone can articulate their viewpoint about the banking sector, that justifies an article here? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, It is not simply the articulation. It is the continuing influence of that articulation that matters and the continuing 'events' Victoria involves herself with that continues to propagate that influence. Secondly, her notariety is not the result of a 'soapbox' presentation. It is the result of her in depth research, and presentation of that research, at the age of 12 that began the process which brought her notariety. Third, Victoria's mutliple 'youtube' videos are the result of her speaking engagements across North America, which were all separate events. This is not a 'one' event occurence. There are multiple separate events of which all have been addressed with different mediums of interaction by reputable sources.184.175.54.5 (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Facing42[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination, the only coverage is related to a YouTube video which is hardly an event of sufficient fame or notoriety to trigger the exception in BLP1E. The news coverage and interviews are all results of that single event, and while it is sufficient to make the content verifiable, it is insufficient to clear the WP:BLP1E and the WP:NOT#NEWS criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Clearly currently only a BLP1E at the moment, perhaps a NOTNOW until more notable things occur. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Biscayne (resort)[edit]

(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) 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quaint little resort, no hint of notability. Most the article is advertised as being a WP:COPYVIO. -- BenTels (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep extremely notable former Miami institution that helped the development of the city, covered by plenty of reliable sources, part of The Barnacle which is in the National Register of Historic Places. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Biscayne. Secret ^account 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's among the development of the area that later became The Barnacle Historic State Park. It sounds like it has historic significance. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:58, 15 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, Courcelles 01:22, 20 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, Courcelles 03:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequately sourced; NRHP connection cited above by Secret adds weight to the Keep case, in my view. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested that the article be moved to Camp Biscayne, which currently redirects to Camp Biscayne (resort). Sorry if this causes any confusion. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I deleted the guest list. Secret deleted the big blurb copied from the brochure. I added a standard reference layout and one citation. I'll add a couple of more citations. GroveGuy (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy notability now; while much work is still needed, WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the only public source on a really important part of Cocoanut Grove history, which is a really important part of Miami history. I'm REALLY put out with GroveGuy for removing the guest list because that is really, really interest. A lot of famous people of the era stayed at Camp Biscayne and removing this basically removes knowledge of that. The Barnacle Historic State Park use to have a hotel register for a few years on exhibit and always talked about Alexaner Graham Bell staying there but they never mentioned all the other famous people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.64.157 (talk)

Keep as notable along Carrite's reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of state Constitution Parties. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of New Jersey[edit]

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

Numerous stubs have been created for the Constitution Party (United States). Like many of the others, this one fails to show it is notable enough for a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 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, Courcelles 01:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the CP is a fine organization but there's nothing significant about this branch. Shii (tock) 11:29, 20 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, Courcelles 03:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of state Constitution Parties. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state Constitution Parties. Redirects are cheap (cheaper than deletion, even). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Coal Theatre Company[edit]

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

Seems like an unreferenced advert. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no prejudice to being rewritten The notability tag was added as a drive-by with no explanation on the talk page or in the edit comment, and the tagger never made another edit to the article. On Google, I saw hits that would merit more attention, so there is a preliminary presumption of notability. If being tagged for five years with a notability tag was a concern, the tag could have been removed. With the total failure of WP:V, there is no verifiable material to salvage. The component that is promotional tone means that the article should not be incubated. Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user ( VigilancePrime (talk · contribs) ) who tagged it for notability years ago was banned for disruptive editing around that same time, although, seeing the article now, I too have to question notability. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Would have to go with delete here for now. May be notable, but can't really tell. I looked on Google and don't really see coverage of the group in anything more than upcoming performances mentions and a few performance reviews that are not really notable, in my opinion. Others are just mentions that they exist. Not widespread coverage and can't tell that they have won any awards apart from a local weekly paper's mention back in 2000. Being around for 16 years or so might lend some weight, but can't really say keep just because of that, I don't know. If any more sources are found or awards won, it could always be recreated in the future. Will keep looking. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this theater company has been covered in a reasonably notable blog BroadwayWorld.com and has also been covered in some books beyond the typical directory type entrys. RadioFan (talk) 01:16, 19 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, Courcelles 01:24, 20 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, Courcelles 03:53, 27 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Easy Jam[edit]

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

Unreferenced, orphaned article, tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 13 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 13. Snotbot t • c » 15:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find any hint on Google that this festival was ever very notable. And it also seems to be dead, so it doesn't seem like it will ever achieve notability. -- BenTels (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Glastonbury Festival (a brief mention would suffice). This at least confirms that it was part of the festival. --Michig (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:53, 14 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, Courcelles 01:25, 20 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, Courcelles 03:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who on earth thought that this was ever worth an article, its 100 percent delete and no redirect - there is no coverage ---- _nonsense ferret 14:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect: Not even close to being notable. Toddst1 (talk) 14:47, 27 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 Jackie Mason. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Goldberg: Private Dick[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable film. Unable to find any independent, reliable sources. - Mr X 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a straight to DVD film starring Jackie Mason. The article is terrible. No opinion on the film's notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's some mentions of the film in third-party sources including this one, but there's no sources I can find that focus specifically on the film. The article itself doesn't make any claim of notability for the film. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackie Mason. I did a search and other than small trivial mentions, there is no coverage for this film at all. It's one of hundreds of films made by notable people that go largely unnoticed by the world at large. Since Mason is the main focus of the film and the most notable person involved with it, I suggest redirecting this to his article. For anyone that comes in after this, I want to note that the original article title was the film's working title and the film was actually released under "Goldberg, P.I.". If anyone wants to userfy a copy of this in the off chance that this gets attention later on down the line, I've cleaned it up. Probably an effort in futility, but I wanted to at least make it look better so incoming editors didn't dismiss it based upon its initial appearance.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect and merge to Jackie Mason as per Tokyogirl. LenaLeonard (talk) 21:57, 31 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Poodle[edit]

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

Not mentioned anywhere in google books or scholar, only on breeder websites and forums. non-notable. TKK ^{bark !} 03:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of obvious notability. If sources exist that show this to be a notable breed, now's the time to bring them forward. My own search turns up nothing of relevance. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:21, 31 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. KTC (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catahoula Bulldog[edit]

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

Nonnotable, unrecognized dog breed not mentioned in any reliable secondary sources TKK ^{bark !} 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. Today I added 2 source footnotes (book and major newspaper article) to show wider notability in a 2005 book about dogs and direct mention of Catahoula cross-breed in 2007 Houston Chronicle article about woman killed by dog attack with Catahoula Bulldog found at scene, noted as cross between an American Bulldog and a Catahoula Leopard Dog. Those two wider, cultural sources, 2 years apart, are in addition to any breed-focused sources showing long-term notability. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wikid77. With the additional sources, this is an easy keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:22, 31 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 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflux (convention)[edit]

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

Lacks the non-routine media coverage to pass WP:EVENT. 1292simon (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how WP:EVENT applies to what appears to be a 52-year history. I suggest that this nomination be returned to the nominator for a fuller workup that considers "What links here", analysis of Google searches, consideration of WP:V, and analysis of potential merge targets. Unscintillating (talk) 18:49, 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, Courcelles 01:27, 20 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, Courcelles 03:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see where this article mentions that the convention is an offshoot of earlier conventions held in the same area. If I'm unable to find that this specific convention isn't notable, does anyone feel like making an article about the older, earlier convention and redirecting this to that? I do want to warn that being a long running event doesn't automatically mean that it's notable. There are a lot of things that are long running, yet don't pass notability guidelines. It's all about coverage in RS when it comes down to it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I'm wondering is exactly where this comes into the larger SF convention scene. I'm searching and I'm seeing things that mention that the science fiction convention circuit as a whole has a 52 year history in that area, but this specific con has only been around for about 8-9 years. It's quite common for conventions to spin off of other, earlier conventions and it's even common for the newer convention to possess much of the same staff as the older ones. I'm not entirely seeing where the history of SF conventions in the general area would really merit an automatic keep of this.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see it now. Here's the basis of the claim: The convention has been made the National Science Fiction convention. It's not the first SF convention, but the latest singular convention to hold this title. I'm heavily leaning towards suggesting that an article get made specifically about the Australian National Science Fiction convention and have this redirect to that. The greater history of the ANSFC isn't exactly going to mean an automatic keep. It's not a small thing exactly, but this just happens to be the convention that holds this title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian National Science Fiction convention upon its creation. Here's the deal: Australia has a national SF convention. This con is the latest one to hold the title, but it's by no means the first. This is slightly different than Mom and Pop convention that runs every year, but the convention is still reliant upon the need for coverage in reliable sourcing. That doesn't really seem to exist in this case. The convention has run for about 8 years now but hasn't really attracted a good deal of mainstream coverage. What I'm suggesting is that a larger article is created for the ANSFC as a whole and this redirect to a subsection of that article. Not all official things are notable, unfortunately, and this seems to be the case here. It's a big con, but there is a lack of coverage from their local press. I'm seeing where the larger convention title as a whole might merit an article, so I'm suggesting a redirect there after its creation, otherwise it's a delete on my end.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For clarity, it appears that the first Conflux was the 2004 edition of the Australian National Science Fiction Convention, held in Canberra. After that, the same organization has continued to hold Conflux as a local SF convention for Canberra, more or less annually. So redirecting to Australian National Science Fiction Convention may not be the right way to go -- most of the Confluxes have not been the Australian National Science Fiction Convention in their years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... if that's the case then it'd probably be a delete on my end, then. The convention isn't exactly a no-name con, but it's not really a big name con that has received coverage.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 27 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. KTC (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soulsteer[edit]

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

I can't find any mention of this magazine outside of it's own pages (the site itself, facebook, instagram, etc.). The article was created by a user with the same name as the magazine's founder. I see no evidence the magazine meets WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had flagged this a few days ago so that the article creator might come forward with some kind of citations but there has been nothing, nor have I found any. Fails to meet Notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can find no coverage which would make this notable ---- _nonsense ferret 14:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable, not covered in news, promotional article.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chitral Vision[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only source is Urdu Wikipedia, and no further sources can be found based on a Google search. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added other sources and links to this article, please do not delete. Shahabdulaziz (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Shahabdulaziz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please do not delete this article as this article is about the Pakistani Literary Assciation -- Zaheeruddin25 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable, please do not delete this --Mirajbibi (talk) 04:53, 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, Courcelles 01:28, 20 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, Courcelles 02:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I ran the reflinks tool on the new references added, but those are not independent and reliable. I also ran a more thorough search than a Google search and I too could not find any more sources. However, I added the photo of Rehmat Aziz Chitrali receiving the Shandoor Award and that makes this paper an award winner, which is minimal for a keep. I would suggest that the article be merged with a redirect into Chitrali's until more sources can be found.Crtew (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm in favor of a low bar to notability for newspapers and other publications. Publications, by their nature, are not the subject of coverage by other publications — their competitors. We have the same problem at AfD with establishing the notability of journalists, who are not "covered" by competing "independent sources." We just need to accept this fact and move along. IAR Keep, the encyclopedia is better of with this material than without it and this is the sort of information that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bear in mind that available sourcing out there is apt to be in Urdu. Good luck with that. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 27 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. KTC (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Jam Party in the Pits[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and references for 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - can see no signs of notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 16 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, Courcelles 01:32, 20 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, Courcelles 02:29, 27 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. KTC (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bendrigg Trust[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Also unreferenced and orphaned. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Sounds like an excellent organization but I found little coverage beyond directory entries. --Michig (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This looks like an outdoor activities centre. Apparently it is near Old Hutton; if so, could be merge it with that - except that we do not have an article on that settlement? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 19 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, Courcelles 01:33, 20 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, Courcelles 02:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 3 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cross (computer security)[edit]

(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) 13:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). The individual is notable within his field, and widely published. The tag appears to be generating some confusion though, as it seems to have been a driveby "this person is not notable as an academic." But nowhere in the article does it say that Cross is an academic, so perhaps the tag was just a mistake? --El on ka 04:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject certainly should be notable - one of the original hacker generation, now (or at least very recently) apparently working in a senior computer security position at IBM as shown by this page of GNews hits. However, while almost any one of them would seem to be enough to verify his employment by IBM, none of them seem substantial enough to use for notability - all of them seem to be quoting him as an IBM spokesperson. And I'm finding it very difficult to come up with a search string that both sorts him out from the zillions of other Tom Crosses out there and produces any useful result. There almost have to be far better sources than the mostly primary ones currently in the article, but at the moment I don't know where they are or how to find them. PWilkinson (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability within his field would only be relevant if this were the encyclopedia of his field, which it is not. Being a spokesperson for IBM is not inherently notable, nor is User:PWilkinson's expectation of notability in futurity. Five years is certainly long enough to establish current notability; as it has not, it's time to put this to bed. The Editorial Voice (talk) 07:40, 19 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, Courcelles 01:37, 20 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, Courcelles 02:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think some people need to recallibrate their notability meters - there is nothing notable here, we've got a man that did a job, none of the coverage suggests this should be in an encyclopedia ---- _nonsense ferret 14:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sources clearly indicate that this individual is notable in his field (early computer / internet hacking). Disavian (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The topic is obviously a mover and shaker, but without our having found third parties writing biographies of him, the argument for notability is less clear. It may be easier to note that notability is a test for whether or not we maintain the reliable material as a standalone article, and that the policy WP:ATD is applicable. The topic is closely identified with the defunct Electronic Frontiers Georgia. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus reached as to whether it meets or fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and how WP:DIVERSITY factors in. The question of what is lasting coverage was also a point of contention. However, no consensus reached. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Adam Lloyd and Vanessa Arscott[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It would have been helpful if the nominator had said why he couldn't prove notability - searching on the two victims' names, GNews provides dozens of substantial items from reliable sources. The one thing that might stop this meeting WP:GNG is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as while there was plenty of coverage at the time of the murders and during the trial, there has apparently only been a trickle since. Even at that, given that there was something like two years between the murders and the end of the trial, I would tend to feel that coverage was lasting enough to avoid WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - but I appreciate that this is a point on which there may well be conflicting views. PWilkinson (talk) 21:59, 18 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, Courcelles 01:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--Staberinde (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is a strange guideline as Wikipedia is baed on news and sometime even the source of new. anyway.. lasting coverage beyond WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Covers it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 23 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, Courcelles 01:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've looked, and couldn't identify any in-depth lasting coverage later than the verdict in 2005. It's possible that cases like this may be invoked as examples in discussions of crimes against tourists or by policemen, but this case doesn't seem to stand out in any way. The murder of Christy Sarah Jones, which remains unsolved after twelve years and is still getting coverage, would seem much more notable. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cannot decide whether to recommend "weak keep" or "weak delete". The event and its aftermath seem to fail the WP:PERSISTENCE section of WP:EVENT, but it appears to have received a flurry of international coverage as noted above suggesting that it passes WP:DIVERSE. Location (talk) 19:21, 31 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. KTC (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Radio[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find much in the way of coverage searching for either name. Broadcasting on the web only means that it isn't even really a radio station. --Michig (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as I was able to find (and add) some coverage by a reliable third-party source and international carriage for many years on Sky Digital elevates this station above the random web-only broadcaster. (That their Sky deal is over is not relevant as notability is not temporary.) - Dravecky (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep becasue of the former Sky digital broadcast platform. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 19 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, Courcelles 01:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable radio channel. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:35, 20 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, Courcelles 01:54, 27 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical Hospital of Jonesboro[edit]

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

Seems to be an unreferenced advert. Tagged for over 5 years for notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP - lacks evidence of notability, and in searching elsewhere I have not been able to find substantive/deep coverage by independent sources. -- Scray (talk) 02:02, 14 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, Courcelles 01:45, 20 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, Courcelles 01:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a regular hospital. It's more like a surgery clinic that has a few overnight beds. We could add a sentence about it in Jonesboro, Arkansas (which probably ought to, but doesn't, have a short section on health that mentions the city's main hospitals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 2 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Army Hough Center[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; seems non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable terminology from WP:SK#2 is "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As neither noun nor -- especially -- adjective actually apply here, your rationale is irrelevant at best. --Calton | Talk 16:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An operational definition of unquestionable disruption is available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 11:05, 22 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, Courcelles 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A city community center, with no evidence or even implication of greater-than-neighborhood importance. --Calton | Talk 16:55, 1 February 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. KTC (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saguaro (Palm OS)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable terminology from WP:SK#2 is "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 11:07, 22 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, Courcelles 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to meet the GNG with the sources in the article and [18] for example. Is there a flaw in that source or the others that quickly come up on a web search? I'm assuming the nom and !voter above searched, so I assume they have some objection... Hobit (talk) 14:17, 30 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. KTC (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Chang Rickert[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ ~~deletion spree~~ unquestionable disruption. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 18 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, Courcelles 01:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject per the general notability criteria. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 21 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, Courcelles 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are plenty of sources in the article. While some are clearly not indpendent reliable sources, others appear to be. It would be helpful to understand the objections of those above. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are:

a webpage with no text, just six photographs[19].
a top level page for the reality show 'Law Firm'. There are three stories on that page; none mention the subject[20].
an IMDB entry for the subject. IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source per WP:IMDB [21].
an article about Britney Spears in which the subject is one of a number of people to comment on Spears' troubles at that time[22]
an article about Britney Spears in which the subject is one of a number of people to comment on Spears' troubles at that time[23].
the home page of a web resource for legal issues[24].
the home page of the website of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists[25].
an IMDB link for the subject's husband[26].
the home page of a website for an after school tutoring business[27]
a programming page(?) at the Canal 22 website, no mention of the subject[28].
a web page for what appears to be a video hosting service[29]
a page of a TV guide, no mention of the subject[30]
IMDB entry for a 2012 documentary[31]

None of these contain significance coverage of the subject so to meet the general notability criteria nor can I find any. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence here. I think the use of her as an expert on various documentaries probably meets the letter of WP:ENT (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.) But I don't think it plainly crosses that boundry and I don't think the GNG is satisfied. I'll remain neutral on this one. Thanks to Malcolmx15 for the more detailed analysis. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 1 February 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 Kolar district. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Bagh[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Kolar district. Historic school but as an elementary/middle school not a clear keep. Merging into the locality looks a good, pragmatic solution but deletion is clearly lacking merit. TerriersFan (talk) 02:55, 16 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, Courcelles 01:57, 20 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, Courcelles 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Kolar district per TerriersFan, leaving a redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 2 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biological art metal[edit]

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

It seems to be a term invented by someone with no real basis or historical examples. There are no google results of this term (not that that says anything) but it does seem like personal/original research. There is only one "source" and it may be restricted to just that one book where the term is mentioned Turn685 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the reference seems only to reference similar stuff a century ago. The term seems made up, though closely realistic animal forms, sometimes cast from the real thing, are found in various cultures & at various times, but not under this name. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 20 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, Courcelles 01:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we almost always delete new genres. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 1 February 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. KTC (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centre City Development Corporation[edit]

(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) 20:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't notable when it existed, and was abolished last year (like all other redevelopment agencies in California). --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, subject has received mention multiple times since at least 1993. However, it is debatable whether any of those mentions are considered significant coverage as many of them are behind paywalls. Also do to its multiple mentions in published books, perhaps it should be redirected to San_Diego#Government, with at most a sentence of its existence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:13, 19 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:34, 20 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, Courcelles 01:37, 27 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 redirect to Hush, Hush (series)#Finale. Consensus to redirect following relisting. Deleted before redirecting due to copyvio concerns. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finale (novel)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. Almost all text appears to be a copyright violation although it is smeared so widely over the blogosphere it is hard to tell what is original and what a copy. No third party refs at all. Pure advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't say that it's an advert as much as it's just not notable outside of the series itself. I'm working on an article for the series as a whole, so we can redirect this entry and the entry for Finale to the overall series article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 26 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, Courcelles 01:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hush, Hush (series). I've created an entry for the series as a whole and this could easily redirect to that article. Past the first two books, the series seemed to have lost a lot of its gusto. If/when the movie gets released, odds are that the rest of the series will gain more attention and coverage, so the article can always be un-redirected after that point in time. Until then, all we have are a few mentions of cover releases and the like. It's good as a start, but not nearly enough to show notability as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Although it reached #2 in the Publishers Weekly children's fiction chart[32] I can't find any in-depth reviews, just bits of information here and there. The series as a whole is notable, this book isn't. (Not suggesting a merge because there's little in this article that's not in the series article.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 27 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UniversityJunction.com[edit]

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

The website that is the subject of this article does not work, and does not seem notable enough to have an article considering it is a dead site EtanaLF (talk) 22:36, 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 » 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:31, 15 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The site appears to be dead, but that isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. The lack of coverage in in independent reliable sources is, however, a reason for deletion. The references provided in the article do not establish notability. Campus newspapers are not reliable sources, and I cannot find any coverage myself that would indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 24 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, Courcelles 01:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails gng. Lack of rs coverage. I note, but just as an aside, that it was created by an SPA.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecross[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Marginal coverage of a tour in which they were only the opening act is the only media attention they have gotten. WP:TOOSOON Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Detroitsteel (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning how to use Wikipedia but there are a a lot of references to be added. Marginal coverage for the largest heavy metal tour of the summer where they opened is untrue. There were over 600 articles in local and national press about the band during this tour, including a feature in Guitar Player Magazine. Much to be added. Give the user a break and let them finish the article. Fans are also encouraged to contribute. Detroitsteel

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

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

Keep or AT A MINIMUM redirect - The band now has a review at Blabbermouth.com listed as a reference in their article. If the verdict is not to keep the article, I recommend at a minimum, redirecting the article to Trespass America, a tour on which the band participated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a review of their album at Allmusic, which is a step towards meeting WP:BAND, so I've included that as a reference in the article. Some of the other sources cited are questionable, however, so I'm not !voting at present until I can carry out a more detailed search. — sparklism ^hey! 13:38, 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:50, 20 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, Courcelles 01:25, 27 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American School Band Directors Association[edit]

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

Not much assertion of notability and precious little evidence thereof. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG, insufficient evidence of notability. ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:17, 21 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, Courcelles 01:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 28 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. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrofest[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk)

How can other editors can replicate your result of, "I couldn't establish notability"? Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the clause "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing my !vote due to participation in this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 27 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, Courcelles 01:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 11:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous argument is literally from WP:ATA. Our article on Argument from ignorance includes the following statement (referenced to pragmatism), "a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent." An aged notability tag is not evidential by itself. We've already seen in this cluster of nominations that one of these notability tags was added by an editor now banned for five years. In another AfD case, seven references were added to the article after the notability tag was added. Notability is not a content guideline, and a failure of notability can never be determined from article content including tags. A statement in the nomination is that notability couldn't be established. How can the results be replicated? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we WP:AGF regarding the work of our volunteer authors. Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. eg [33][34][35][36] etc. --Vclaw (talk) 16:04, 24 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a two day concert held in three (or is it four) successive years hardly sounds notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- using WP:NCONCERT as a reference, there is nothing specifically noteworthy of this specific event; most coverage simply verifies that it took place, or simply stating information about the event, nothing specific of note. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:18, 5 February 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 Operation Ivy (band). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Radio[edit]

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

Unref and tagged for notability for 5 years. Seems to be a band with notable members, but not a notable band. Perhaps info could be merged into both Tim Armstrong and Matt Freeman's articles, but as it's all unreferenced, I wouldn't suggest that. Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Operation Ivy where it is already mentioned. I think this could be covered there as Armstrong and Freeman's previous band. --Michig (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Operation_Ivy_(band)#History - This is far before social networking existed and I believe if the band had existed now, there would've probably been more information (a defunct official website, fansites, etc.). However, because there isn't any evidence to suggest this band released any music or toured and collaborated with other notable bands, there isn't much for this article. In addition, Google News found nothing despite multiple searches, which is not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 22 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a previous deletion discussion in 2006 had a "keep" result. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for articles have changed since then and for good reasons. One of the voters said "Keep it for awhile and if nothing changes bring it back here" and things have not changed and substantial sources have not been added since. Although one user did add one primary reference in August 2010. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – My searches also turned up nothing that would help support or expand this separate article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Operation Ivy as suggested above. --Lockley (talk) 06:46, 1 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Globe Organisation[edit]

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

Not notable. Poorly sourced. One source (at present No 5) was rejected in another article for not being an RS. E4024 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization has been in existence since 1925. It is in fact a very extensive organization and includes participants from around the world (i.e. Italy, Pakistan, France, India, and etc.) It is known as "prestigious" in some online sources (see: http://www.ukbeauties.co.uk/PAGEANTS/InternationalPageants/MissGlobeInternational/tabid/165/Default.aspx) and according to some sources, it is "ranked ranked among the top international beauty pageants of the world" and has been televised on more than 20 foreign channels (http://www.beautytipshub.com/fashion/beauty-pageants-for-women/miss-globe-international.html). I have found hundreds of photographs from the pageant and of the contestants (excluding the official website of course). Participants have even included such famed individuals as Marylyn Monroe who won the competition in 1947. There are even online live streams to watch the event. Might I add that the Miss Globe competition has branches or sub-organizations such as Miss Globe Denmark, Miss Globe France, Miss Globe India, and more. However, I do agree that the article may use some improvements, just like every other article on Wikipedia. I will add more sources and details soon. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Before losing too much of your time on the stub better touch the buttons up there: "News". "books", "scholar" etc. --E4024 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under the search of "Miss Globe Organisation" you might not have much search results. However, just typing Miss Globe provides you dozens upon dozens. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Does that mean now the article will have sources better than the self webpage and the Albanian Tourist Guide? Good news... --E4024 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Nothing has changed with the article in the couple of days. (Indeed I have been the only editor who tried to arrange it lately.) The only user who see it necessary for WP is busy preparing other articles some of which will end up inevitably here. I am sure of their goodwill but maybe they should collaborate more with a varied gamma of users to choose better topics to work on and improve Wikipedia with more valuable input. --E4024 (talk) 21:41, 26 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: The nominator of all people should know that voting again on an article they nominated is considered duplicate voting, which does not help their case. I have stricken their second vote. Regarding the article subject, it appears notable enough for an article based on Google News hits (voting solely based on the lack of hits for one specific phrase is disingenuous, and given your previous activity, means that, no matter how authoritatively you word your comments, your motives must be questioned where a certain other user (regardless of their Wikipedian shortcomings) is involved.) When I search for "Miss Globe" (plus other keywords such as international, beauty, etc...) I see lots of news hits in multiple languages. Book hits are not great (too many Wikipedia rehashes), but the breadth of the news coverage is enough to make me leaning keep. Mabalu (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabalu, I don't have a "case". Some people may have one though. If I were in your place (I know I am not) instead of focusing my attention on who proposes what to delete (that is something fair; if there is consensus articles get deleted; "proposing" is not that prominent an act) I would lean more on the sources. You know WP articles depend on reliable sources; reliable sources which are used in good faith... --E4024 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this to your talk page. Mabalu (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabalu, for your good faith leaning to keep this article I have made some efforts to save the text. Using the same source introduced by the only editor who defends keeping I developed the article. Now we know that the organization was possibly established in 1972 ("35 years before 2007", per source) and registered in 1973; however, another source (IMO a very unreliable one) claims it was established in 1925. Well, if you wish to keep this article, you should also help with the editing. (Forget about the Turkish sources, because what they only show is that maybe there was a beauty competition in Istanbul in 1925 and won by a candidate (no info about other candidates, runner-bys etc) in 1925?). --E4024 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've asked, I will take a look and see what I can do, although I honestly have no interest in beauty pageants and contests. Mabalu (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I confess to have an interest in the candidates. (I always make guesses about the results and mostly imagine the winners. :-) I also have an interest in keeping WP "clean". Permanent misuse of sources that I cannot explain as "honest mistakes" is a serious thing. Therefore you may help in preventing and eliminating that dishonest practice; even if you are not interested in beauty pageants. --E4024 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one thing that definitely made me go "Hmmmmm". This is a self published site and totally fails WP:RS but what they say here about having "found absolutely no documentation (news articles, photographs, lists of contestants and results) of Miss Globe pageants prior to 1988" is VERY eyebrow raising. If even contributors to a dedicated fansite like Pageantopolis can't find documentation before 1988, that's enough to give me pause. Another thing that makes me go Hmmm... Marilyn Monroe apparently won this in 1947. Now, we're talking megastar here, yet there appears to be nothing whatsoever in any Monroe biographies, news, fansites, etc, to support this major claim. I will do some more hunting around, but I think it's beginning to smell of elaborate, grand-scale hoax as far as the history of the pageant goes. Mabalu (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - I'm not doubting that there HAVE been contests titled "Miss Globe" in the past - but I just had a search at newspaperarchive.com for hits between 1923 and 1960 - and found absolutely nothing relevant! That's again very telling, when the best source you can find is a tiny hit describing a state fair contest in Arizona called "Miss Globe", in an article in the Tucson Daily Citizen, October 6, 1953, page 6. That's the MOST relevant hit that the site came up with, and the actual article, which is just a name-check for some random Mary Sue who won her school's beauty contest, is so miniscule it fits perfectly in the magnifying glass viewer they give you to read with... So the question is, the history of the pageant pre-1988 is obviously too dubious and questionable and lacks credible verifiability or in-depth coverage to support what's claimed on the official website. The question now is - IS Miss Globe, the pageant that can be shown to have existed since 1988, notable enough for an article? I will have to come back to this and think about it. Mabalu (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I do any more work/research on this article I swear I shall vomit. Despite that, I THINK there is an argument for making the article into a stub which simply covers the fact that the pageant exists and is held annually. If it is indeed broadcast worldwide (or at least across several countries), that seems to support its case for notability. But let's be blunt here, the official site has more bullshit in it than the Augean stables and absolutely ZERO credibility. Mabalu (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for you (and thank you for your efforts) but I am also happy I began this deletion discussion. Maybe finally we will have a short but acceptable article on this organisation. --E4024 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 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. KTC (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Woman[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable, tagged for notability for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This book is probably the most detailed source there is about her. She's also mentioned in this book, but I can't tell how much depth is there. Her familial ties are listed here. She is one of the few Kainai people that Wikipedia has an article for and besides Running Eagle, it seems that she is one of the only Blackfoot women known to have been warriors. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 10:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:01, 15 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:47, 20 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Gobonobo. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 31 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. WP:SOFTDELETE KTC (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Weatherhill[edit]

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

Unable to verify notability. After looking for sources and cleaning this up in Dec 2010, I placed some "citation needed" requests: these remained unfulfilled for a year, so in Jan '12 I removed the flagged content and requested citations for some of what remained. Those requests are still unsatisfied after another year. I've now tried three times without success to find independent reliable sources for Weatherhill. Sure, his books have been reviewed, and he gives interviews and gets mentions in the local media etc., but I can't find anything of the quality required to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). It's either time for someone else to do some work to show that this is worth keeping, or it's time for it to go. —SMALL JIM 23:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Genuinely not sure about this (as my last edit summary suggested). Within the small world of fringe Cornish nationalism, he seems to be quite a prominent personality, relatively speaking. He's also a published author of both non-fiction and fiction, with quite a few books to his name. However, he does not have any real profile as an activist in the wider world; plus he's very much an "amateur" historian by the look of it and most of his books, of whatever sort, seem to come out on fairly obscure imprints (although not self-published). As ever it's down to what prominence he has in reliable sources, which seems minimal. Even if the page survives, all the cn-tagged content needs to be struck, especially all the promotional stuff about him being "considered one of Cornwall's foremost experts" (which then may leave us with little more than a stub). N-HH talk/edits 10:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 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, Courcelles 01:02, 20 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) 00:36, 27 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 redirect to Michael W. Smith#Personal life. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Smith (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker who has more coverage as a notable musician's son than as a filmmaker Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 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, Courcelles 01:19, 20 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) 00:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Michael W. Smith#Personal life. Though closing on it,[37] it appears Ryan's career is short enough to just miss out on WP:ENT, and his coverage is in connection to his father. Sending reader's to where he might be mentioned in context seems a decent enough solution. The article can always be undeleted or rewritten if/when independent notability is shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 31 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low Academic Performance/No Sports[edit]

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

Not notable North Carolina state legislature bill that never passed. Article possibly was just used in electioneering. Badly named anyway. No article needed for this. JoannaSerah (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JoannaSerah (talk) 00:20, 27 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 00:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of proposed pieces of legislation get some coverage; no indication that this one was anything special. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:23, 29 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arja Havakka[edit]

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

Article about a living Finnish schlager singer of unclear notability. Essentially unreferenced (IMDB and an interview). Nothing immediately obvious on Google in the was of sources that would lead to improvement. Notability status wrt WP:MUSICBIO unclear. BenTels (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:33, 14 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, Courcelles 01:35, 20 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) 00:32, 27 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shake (ride)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Unsourced. Unable to locate substantial coverage needed. (Prod removed without explanation.) SummerPhD (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Amusement Parks. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:31, 14 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, Courcelles 02:00, 20 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) 00:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if sources exist, it would be better served as part of the Mondial article as opposed to being a standalone article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've added a ref but the notability of the ride is not that "strong". If the article could be expanded to prove that the article is notable, then maybe I would say its notable.--Dom497 (talk) 21:01, 31 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 Manizales#Arts and culture. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Coffee International[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:V and WP:GNG. The subject is an unremarkable beauty pageant. Also, there are no enough coverage presented in the article to prove notability and significance. Mediran (t • c) 04:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 14 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, Courcelles 02:02, 20 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) 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Manizales#Arts and culture. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 29 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 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rendezvous Tavern[edit]

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

Non-notable tavern lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly scope for an article on the effects of Prohibition in Essex County, Ontario, which would deal with the roadhouses along the banks of the Detroit River (Gervais 2009) harv error: no target: CITEREFGervais2009 (help) and their competition with the hotel trade (Malleck 2012, pp. 53–54) harv error: no target: CITEREFMalleck2012 (help). Sadly, this article is about one of the several roadhouses that is but a paragraph's mention in the history books. And what's here discusses some fanciful stuff from the 1960s, not what's actually in the history books about these places.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, Johnsitka. That means that we are not here to "tell a story like Boardwalk Empire". This is a reference work, not a television drama.
- Gervais, Marty (2009). "The Roadhouses". The rumrunners: a prohibition scrapbook (30th Aniversary ed.). Biblioasis. ISBN 9781897231623.
- Malleck, Dan (2012). "The Public Life of Liquor, 1927–1934". Try to Control Yourself: The Regulation of Public Drinking in Post-Prohibition Ontario, 1927–1944. UBC Press. ISBN 9780774822220.
Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this article seems to discuss the tavern; Rum-running in Windsor seems to cover the general topic, which is certainly notable. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that what you pointed to is just a digest of Gervais 2009, right? It says so at the top. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:06, 14 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:46, 20 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) 00:27, 27 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tassadaq Hussain[edit]

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

I have not found any significant coverage about Tassadaq Hussain. I did not see his name on either the 1st or 8th source listed in the article. Sources 2-6 are papers written by him, they are not about him. The 7th source once again is an article written by him, does have a blurb, "About the author" This though does constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. GB fan 12:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 20 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) 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to be trying to claim notability through scientific publication, but the citation counts on his Google scholar profile are low enough to make clear that he does not pass our notability guideline for academic researchers. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Ray^Talk 17:18, 2 February 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. AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sileo[edit]

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

This is a negatively unsourced BLP. The subject has had problems with content of the article. WP:COATRACK v/r - T P 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep passes WP:ATHLETE playing in the NFL for one season, WP:GNG for a wide variety of reasons, and someone who calls himself America's Most Controversial Sports Talk Show Host, yes some of that criticism is warrantied. The article is a WP:BLP mess however, and I really don't know where to start with cleaning up the article, maybe a WP:TNT is in order here. Secret ^account 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Former professional American football player who appeared in ten NFL games (see Pro-Football-Reference.com); therefore, subject is entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. I also agree with Secret's assessment above that this article is a BLP disaster consisting mostly of unverified statements about a living person; unless substantiated, most of the existing content should be temporarily removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep but the unsourced material should be stricken per BLP concerns. The article is a mess in its current state. Cbl62 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG standards. All other issues noted are for editing and not deletion of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 30 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 redirect to The Crusade (album). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rising (Trivium song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS; there appears to be so significant coverage of the song to warrant a stand-alone article. While the article claims the song reached 32 on the US Mainstream Rock chart, Billboard disagrees with this statement (the only thing ever to have charted in the US - their home country - was their albums). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:55, 20 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) 00:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Trivium (band)~~ The Crusade (album) Not nearly enough reliable content to warrant a standalone article. Much of it seemingly OR regarding the release despite its references. Furthermore, the song is already mentioned in the album section not warranting a merge. Mkdw ^talk 07:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Crusade (album). When an album article exists, songs should be redirected to it, not the band. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mkdw ^talk 00:00, 30 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. There are some strong policy-based arguments on the side of those wishing to delete the entire bulk of these articles; these articles seem to be indiscriminate (unbounded as to what to include) which is a significant problem. However, this point is contested by several editors who feel that these articles serve an important role outside of Orders of magnitude (length). While "I like it" isn't a strong argument, and one that I don't personally buy, these editors also rebut the claim that these articles are indiscriminate. There seems to be some consensus that redirecting to related articles is an approach to consider for the future and I encourage discussion move in that direction. But here, on this page, there isn't a clear consensus on what to do with this block of articles. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 metre[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. This article is an arbitrary list of objects or distances and most of them are not actually 1 metre long. The unit of length is better explained at metre and the overall concept of different scales is better explained at Orders of magnitude (length). Those articles contain illustrative examples and so we don't need ragbags of absurd and random examples too, e.g. the height of a hobbit and the height of a giraffe are both presented here as equivalent. Note that the sourcing for this is negligible and so the topic fails WP:LISTN. Note also that I am making this a group nomination by nominating all other similar articles for deletion too. Warden (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Clancy[edit]

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

Pseudo-biography that does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:NSPORT. Won no awards, was not in the Olympics or World Cup or any such thing. Being ranked 25th doesn't seem like a big deal; do the other 24 have articles? Only windsurfer articles I can find are medalists or record holders. All refs for Clancy are obituaries. Even tributes people have made for him basically say he liked to have fun and go on holiday with his family.[38] Sucks that he died before he could accomplish anything, but dying doesn't automatically mean he's notable enough for an article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:45, 20 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) 00:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Bio and Sports notability. Shame he died young but that does not qualify him for an article. Snappy (talk) 00:58, 3 February 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. KTC (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Shuways[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 4 years Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 15 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:46, 20 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) 00:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty well-known mountain in Fujairah. I added one source. There's not much to say about it, but it's popular. ~dee^(talk?) 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a notable geographical feature. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 3 February 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. KTC (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern United Professional Racing[edit]

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

Tagged for notability; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ ~~deletion spree~~ unquestionable disruption. Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 18 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, Courcelles 01:46, 20 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) 00:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need to remember that sources need not be in the article, or online. While a quick Google search doesn't turn up much besides the sanctioning body itself and mentions of race results in local news (i.e. "Billy Joe Bob win the SUPR race at Possum Holler Speedway on Saturday night..."), the sanctioning body was founded in 1990 - before the Internet - and lower-level sanctions tend not to have a significant Web footprint. Considering this, I feel confident that this passes notability, based on sources found (have found third party sources) and bearing in mind newspaper and magazine sources (if somebody has an archive of Circle Track from 1990, that would likely cinch it 100%), and should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 28 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Staudt[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per [39], contested PROD from 2011 based on lack of notability. Sending directly to AFD as an unsourced BLP with a COI contesting of the PROD Courcelles 18:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have added a couple of found refs. However they are indicative only of the subject having had a job, nor does his film work appear to have been given notice. Insufficient evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE notability. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:08, 20 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, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PEOPLE. FurrySings (talk) 06:22, 27 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film look[edit]

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

This is a redundant article to Filmlook. Both articles are about a technique that can be described in a few sentences. Suggest merging into a section in digital cinematography and/or color grading. NickCochrane (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to show that is a commonly used term. FurrySings (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commonly used term in the digital cinematography world... it just is so simple, it needs to be merged likely... NickCochrane (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nominator is incorrect: this is not a duplication of Filmlook, as that is a company, and this is a process. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shortly after the AfD nomination, the page was edited to become a page about some company called "Filmlook". This is an AfD discussion about the technique and as it relations to the other redundant article Film look, however the other company is not notable either... I'm not quite sure what happened here. Very confusing all of a sudden. NickCochrane (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Filmlook article was always about the company Filmlook while this article, which you recently changed the name from "Filmizing" to "Film look" was always about the filmizing process. After changing the name of this article to "Film look" you then called "Filmlook" and "Film look" the same topic. You were confused about the Filmlook article and now it's clarified. --Oakshade (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - First of all the basis of this AfD is factually inaccurate as the term "film look" refers to the very heavily used post-production technique of augmenting a video image to appear it was sourced from film and "Filmlook" is an actual Burbank, California based company that helped pioneer the technique. Secondly the "film look" process is, as mentioned above, a very heavily used technique in film and television post-production. Far too much content to be merge into the digital cinematography or the far-too specific color grading articles. The in-depth coverage from secondary sources on the "film look" process is far and wide. Some examples here. [40][41][42][43][44] (an entire book)[45][46] --Oakshade (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Addition - Added this extremely in-depth journal by BBC Research & Development on the film look process. --Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add these sources into the article and let other editors decided on this page's notability. Thanks! NickCochrane (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:AFD states very clearly in the WP:BEFORE section, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." I suggest withdrawing this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the sources to change the notability of the topic. This is a really simple technique. "Filmlook or film look or filmizing is the process of making video or digitally acquired images look similar to motion picture film." That's all this needs - and not it's own page. NickCochrane (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to become familiar with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG which stipulates in-depth coverage from secondary sources as evidence of notability. Strangely, you yourself stated above it's a "commonly used term." If a topic is "common," it's mostly likely notable. You might consider the film look technique "simple," but in fact it's very complex technology that took years and evolve and its still evolving, not to mention it is a huge business with many digital imaging companies offering film look process products.--Oakshade (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give me a break. "Complex technology". I've done my fair share of color grading - it's a gimmick used to make video look like film. Although, it never does - it just looks crappy and lame like most digital footage is. It doesn't warrant an entire article with all the details. It's a commonly used term that warrants nothing but the sentence I wrote above. NickCochrane (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now we know why you brought these AfD's up. While your WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion of this topic being a "gimmick" and "crappy and lame" or that the image technology was somehow easy to develop over the decades is noted, it has absolutely nothing to do with our notability guidelines even if your opinion were true. Our guidelines stipulate topic inclusion based on in-depth coverage that the topic has received, not users' opinions of those topics. If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to ban topics some people might consider "crappy and lame", you need to make your case at Wikipedia talk:Notability, not push your own criteria in a AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD still stands and will be decided in 7 days as per the AfD process. NickCochrane (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you're basing this AfD on what has nothing to do with our notability guidelines, I recommend withdrawing this AfD so the community can focus on other matters for 7 days.--Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as a notable topic as reflected by the sources that Oakshade (talk · contribs) listed. There is enough coverage for an encyclopedic article. The ideal article may or may not be long, but the topic is certainly more than just a dictionary definition. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting notability standards [47][48]... specially after being re-worked to separate the article on this process from the FilmLook, Inc. company. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge As per Nick, this technique could be integrated into another page such as Digital cinematography, etc. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this technique that has has extensive in-depth coverage by secondary sources doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY how?--Oakshade (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice awfully similar edit patterns to amazingly identical topics to User:NickCochrane since this account was created on January 19th. Might there be a sock puppet issue here?--Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response It just seems bloated as a page. At the end of the day, it is notable, but may not warrant its own page as was said. And as per your claim: "Amazingly identical" as in we're both members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film? I've seen User:NickCochrane around, as with many other members. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such deletion criteria as a "bloated" page. When the nom agrees it's notable, there's a problem with an AfD. As for the other thing, there's more than film project scope editing patterns. We'll leave that for the Wikipedia:CheckUser folks to decide.--Oakshade (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Sockpuppet case open regarding User:NickCochrane and User:LenaLeonard at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane.--Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case has been put on hold by admins, because I am not using a sockpuppet. Also, the AfD is likely going to rule in your favour. NickCochrane (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nick. A Checkuser admin, after performing a checukuser showing strong evidence that LenaLeonard is a sock of you, has put the case on hold pending a decision, not because you "are not using a sockpuppet." --Oakshade (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found something interesting in Nick's edit history. It is he who deliberately created the confusion between Filmlook and Film look - by moving this article from a prior name.[49] Lukeno94 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deliberately do that to create the two AfD's. A simple google search shows Film look is the more commonly used term. NickCochrane (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, you should've known these articles were not duplications of each other... Lukeno94 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 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.