Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 July 30 July >

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grantham Dramatic Society

[edit]
Grantham Dramatic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local theatre troupe with minimal assertions of notability, sourced only to the organization's official website and a mention in the local paper. Run-of-the-mill group that fails WP:ORGDEPTH. BDD (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion Article fails to meet notability guidelines, the NODA membership listed in the article is an organization that states it accepts even the smallest theatres and performance venues to give them a sort of political voice. The single source listed in the article is certainly not enough to provide WP:N. Judicatus | Talk 00:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making a usb bootable

[edit]
Making a usb bootable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unabashed (and unreferenced) how-to guide. Not the stuff Wikipedia is intended to be made of. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha ha, yes, foiled again! How about regular delete and speedy close given this has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving? What I usually mean is "this should be speedy deleted but unfortunately we don't have a category for silly things and blatant WP:NOT violations that exist contrary to the very purpose of WP, so lets delete this quickly without waiting the full seven days and learn from this by amending speedy deletion policy with a new criteria". Unfortunately, that's a bit long for a bolded !vote. Ha ha. Stalwart111 05:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – I nominated it under G11 but it didn't seem to apply. (I also think that A7 should include unremarkable products which don't necessarily fall under G11, but that's another thing.) This is Wikipedia, not Wikihow. — kikichugirl inquire 00:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it definitely doesn't fall under G11 (spam/advertising) as it doesn't push a certain product or viewpoint. If A7 included this sort of thing, that would be a better bet, but it unfortunately doesn't. I can't really find any other criteria that fit either - better to go through normal deletion channels. Ansh666 04:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plausible redirect to USB flash drive#Booting operating systems I know I'm against the flow here, but unlike most articles of this type at least it has a possible place it could go. Otherwise, delete as article without much use here. Nate • (chatter) 03:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roland De Wolk

[edit]
Roland De Wolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Roland De Wolk is not a public figure and has been libeled, slandered and doxed in this space by a party or parties who are anonymous, breaking a legal and moral standard in legitimate media. He has been an investigative reporter with national and international standing and has done stories for major media outlets from The New York Times and beyond and has exposed corrupt politicians, fraudulent business practices, and criminals -- some of whom are taking the open nature of the wiki to libel him. The only way to stop this exposure to Wikipedia and Mr. De Wolk is to delete the page. Ejordens (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as per Wikipedia:No legal threats for posts elsewhere on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Speedy keep - and restore at least some portion of the information removed by Ejordens. You created the article about a notable journalist and now want to have it deleted because the subject did something wrong, got fired and received significant coverage for it? There are dozens and dozens of stories from reputable news sources that cover his dismissal. These were not written by "corrupt politicians, fraudulent business practices, and criminals" seeking to use WP to defame the subject:
Do you have a personal connection to the subject? (Your editing history certainly suggests as much) If so, you should explain to him that you "irrevocably agree[d] to release your contribution" when you first created the article and that Wikipedia doesn't have an "opt-out" clause. Stalwart111 00:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm adding a caveat to my opinion above. Having had another look, I'm not convinced the nominator should have ever created the previous, tacky puff-piece for the subject in the first place. I can't find much that would suggest the subject is notable beyond the couple of events for which he has now received criticism. But there's more than one event so it's not really a matter of WP:BLP1E. Really just a great big lesson in what not to do here on Wikipedia. Stalwart111 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record - I didn't "instigate an edit war". I didn't edit the article at all. The editor's COI is a matter for him. The subject has received coverage for multiple "events" but if others want to cite BLP1E and delete this, I won't object. In fact, I don't care enough to stay engaged. Stalwart111 16:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help us to evaluate this deletion nomination if Ejordens could explain why the article was created in the first place if the subject is not a public figure. It always amazes me that some of the loudest complainants about their own actions receiving coverage are those who make their living by exposing such actions of others. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Seems like a BLP1E to me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Regardless of the way the nominator is going about this and the legal threats, this is a clear WP:BLP1E to me. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poor behavior by nominator notwithstanding, this is a BLP1E that doesn't contextualize the life and works of its subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - Cleanup by User:Crtew has resulted in a workable article that at this point appears to clear the bar for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This faculty profile from San Francisco State University makes it clear that De Wolk was notable before the recent embarassing incident that led to his firing, as an award-winning working journalist, television news producer, academic and textbook author. Though filled with puffery and poorly referenced, the version of the article that was stable for months before the recent controversy actually did "contextualize the life and works of its subject". BLP1E is not an appropriate rationale for deleting an article about a notable journalist with a 35 year career. Instead, the article needs the attention of editors willing to write from the neutral point of view, giving due weight in this biography to the incident that led to his recent termination. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Logical Cowboy. The WP:GNG should suffice. Simply use the Google News news archive search tool provided above. In particular, see the coverage in the context of the Chauncey Bailey Project, reviews of his travel books, the claim (seemingly accurate) that his online journalism textbook was the first ever published, coverage by independent media outlets of his reporting on missing children, respected journalism publications quoting him extensively 10 to 15 years ago on the emergence of online journalism, and so on. His career has been broad, varied, innovative and award winning, until this recent fiasco. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I meant to thank Crtew for improving the article. But thanks for the reply, Cullen! Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've changed by vote to keep based on the link provided by Cullen328. Not because he works for SFSU, because it's fairly non-notable to become an adjunct (temporary, non-tenured) professor. A long career in the trenches of journalism doesn't always add up to notability either. But he is the author of what appears to be a significant textbook, Introduction to Online Journalism, and has enough minor awards that it might very well be a borderline case. I am strongly against adding a minor controversy to some minor awards and making a case of notability out of that, and if this is kept and becomes a coatrack I'll delete it myself. Gamaliel (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First, fresh sources have been added to this entry between the time of its nomination and the end of 1 August 2013, and so this article is no longer a BLP without references. Second, the article has also been rewritten to remove any doubt about COI (see above). Taking a look at the references added (over 20 citations), De Wolk is the subject of WP:SIGCOV over decades, which is one sign that he is not a BLP1E. In addition, he passes several criteria listed under WP:JOURNALIST based on peer regard for his professionalism and significant and multiple awards won, as well as for his early textbook for online journalism. In addition to his individual awards, one source lists De Wolk as one of 16 who were responsible for coverage that secured the newspaper's 1990 Pulitzer, which is the most important journalism award in United States. The other mistake of the nominator, besides the reason for the block (see above), was to tie deletion to recentism. The context about his four decades as a journalist now in the article provides readers with the means to evaluate the most recent incident. Crtew (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its current state clearly demonstrates notability, does not overemphasize the recent controversy, and does not have BLP or NPOV issues. I will watchlist it to make sure it stays that way. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crosses the threshold of WP:JOURNALIST. Thanks everyone. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per additions from Crtew and comments by Cullen, both supporting WP:JOURNALIST and as a subject receiving significant coverage. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will move deleted content upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia language code

[edit]
Wikimedia language code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks references independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Independent sources TheChampionMan1234 06:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You derive a lot from an essay. I don't care about the essay, life is too short for this. Relevant are policies and guidelines. Reliable sources are given, all content is verifiable. Wikimedia Meta and Wikimedia Bugzilla are third party for the language codes used in Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikidata. And if I look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable - where does Wikimedia stand? Would you group it as "usually not reliable"?
Further applicable as analogy might be WP:CIRCULAR: An exception is allowed when Wikipedia is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case, and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, avoid undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and avoid inappropriate self-reference. The article text should make it clear that the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is made aware of the potential bias. TeraCard (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage: The only independent source does not mention Wikimedia projects at all.
  • Reliable: This article is based around primary sources, whereas this part of the GNG states availability of secondary sources are a good indicator of notability. In other words, if this has not been discussed by multiple secondary sources, there is a good indication that the subject is not notable.
  • Sources: Ditto above - secondary sources are a good indicator of notability. In this case, there are none.
  • Independent of the subject: This has been discussed already. The sources you use are not independent, as they are from Wikimedia, which decides the usage of these language codes.
  • Presumed: The article doesn't fail WP:NOT, so it's fine there.
  • I understand that you put work into this, and you don't want that work to be lost. However, that's not how we judge things around here - there's a set of rules that need to be followed for an article to be accepted. Ansh666 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From your redirect proposal above I understand you did not bother to read the articles involved or were just not able to understand the content. To look at the ISO 639 site and to take the absence of a simple user of the codes as evidence that "Significant coverage" is not met is an even stronger indicator that you don't the nature of the topic and not how ISO works. I stop talking with you. TeraCard (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to both comments, yes, I read the articles involved. I understand that my redirect target is where this was split from (which is why I suggested to put it back). Yet, I fail to see what you're even trying to say. First, I can't find any secondary (non-Wikimedia or non-ISO) sources that discuss this in any notable manner - which indicates it fails WP:GNG. Second, it is absolutely not precedent to keep any article related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia - they have to pass the relevant guidelines (again, WP:GNG). Third, I added a hatnote to Meta:Language codes on the split-off section of List of Wikipedias, a page which serves the exact same purpose as this one, but in a more proper place (this is why I changed to redirect from delete/transwiki). Ansh666 00:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment Article has been moved to Language codes used by Wikimedia projects. Ansh666 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/userfy It seems like this could be fine content as some kind of user essay or on Meta possibly, but this isn't really appropriate for the content of the encyclopedia. Useful, maybe but only for persons interested in the mechanics of Wikipedia. (As an aside, I find it quite interesting.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already exists on meta, as Meta:Language code. Ansh666 05:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Koavf - Beside your private judgement do you have any objective criteria for deletion? (WP:ILIKE) Do you know that several Wikimedia websites rank in the global top 1000 in alexa? What is the basis for deleting information about technical aspects? There is an article for .org. There is an article for wikipedia. But for the third part of the domain name, the subdomain, you even want a combined article to be removed? I heard about deletionism in Wikipedia, but I didn't know it is that ugly. The content was there for years. Nobody cared. I re-arrange it and people make votes to get the content deleted - without citing any relevant policy. TeraCard (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - because while I personally find it interesting, not every aspect of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is itself notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Really more of a WP how-to guide than anything notable enough to be of value to those outside the project space, and the lack of coverage in independent sources is a reflection of that. Stalwart111 00:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrectly mixing verifiability up with notability. Of course WP-related sources are okay for verifying facts in articles about WP-related subjects. But they don't do much for establishing notability which involves determining whether something is worthy of inclusion of not on the basis of coverage in independent reliable sources. Stalwart111 04:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable for article space per WP:GNG (its sources, such as documentation, are not independent of Wikipedia); see also WP:SELF. The large table also violates WP:OR because it has several unsourced judgements as to what would be "correct". I would not mind if this were moved to the Wikipedia namespace as an info page or essay of sorts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reliable, independent sources establish notability for language codes in general but don't establish notability for their use in Wikimedia projects. Doesn't belong in article space. Move to Wikimedia documentation. ~KvnG 05:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Voice UK (series 2). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Michael

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Karl Michael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be WP:BLP1E. Domino Go! doesn't seem to have put out anything, and Karl Michael seems to have done nothing else not tied to The Voice. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is unusual to nominate an article practically the same day it was saved for No concensus (21 July 2013) for a second deletion request (also dated July 21, 2013). For archive of first deletion deliberations and decision, see Talk:Karl Michael. Clearly no other colleagues saw any urgency in deleting this notable artist that has been around in signed acts for years before The Voice. Domino Go! were signed to Atlantic Records 2009-2012 and a full album recorded at Atlantic though not released for contractual legalese. Karl Michael also worked for years in the band The Wayne Foundation that was signed to Sony BMG, another huge recording firm from 2005-2007. Clearly this artist goes far beyond The Voice with his contract with Sony BMG 2005 to 2007, and Atlantic Records from 2009 to 2012. Even his perfromance on The Voice was impressive. He reached the semi-final and was only eliminated against Andrea Begley, the season's eventual winner. werldwayd (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 09:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 09:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, renomination with a most inappropriate celerity... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I did read above that "the closer of the last AFD said no prejudice against a speedy renom", but AFD participants are not bound by such impotent guidance. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Voice UK (series 2). As far as I can tell, he has had a music career that showed enough promise to get picked up by record labels but hasn't actually managed to do enough to attract notice beyond the appearance on season 2 of The Voice. It is definitely not the case that the artist goes "clearly" beyond the voice. Being signed by a major label may be quite the accomplishment for a musician looking to make it, but simply being signed is not notable on for a standalone article on Wikipedia. As for the speedy renomination, I don't think the original non-admin closure was appropriate and it should have been reviewed by an admin, but it's some time later and here we are. -- Whpq (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Voice UK (series 2) as per previous discussion. This is the normal thing to do when someone has little or no notability outside of a TV talent show (in this case he only reached the semi finals). All the information about his solo performances do not need to be repeated separately, because they are already in The Voice UK article. As far as I can see he wasn't independently notable from his earlier group work (and I'm not sure any of his groups/duos were notable either). Sionk (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Voice UK (series 2). The keep crowd seem determined to focus on the technicalities of re-listing this which I actually think would have been a reasonable course of action for the last AFD (having had it re-listed only twice). I don't think the closer was wrong to close as no-consensus, nor to cite Wikipedia:NPASR. The subject doesn't seem to be notable outside of his appearance on The Voice and the general consensus in such cases is to redirect contestants to their relevant season unless they are sufficiently individually and separately notable. Can't see how this would be an exception to that consensus. Stalwart111 00:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Gonzaga

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ginger Gonzaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still having the same notability problems that it had when article failed AFD. i am not finding significant sources with more than about four sentences about her. WP:TOOSOON Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 July 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, LFaraone 02:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this have been a CSD G4, given the previous AfD, or has it been established as sufficiently different from the article deleted in 2011? It certainly can't be said to be better referenced, as it is currently an unreferenced BLP. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reckoned that the Mixology claim, being new and the closest thing to notability, separated it from the G4. But then, I also thought that the PROD would do the trick, having missed the rather odd policy that an article that has failed AFD gets more protection than one that has never faced that. Anyway, if you think it should be deleted, you should probably specify that here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations Seeker

[edit]
First Nations Seeker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedily deleted once for lack of notability. Author now claims "I believe I have made the necessary edits to have the page remain". I disagree. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This entry has cultural and political significance to North American First Nations groups. I have contacted the organizer of the First Nations Seeker to request more 3rd party references, preferably peer-reviewed journal articles ggatin (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As webmaster of First Nation Seeker, I wish to say I DID NOT originate this new Wikipedia page about First Nations Seeker. But now that I am aware of it, it is painful to go through this death row experience. I think the reason that it hasn't been written about is that it so novel that it doesn't process in peoples' brains. Certainly, I am light years ahead of the average Native American who tend to focus on their local areas... Meanwhile on January 1, 2013, Google clobbered First Nations Seeker with a "banishment" penalty. Reasons unknown. No SEO going on here. Recently though, Google has relisted it, albeit, far down in the results such that the site only gets about 20 visitors per day. In effect, they've done their very best to ensure that the site is ineffective. That hasn't stopped such organizations as Yale University Library or the Library of Congress from linking to it though... Bryan Strome (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanStrome (talk • contribs) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Riggs (executive)

[edit]
Adam Riggs (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable entrepreneur, most notability stems from shutterstock articles where he isn't the subject CitizenNeutral (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On a Highbeam search (which gave much more coverage of a baseball player of the same name) various article appeared where the subject is quoted. However while these could verify the detail in the article, they are effectively passing-coverage in respect of his previous roles at Shuttercock and not evidence of attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 09:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axe (rapper)

[edit]
Axe (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite a recent PROD, it seems no one was able to improve the article. Have not found any WP:RS indicating notability. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO Taroaldo ✉ 02:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 July 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEC µPD7220

[edit]
NEC µPD7220 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could only find unreliable sources for this computer hardware. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

161 hits: Northcon, Mini/Micro Southwest, The International Conference on Computers and Applications, etc. and more 110 hits -- Polluks ★ 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits don't prove anything. SL93 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 09:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, to me hits prove that one should take a little time to look more closely, if nothing else.... I think this has some historical value, so would prefer to keep it around while the article is improved (like clarifying it is historical!). Issues are that it was called by several different names (not sure about that Greek letter?), and of course not many sources from the 1980s are online. Yes, there were computers back then, and Wikipedia could use some articles about that time, instead of being focused on 2008 and beyond. Minor note: should be in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing since it is not software (some over there should really be here too for that matter). W Nowicki (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be historical, but there is no reason why it can't be merged somewhere else and then redirected if there is barely any information available. SL93 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: In the February 1983 issue of Byte, starting on page 90, there is an interview with the designers of the Apple Lisa. Two of the questions that were asked were specifically about why this IC was not used in the Lisa. Starting on page 33 there's another article about the Lisa which says "an interesting aspect of the Lisa is that it abandons hardware graphics chips like the NEC 7220 for system software that requires the 68000 microprocessor to generate and maintain the video image." As the quote shows, the chip seems to have been referred to informally as the "NEC 7220". —rybec 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Info World reference in the article is significant coverage in a reliable source, and along with the other refs and the Byte mention above, notability is established for this chip. Dialectric (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Polluks:Polluks searched for upd7220 and upd82720 (with "µ" replaced by "u" as is sometimes done); those may not be the most common terms for these chips. —rybec 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I would guess that "NEC 7220" might be the most popular name for online sources, but mostly because computers of that time generally did not (easily) use Greek letters. Doing a Google Book search for example finds many mentions with the different variations, but mostly snippets since the 1980s are still in copyright but before web sites. The original IEEE paper just calls it the ""A Single-chip Graphic Display Controller" since it had not been given a product number yet. There are also some sources in Japanese, but I do not read that. Some are on-line under the site of one of the designers, Tetsuji Oguchi, which also mentions some other awards the design won. See http://www.oguchi-rd.com/ The "µ" does appear on the official NEC documentation, so might as well keep the article title as it is: the official name. I have been working on the article adding the sources mentioned, trying to put it in perspective, and hope the naysayers can take another look. I am not a hardware designer, but the Byte article seems noted itself by other sources, due to the historical nature of the Apple Lisa, and all three of the people interviewed in it are notable with Wikipedia articles of their own. W Nowicki (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Professor of Fundamental Physics

[edit]
Ogden Professor of Fundamental Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable professorship of a mid level university established in 2001 with apparent promotional issues involved with the benefactor Peter Ogden. Inadequate secondary reliable source coverage and I cannot see anything unique in this professorship. The Legend of Zorro 11:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts of notability of a separate article on Durham University Department of Physics (since this is the only department of Durham University having a separate article). Interestingly the article has no info on Ogden Professor. The Legend of Zorro 15:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of the independent reliable soures needed to pass WP:GNG. The merge suggestion is no good because the department is probably also not independently notable (department-level subdivisions of universities usually aren't). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As a named chair in a UK university, it is notable. In UK, our university lecturers are not all professors (unlike US), so that any professor in a UK university has bene recognised by the univeristy as notable; hecne the professorship is also notable. Durham a major university, in the rank after Oxbridge. Merging is certainly an alternative. Deletion is certainly not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can donate (but has to be huge) money to a university and the university will then create a professorship by that name. This does not imply any kind of notability of the professorship unless it is historically notable. In this case the chair was established in 2001 so it cannot possibly be notable. And the status of a university does not makes any difference here. Also Durham is surely not that much big brand name that every professorship there is notable. The Legend of Zorro 13:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I NEVER questioned the notability of the occupying professor. As I said previously anybody can donate (but has to be huge) money to a university and the university will then create a professorship by that name. This does not makes the PROFESSORSHIP notable. In this particular case the professorship was established in 2001. You clearly said that "there are not many sources independent of him" hence you agree that the PROFESSORSHIP is NOT notable. I replied about merging with the department above and merging with Carlos Frenk is definitely not an option. Since he is definitely not going to be the only professor to occupy the chair. The Legend of Zorro 14:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Solomon7968 aka Zorro (the nom) takes strong objections to my comments. He appears to be a relatively new editor. My view is that if the holder of a professorial chair is notable, partly because he holds that chair, then the chair itself must also be notable. It might be possible to restructure the article as one on Ogden Centre for Fundamental Physics, of which the professor is clearly the director (or similar title). If the anon editor and I are wrong the nom need to cite relevant precedents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am not "a relatively new editor". I do not have 20K contributions like you but do have 4k contribution through past 2 years. For citing relevant precedents see the wikipedia policy which states that notability is not inherited. The Legend of Zorro 15:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant here at all. -- 202.124.88.4 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron said that "My view is that if the holder of a professorial chair is notable, partly because he holds that chair, then the chair itself must also be notable". It is a notability is inherited argument. The Legend of Zorro 14:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence for notability beyond its current occupant (who is indeed notable). Of the two references in the article, one is a link to the university itself (so not independent) and the other is a dead link. WP:PROF applies to individuals, not the posts they hold. Simply no good arguments for keeping this. Modest Genius talk 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plain non-notable without any doubts. Every University in US has a lot of professorships like that. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As pointed out above, the current occupant is notable (and presumable future occupants will be as well), but there is no reason for a separate article on this professorship itself. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Professor of Hazard and Risk

[edit]
Wilson Professor of Hazard and Risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable professorship of a mid level university established in 2005. Inadequate secondary reliable source coverage and I cannot see anything unique in this professorship. The Legend of Zorro 11:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it's fair to call them third rate. They're a good university, though not so good that we should make articles on everything possible there. In general, even at first-rate universities, I would oppose making articles on named professorships which are so new they have had only one occupant. It ammooounts to a PR trick to get an additional article, when the one on the professor holding the chair is sufficient. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually by mid level university I mean everything which is not so famous as Oxford, Cambridge, or LSE in UK. This is not to say it is a bad university. The Legend of Zorro 10:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As a named chair in a UK university, it is notable. In UK, our university lecturers are not all professors (unlike US), so that any professor in a UK university has bene recognised by the univeristy as notable; hecne the professorship is also notable. Durham a major university, in the rank after Oxbridge. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can donate (but has to be huge) money to a university and the university will then create a professorship by that name. This does not imply any kind of notability of the professorship unless it is historically notable. In this case the chair was established in 2005 so it cannot possibly be notable. And the status of a university does not makes any difference here. Also Durham is surely not that much big brand name that every professorship there is notable. The Legend of Zorro 13:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Durham is a fine university with a long history and good reputation. But this is just a professorship without a long history or any particular reputation in the wider community, and it doesn't carry any particular status or fame: there's a lot of press interest in who'll be Oxford Professor of Poetry and something with the history of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics is also notable (though its article is short), but nobody would say this is remotely comparable. With more recent named academic posts, the Rupert Murdoch professor of language and communication at Oxford has received far more press coverage[1][2], but it doesn't have an article. If the current holder David Petley had an article, I'd suggest a redirect, and I've no idea if he's notable or not, but the post itself is not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to David Petley. Durham is ranked 80th in the world, and 10th in the UK (not far behind LSE, which is 6th in the UK), which puts it pretty much in the first rank. In this case, there's not much on the chair per se, but per WP:PROF #5, holding the post makes David Petley notable, so we should just rename the article and reword appropriately. Merging to Institute for Hazard and Risk Research is also a good option. -- 202.124.89.30 (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How Many times I have to repeat that I NEVER questioned the notability of a professor. This AFD is about the PROFESSORSHIP and it is not NOTABLE. The Legend of Zorro 05:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, chill, dude. If you agree that the person is notable, surely you agree that renaming to David Petley (with appropriate restructuring) is a valid outcome? -- 203.171.197.20 (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually notability is not inherited. In any case David Petley (redlink) is not going to be the only professor to hold this chair. So I cannot figure out how a redirect to David Petley is feasible. And for your merge suggestion to Institute for Hazard and Risk Research, it may be feasible however the interesting fact is that there is already a notability tag placed on the article for 3 years. (Not by me though) The Legend of Zorro 07:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said notability was inherited <puzzled look>. However, holding the post makes David Petley notable per WP:PROF #5. Sure, there will be other occupants of the chair, but David Petley will always be the first one. There's certainly nothing to stop us redirecting to David Petley for now. And eventually the chair itself may become notable. -- 202.124.89.10 (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First fix the redlink status of David Petley (Dave Petley?) or it will qualify under CSD#G8. The Legend of Zorro 13:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't simply redirect, but we can move/rename as suggested above, leaving a redirect behind. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulted as keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golmaal 4

[edit]
Golmaal 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The movie mentioning Golmaal 4 has only one ref and reading through that I can not see any of the details which are mentioned on the wiki page. Total misleading information. Director is busy promoting his new film chennai express and no principal photography has been started neither the cast for the film crew producers distributors are finalized. In my opinion this article should not be on wiki as of now, but may be in the future when the initial steps are been confirmed. Daan0001 (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Have you seen this, Daan0001? The production has been discussed in the major Indian newspapers. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These ref fom google search are based from 2011 to 2012 due to the popularity of Golmaal 3, as Golmaal is a franchise. Theres no news from the movies cast to production so far and page should only included in wiki once the movie is on production as wikipedia as not a place for predictions what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daan0001 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respects, it is quite logical that articles dealing with an upcoming film project speak about predecessors. For instance, ALL early information on Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 3 were related to spoke of and were because of the popularity of forebears. Further, your declaration that "wikipedia is not a place for predictions what so ever" is incorrect and not per policy... a policy which specifically instructs that future events may be discussed if properly sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With Reliance Entertainment's release of an official trailer we have an indicator that some level filming has taken place, this makes sense as as the project itself was announced in March 2013 as filming later this year,[3] and this IS four months later. We already know that Golmaal: Fun Unlimited led to the more successful Golmaal Returns which led to Golmaal 3 and sources confirm a conformed interest in the filming of Golmaal 4. All 4 closely related topics could certainly be written of and sourced within a series article. Fine that NDTV told us in 2011 that Golmaal 4 was not to be expected until 2013,[4] but now we have independent sources in 2013 telling us it will film later this year.[5] But until Golmaal film series is written we do have enough coverage from 2011 through 2013 of the 4th in the series to allow an imperfect article to exist and be expanded and sourced over time and through regular editing. Available sources speak toward script, casting, and locations... all great stuff for an article's production section. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On this note i do not understand why and how these main websites in India would miss a such a huge franchise release date or about any information with regard.
All im saying is this a future project yet to be published and any information and content including cast to production which would be on Wikipedia is totally misleading to the readers until such information are confirmed and finalized. I assume even User;MichaelQSchmidt got misled watching that clip on YouTube which was not Golmaal 4 but Toofan and which basically says to me that even after reading the Golmaal 4 article on Wikipedia User could not even identify and compare the cast who appeared on the YouTube clip and the names on artcle. That shows the User does not have any idea about Indian Cinema/ actors / actresses.--Daan0001 (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous sources were brought forth AFTER and because of your pointed out my good faith error about a mis-titled non-English trailer, and I granted my inability to read or understand Indian languages (which means I am unable to search for sources in those non-English laguages). Neither qualifies you to assert that I do not understand film articles.... 'cause I do. I DO recognize your own misunderstanding of policy and guideline, and in my being an editor who does understand the importance of alternatives to deletion, and as someone with a proven willingness and ability to improve a few articles, I will ignore your WP:ADHOM, and not involve myself in unneccessary WP:BLUD. I will let others read this discussion, look themselves at the multiple available sources toward this topic and will accept whatever consensus is created herein toward whether or not it serves the project to have this topic written of in some manner, even if only in context to others in the series. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is poorly sourced. Movie might be from a franchise but nothing is confirmed. Page should be deleted untill confirmed star cast and procuders revealed. Theres no web site confirming cats principle photography neither any filming. The movie will be made at any point in the future i.e in 2014, but nothing confirmed. still question mark movie on hold Bolly123 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Elastic

[edit]
Jacky Elastic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely nothing to show notability. The awards show she hosted, judging from The Source (magazine), doesn't appear sufficient to confer notability and wouldn't be enough by itself anyway. Zero news hits is always a bad sign. Mabalu (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Source (magazine) actually is the magazine publication that throws The Source Hip Hop Music Awards. The page has been updated to include the IMDB reference which shows Jacky Elastic's involvement in the that awards show with many relevant and established artists. That is a vaild resource. IMDB is a factual, verified site. I am requesting the page to be cleaned up, not deleted. Digilove is also an excellent resource, considering that only very relevant music artist are included on their site. Digilove reports on new releases and music news[1]. Uwuwuw (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)uwuwuw[reply]
Comment IMDB is not considered a reliable source. If IMDB is the best new source, I'm afraid I can't see this changing the article's fate. She has zero coverage in Google News archive (which I do find surprising as a lot of non-entities do at least manage to scrape up one or two mentions in non-reliable-source tabloid or local press). I tried various spellings - Jacki/Jacquie/Jacqui etc - and had zero hits for those too - all I got was a reference to another singer called Jacqui having elastic vocals. I don't doubt that she exists, but see no evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Digilove.com counts as a source under online article. According to the Wikipedia: "What counts as a reliable source: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)." Just because someone is not in the news does not mean that they are not relevant to culture. As quoted by the wiki itself: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". The IMBD is verifiable because they call artists agents to verify films, actors, etc. are accurate before they put information in their site. According the the IMDB: " IMDb retains the right to reject any work whose eligibility according to above rules is dubious or/and not verifiable." Same thing goes for Discogs, they verify all the information through a processes with their sources before entering information online. Please note that there will be additional references added to the Jacky Elastic page from Teen People Magazine (a division of People Magazine) with proper citations that can be verified from the physical magazine itself (not online but in print). The Teen People source is going to take a day or two to get the reference so please give me some time. A "Career" section explaining more in depth will also be added as well. According to the Wikipedia: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English". If you still need additional information to verify you can verify request Jacky Elastic's agents information.Uwuwuw (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Uwuwuw[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think the consensus is clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulcsú László

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bulcsú László (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Croatian linguist who seems to fail all of the nine notability criteria listed at WP:ACADEMIC. The article was already discussed and deleted in May 2011, only to be recreated in June 2013 by User:Slavić, who has been indef blocked in the meantime over disruptive comments on article's talk page. The same user had also created boilerplate stubs on the same subject on the French, German, Czech, Latin and Slovenian Wikipedias on June 12 and 13, probably hoping that multiple stubs about the subject would lend some weight to his claims to the subject's notability. It would seem that the perceived importance of the subject stems from his bizarrely purist ideas about Croatian language and, although the man has indeed taught unrelated courses at Zagreb University, his influence on Croatian linguistics is marginal at best, proved by the fact that his sole published work is a Croatian translation of a poem from the Akkadian language. Timbouctou (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's try to put the Slavić episode behind us and focus on the topic. The specific academic criteria are not clearly met, but the topic might have a chance at general notability: he was the head of a fledgling department at the Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb at one point; Babić and Katičić worked with and wrote about him; his funky orthography has on occasion caused a fair few raised eyebrows in Croatia, but arguably few enough that we don't even have a proper critical review. All of this might amount to nothing in the eyes of a typical English reader. All this thinking about subtle nuances in notability inevitably reminds me of Barbara Radulović and Croatia-Mongolia relations and then I must retire :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is far more than a stub, and I see no other problems with the text either; WP:BIO compliance is the only thing we need to care about here. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My position is the same as in our first deletion discussion, and so are the reasons: as far as I can tell, does not meet WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. The most damning indication (if not exactly proof) of this is the fact that, as of 2011, and according to online sources, the four leading Croatian daily newspapers never as much as mentioned his name. GregorB (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By the comparison with other Croatian linguists, he stands in the very peak, for there is rarely an academic figure that enjoys such respect by colleagues and students in his field as László does. Also László meets 1st, 3rd, 5th and probably 9th criteria for academics, thus I see no problem in keeping this article. As I see with Slavić and Štambuk, the question of this article is only a ideological one. Thus by lifting us beyond this childishness, and lets truly judge László by his merits, which are, if I may say, substantial. Vukopisac (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (sock vote struck out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
further discussion with sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • What is your evidence for any of that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both well renown and highly acclaimed Croatian linguists; Stjepan Babić and Radoslav Katičić, wrote works, and speak extremely highly of him. As well, I am a former student of him and owe him much of my view points and education, and he have had extreme influence on me and my generation (there are also a lot of stories on University roaming around about him, due to his behaviour, so to say). Also, he is regarded among students of assyriology (as well as many colleagues) as "Bog i batina" ("God and stick"). Shortly speaking: there is no assyriology, Akkadian liguistics, machine translation... without László in Croatia, and not only Croatia. Vukopisac (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotal evidence and hear-say don't matter, Slavić. What matters is references, references, references. And you don't really have any. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WP:PROF criteria: #1 - does not add up, #3 - zero evidence in the article (the only membership in Croatia that unquestionably qualifies is the full HAZU membership), #5 - just might be close, depending on the interpretation, #9 - zero evidence in the article. As already noted, personal accounts do not count towards notability at all. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, we have no proof at all that the subject even meets WP:GNG. Established linguists like Stjepan Babić or Radoslav Katičić only gave him a passing mention (and even then, it occurred in non-scholarly publications) and there is very little significant coverage of the subject in the general media, Croatian or international. The entire "Works, articles and translations" section consists of short academic articles which are expected anyway from basically any academic employee in Croatia, and they appeared almost exclusively in Croatian academic journals published by the same institution he worked at. And even what seems to be an 1986 book he authored is described at worldcat.org as "1 edition published in 1986 in English and held by 1 library worldwide". Doesn't really sound like his work constitutes a significant impact in their scholarly discipline per WP:ACADEMIC. Timbouctou (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poetry of László meets highest wealth of expression in Croatian language, this perhaps alone is worthy of Wikipedia article, of his translations are highly think of (especially his collection of translations Hvalopj'ev S'ūncu), his work is a sole example of Akkadian literature in Croatian. To say clearly there is simply no proof that he is not notable, nor there is any proof that he should be excluded from Wikipedia, as he meets criteria for inclusion. Vukopisac (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your personal opinion, thinly-veiled sockuppet of Slavić (talk · contribs). You have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the claim that László is notable as a poet or translator. He has received no notable awards in either category. We are not required to provide "proof that he should be excluded", au contraire - you are required to provide proof that he should be included. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the claim that László is notable as a poet or translator. - Well, where is your evidence that he isn't, well you might say: He has received no notable awards in either category. - very original, if I may say, neither did Dostoyevsky, nor Hegel, nor Krleža, nor many others..., well this isn't a very good proof after all. We are not required to provide "proof that he should be excluded", au contraire - you are required to provide proof that he should be included. - Well of course, "I the Platon, I am the Truth!", well this is simply not enough, the article as it is, provides more then good notability, and if he isn't notable, how so that we spend so many words on that matter, in fact he is so notable or not notable that you and Slavić ware and are in preparation to shed blood and warring to end times, by the way I know you would prefer that I am Slavić - I don't really know why, perhaps then my opinion won't count, but sorry to disappoint you, only thing I have in common with Slavić is hatred for Croatian Vukovians and belief that László is worthy of Wikipedia article, which is, if you ask any linguist (in Croatia, or in the world) the undeniable fact. Vukopisac (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logic is flawed. I or anyone else am not required to provide evidence that László is not notable as poet, translator, linguist or whatever. You are required to provide such evidence for article to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which are based on notability. Krleža has received many awards and decorations, and those older writers are notable by other criteria (they have hundreds of work dedicated to their opus alone). You are Slavić alright - using a newly registered username, writing in the same language of obsolete korienski pravopis orthography and utilizing obscure substandard dialects - you've also authored hr:Vukopis as all as wikt:vukopis (under IPs and other sockuppets - all indefblocked!). Now when you see all your work undone, and the vulgar language and silly threats not working, you feign alternate identity in an attempt to salvage whatever you can. Opinions are irrelevant, what matters is references and evidence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, "I the atheist am not required to provide evidence that God doesn't exist, but you the believer, you are!" - now please, whose logic is flawed? You can continue to call me Slavić, of course; there is impossible that there are two idiots writing in "obsolete" korienski pravopis orthography, since half academic elite is writing as such (all nationalists I suppose), well so much about the "obsolete". Who knows? perhaps I even know Slavić personally. By the way I did not authored hr:Vukopis, my good friend did, I only was trying to put it on English Wiki, unsuccessful I must admit, even though the author of Croatian hr:Vukopis, warn me about Serbo-Croatian chauvinism on English Wikipedia, and that any article opposing the Serbo-Croatian dogma will be sooner or later deleted. I have no intention to wage war with you, all of this is childish, since you mind is set, your logic is that one of Karl Popper. Also I see that you decided the fate of László long before trail, very typical for fascism and communism, perhaps even for democracy, then we can't really have a discussion, now can we? Vukopisac (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to remind discussion participants that this is not a forum. The only issue here is whether Laszlo meets WP:ACADEMIC, as proved by reliable sources. As far as I can tell, none of the 9 criteria are met here. As for his translations from Akkadian language, WP:CREATIVE applies - and Laszlo again fails on all 4 counts. Timbouctou (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus of policy based arguments is to delete; the sources are inadequate and the accumulation of trivial content in the article gives the impression of promotionalism. The manner of rec-recreation under an alternate spelling is not encouraging, & I'm consequently going to protect both spellings against re-creation DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moad Gouzrou

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Moad Gouzrou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't meet notability criteria & WP:COI.

Article has been created by the subject himself with clear promotional intent; in yet another attempt to have his name on wikipedia [19]

No substantial coverage in media; only anecdotal references for this newbie freelance web writer, should be a speedy really. Tachfin (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A journalist and radio producer of the first order, with many years of important responsibilities on a national network. No reason to delete the article (but to improve it, though). --41.141.203.229 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mouad, can you refrain from voting here like you did before? WP:COI thanks --Tachfin (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't yet looked into notability, but must point out that the "youngest Moroccan journalist" claim is incapable of being substantiated, whatever tabloid headline writers might say. There is no generally accepted definition of "journalist", and I'm sure that no reliable source keeps a list of all journalists and their dates of birth to allow us to check that there is no younger journalist. It is also implausible that nobody born after 1993 has written articles for publication in Morocco. I removed this claim from the article with an explanation but was reverted without explanation by Wikifan115. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I can't see where is the COI, can anyone argue ? Does the initial administrators who accepted the article not aware of Wikipedia guidelines ? --41.251.8.195 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see nothing that indicates notability either in the article or in any sources that I can find under either spelling of the name. It would appear that the sources cited in the article are in similar vein to this one, posted on a potentially reliable site by the subject himself, and containing the disclaimer "post non vérifié par la rédaction". I would also note that User:Wikifan115 attempted to close this discussion as "keep" despite obviously being involved, so we need to beware further disruption here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - To be a journalist, doesn't he need to have articles in some kind of edited publication? I don't see any, and also the article is very subjective and would need to be rewritten with just the facts. I can read French, but there were still references I couldn't check. Those I read don't seem very reliable or informative, but if someone can point out some coverage that I missed I will change my vote. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : To be objective, I am convinced that this page just needs to be kept, improved, and tagged (as an extreme measure) as a COI. To answer User:Phil Bridger, what I did was a mistake as I read "result=keep}}" in the source of the page. What do you think ? --Wikifan115 (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan115 also removed a G4 template rather than wait for an administrator to perform a review. Crtew (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree - a wordpress site, a blog and a wiki - and none of them have the name of a journalist who has written the article. Can anyone point to an article that Mr. Gouzrou has written which has been submitted to an editor, accepted and then published? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That site boasts that it has 11872 reporters, and its conditions of use say, "Come4News SARL ne peut pas être tenu pour responsable du contenu mis en ligne par les internautes" (Come4News SARL cannot be held responsible for content posted by Internet users), i.e. it does not exercise editorial control. Publishing there no more indicates that the subject is a journalist than would posting on Twitter. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete per G4 Delete: This article fails on several basic issues. First, not enough quality sources exist to support the claims. The lack of edited publications written by the subject is also problematic. Second, the article fails both WP:GNG and the more specific WP:ANYBIO or WP:Journalist. One web award does not make the person notable. And I tend to agree with User:Phil Bridger on the plausibility of references for "youngest". Third, the article does not describe or point to any works of notable journalism.Crtew (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One: If there is clear evidence of a WP:COI here, in the previous AfD, or in the article, then that evidence should be presented. Otherwise, such claims should be dropped or dismissed. The same interested IP addresses across the board is circumstantial, and I'm a skeptic.Crtew (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two: I am confused about why this is not listed as the second nomination for AfD. Is this a mistake? Am I missing something in the history? Crtew (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already deleted once. Notice the spelling of the first name:
Is this grounds for a speedy delete? Crtew (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a request for undeletion in this case? I can't find one in the archive. Crtew (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a G4. I think an administrator should review this article's history to ascertain exactly why it has been deleted three times prior to this AfD (under the title "Mouad Gouzrou" with a "u" in Moad) and why it has been recreated/restored as "Moad" and by whom. [20] Crtew (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The G4 request was turned down by an admin since additional changes have been made. The deletion log, however, should be reprinted here in this debate since most of us cannot see the earlier versions of the article and decide for ourselves. I would point out two things: 1) This is not the first G4 event in this article's history (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and 2) even if the article has additional content, the basic issues that have been raised in the past still exist now.Crtew (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22:13, 24 May 2012 User:Michael Greiner deleted page Mouad Gouzrou (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person) (TW))
17:43, 4 August 2011 User:Alexf deleted page Mouad Gouzrou (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouad Gouzrou)
01:23, 22 June 2011 User:Ron Ritzman deleted page Mouad Gouzrou (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouad Gouzrou)
  • Comment : I agree with Crtew that there is currently no clear evidence of WP:COI and nothing tells clearly that the subject wrote the article for himself. I also join User:41.251.8.195 and want an answer as well for his question : why the administrators who approved the article in AfC didn't have the same arguments as in this debate ? Aren't the secondary sources by TV and Radio channels enough ? If the journalist is a radio producer, then how can his works be presented ? I just want things to be clear on my mind so we reach a consensus as soon as possible so please answer my questions. --Wikifan115 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was not approved by administrators, but by one editor who is not an administrator. We all make the occasional mistake, and the point of having a discussion here is to decide whether accepting this article was a mistake. And no, the sources cited in the article and in this discussion are not enough, because they are not reliable and independent, as has already been explained several times above. Phil Bridger (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This source was not yet published when this discussion began - —Anne Delong (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The published secondary source article cited parrots what is said in the Wikipedia article and even mentions the Wikipedia article like an echo chamber. While the article does mention his age, it does not mention anything new that would change my mind, such as why he is a significant journalist or what important works of journalism he has published. The award by a public vote is bogus and is not a vetted award. I find nothing in the published piece that makes this subject encyclopedia worthy. Crtew (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The listing above assigns this AfD to three discussion areas (Authors, Africa and News), but if you open all three categories and look for this discussion, it is not appearing. Something happened with the listing to the areas during this discussion, which is probably why nobody new is joining. Crtew (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed deletion sorting. Per the revision page for the AfD discussion (here), a user closed the AfD discussion on August 1, 2013, so the AnomieBOT removed the listings at the delete sort pages. Another user reverted the close, hence reopening the discussion, so the delete sorts had to be replaced manually. I've manually re-added the AfD discussion to the following delete sort pages:
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 15:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Essentially) withdrawn  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WBSC (AM)

[edit]
WBSC (AM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't appear to have ever been any sources establishing notability and it apparently went off the air in 2012 [21]. I am One of Many (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as Dravecky mentions, broadcast radio stations, especially federally licensed ones with 10,000 watt transmitters such as this one are generally notable and this one doesn't look to be any different. Interesting that they were fined for lack of EAS compliance as well. Based on FCC records the station was active for at least 5 years and probably more than that. Notability is not temporary.--RadioFan (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Dravecky. Levdr1lp / talk 00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Per Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination: I came across WBSC when I was checking out a user (spammer) with a name that included WBSC. When my search turn up this station only on Wikipedia, I couldn't find anything about it (except the link I provided above), and that it did not exist very long, I treated it like other businesses and brought it here. From now on, I'll treat any radio or television station is notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (See below) Delete - The article does not meet a single notability guideline, and that other related articles are "generally notable" isn't a reason to keep this one as Wikipedia consensus has long established that notability is not inherent; "it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable." That such articles are "generally notable" means nothing; notability must be established, and "generally" means there will be articles which are not notable. Unless sources can be found, this appears to be one of those articles. - SudoGhost 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per Dravecky and WP:OUTCOMES/MEDIA. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguement contradicts itself. You say that no one is suggesting that radio station articles aren't kept, but then you do just that. This falls under the Cake Arguement, you can't have it and eat it. You can't say the articles are generally kept, but this one shouldn't be. Doesn't work that way, it's one or the other. But with established strong consensus, and a very poor arguement from you, you are delaying the inevitable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't strawman my comments, because you're arguing against something I did not say. That such articles are generally kept does not mean that every such article is kept. That is what "generally" means. There is no "established strong consensus" unless you're referring to WP:ORGSIG, which directly contradicts the speedy keep rationales; not a single "speedy keep" argument has any basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy, so if "generally notable" is the only rationale you can give, don't expect this AfD to close as a keep, as consensus is determined by arguments based on policies and guidelines. - SudoGhost 05:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There will be no "speedy keep" here as long as there is at least one valid delete comment. This AfD needs to play out its seven days (unless the keepers manage to convince SG he's wrong and no other delete-sayers come along). LadyofShalott 03:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even with the original nominator having withdrawn their concerns about this article, it's best to let this AFD run its course, if just to avoid a renomination. RadioFan (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To clarify why I gave a delete rationale: not a single one of the "speedy keep" comments are based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline, including the relevant notability guidelines. The keep rationales given say that this article should be kept because radio station articles are "generally kept". This is true, however that has no bearing on why this article specifically should be kept. That such articles are "generally kept" of course means that there are articles that are not kept, and that these articles must show notability. This is reflected by WP:BCAST. Arguments have been put forth on my talk page that radio station articles are "inherently notable", but this is directly contradicted by Wikipedia consensus; WP:ORGSIG specifically points out that no organization is inherently notable, no matter what kind of organization it is. This includes radio stations. So the argument that such articles are "generally kept" does not warrant keeping this article, as that is nothing more than commentary about the overall concept of radio station articles, not a justification for this particular article. An article needs to show notability, not ride the coattails of articles with actual notability. When the "radio stations are inherently notable" fallacy is discarded and this article is looked at on its own merits as it should be, it becomes quickly apparent that it fails to meet any relevant notability guideline. - SudoGhost 05:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We make the notability guidelines, and in recent years, I think we have always accepted articles on genuine broadcast stations. For all practical purposes, that's a guideline. That it is no longer broadcasting is irrelevant--we're an encyclopedia, not a directory of current stations. We are not well served by debating cases like this--the more classes of things we accept as a matter of course, the more time we have to improve articles on them. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have updated the WBSC (AM) page with a ton of information backed by a slew of sources. I am waiting on an editor to get back to me about another source (trying to find a free source for a legal document), so there will be more added in the next 24 hours. Though, what is there more than meets the GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added additional sources, done a bit of clean-up, and found that WBSC was one of the stations that were the focus of the 2008 documentary Losing Their Voices about the plight of local radio stations. - Dravecky (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article has been expanded and references have been added (I didn't see any of those when I looked initially) it does appear to meet the notability requirements at WP:BCAST and WP:ORGSIG. Not by much, but enough. It's been expanded to the point that it would warrant a DYK if found appropriate, and though I don't think it's a strong case for notability, it's enough that I would rather not have it miss a DYK just because of an ongoing AfD. - SudoGhost 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is amazing, good job. When I nominated it, I thought it would be a completely non-controversial delete along the lines of SudoGhost's reasoning. When I saw the immediate responses, I was a little embarrassed about having nominated it, but now I'm glad I did, because we now have an interesting article, which could be DYK if we knew a little more about its role in the community. I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Dumping Ground guest characters

[edit]
List of The Dumping Ground guest characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not conform to the notability guidelines. Should be merged into The Dumping Ground. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
-->
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Santa Cruz shooting

[edit]
2013 Santa Cruz shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This is a well-written article whose topic is a first in the history of Santa Cruz and already a part of the history of that community.  The service in the HP Pavilion in San Jose was attended by the governor of the State of California and thousands.  This is a part of history rather than being a statistic, which means that it is not WP:ROUTINE.  When the encyclopedia is getting closer to being finished, we might want to merge this article into the History of Santa Cruz, California article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this event was a "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance", does not appear to, for example, been the driving factor behind a change in the law or renewed drive for more gun control. Nor do any of the sources used demonstrate continued significant coverage so therefore fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy and WP:EVENT guideline for a standalone article. No bar on having a section in another suitable article. LGA talkedits 23:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Press coverage (see list of references) is sufficient to justify notability of the incident. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, I was reading this article and sources too fast. It is not notable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A tragic case which received heavy local coverage for a week or so at the time. The only followup coverage I found, all local, was in May when the police report was released and July when some civil suits were filed. Bottom line, this subject did not have any lasting impact or larger implications, and as such it fails WP:NOTNEWS. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Portland nightclub shooting

[edit]
2009 Portland nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: Could be instead mentioned briefly in the History of Portland, Oregon or in the crime section of Portland, Oregon. This shooting rampage did not kill that many people, and was not all that notable to begin with. I also know a few people from the Portland area and they seem to have barely remembered this event even occurring, so therefore it was not a very notable event. Cyanidethistles (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like others, there is nothing in the article to suggest that this event was a "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance", nor do any of the sources used demonstrate continued significant coverage so therefore fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy and WP:EVENT guideline for a standalone article. The only thing that gave me pause on this was the clam that this was "the worst mass shooting in Portland's history" however this claim is only sourced to "authorities" and was made at the time of the event, it would appear not to have been repeated later so in and of it's self carries little or no weight. No bar on having a section in another suitable article. LGA talkedits 00:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of everlasting significance since the shooting, fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Secret account 02:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comment. Press coverage (see list of references) is sufficient to justify notability of the incident. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed my vote to "delete" in another similar article, however this particular case was described as "the worst mass shooting in Portland's history". I must admit that I am generally an "inclusionist" and do not see any harm from keeping articles like this.My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But who said it was "the worst mass shooting in Portland's history" all I can see is that "authorities" did ? who are these "authorities" ? what is there to verify this claim ? has the claim been repeated ? If there is a good secondary source to that claim then it would add weight to it being significant but not as it stands. LGA talkedits 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LGA, an attack that killed only two people in a city of over 500,000 as the worst "mass shooting" in the city history is rather dubious. My condolences to the families of the victims of the attack aside, that sounds like an extraordinary claim that went though lazy or overly sympathetic fact checking by the news media. Secret account 01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, simple Google search shows that such kind of murder-suicide is pretty common in Portland (changed vote). My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, you should know that sources do not, in and of themselves, grant notability. Could you elaborate on your reasoning? FYI, you just copied and pasted the same thing on two other AfDs. Transcendence (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Azana Spa shootings

[edit]
2012 Azana Spa shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unsure if it should be kept or saved, but it should at least be mentioned in Brookfield, Wisconsin in the history section as along the lines of "In 2012, a gunman killed 3 people and wounded 4 others at the Azana Spa, before committing suicide." For now, I may be leaning towards "delete". Cyanidethistles (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Mall shooting

[edit]
Tacoma Mall shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT Transcendence (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of no lasting significance, fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT, wrong project should be in wikinews. LGA talkedits 00:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Continuing coverage over multiple years in multiple major national news sources, already present in article at time of nomination. Notability is defined by coverage in reliable sources, and this has plenty. NOT is not applicable, and NEVENT was clearly met--above !votes and nomination are simply not accurate. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is very relevant, it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.....Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews" and NEVENT talks about "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." and "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." neither is the case here. You mentioned "Continuing coverage over multiple years in multiple major national news sources" please list them . LGA talkedits 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read 1) the article, to see the enduring coverage of the shooter, who himself has no article and is only covered in this context per WP:BIO1E, and 2) WP:NTEMP, which explains that if the GNG is met, it stays met. Also, I note that this account claims to be a clean start account. May I have your assurance that you have never participated in any other prior deletion discussion with me under any previous username? Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage of the armed citizen who tried to intervene: [22] from 2010. Google news archive search turns up plenty more from 2005-2006.
  • Coverage of the jailed shooter, and his wife: [23] from 2011. Here's one about his escape attempt [24] Note that neither are Washington State media outlets.
  • Coverage of a random passerby who helped out in the aftermath, from 2008: [25].
So, as you can see, even though there's plenty sufficient coverage in the article itself, there's way more out there freely available on the web. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that notability is not temporary, but routine news reporting (WP:PRIMARYNEWS) does not confer that notability, that's why WP:NOT uses the term enduring. What would convince me to change to keep is a good secondly source (a book or journal) that covers the crime in some detail and explains why it is special, why is it more than a news story; none of those news reports do that. LGA talkedits 06:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The governing sentence is in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Your expectation is unreasonable and not policy based. WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that goes beyond what NOTNEWSPAPER says--it describes policy as some want it to be, not as it actually is. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, the governing sentence in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is "the most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.", backed up by the trust of WP:NEVENT, when it talks about "Lasting effects" - An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance and events have significant impact over a wide region. Not only do i beilive this is the intent of the poilicy, it is also logical - news for a newspaper (wikinews) not an encyclopaedia. LGA talkedits 20:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct your quote, please. Regardless, a shooting and ensuing hostage situation, that's seen coverage in multiple years and multiple ways since is not "most newsworthy events". MOST newsworthy events are covered once, in a small-town paper somewhere, and never come up again. This event has international coverage, coverage that lasts over years, coverage that follows the perp to prison, and the would-be hero into physical therapy rehab. You did note that it's been covered in a TV episode, right? Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heritage High School (Conyers, Georgia). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage High School shooting

[edit]
Heritage High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT Transcendence (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sagacious Consultants, LLC

[edit]
Sagacious Consultants, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like it fails the general notability guideline. Googling with search term "Sagacious Consultants" turns up one passing mention from Google News, no hits from Google News's archives, and a few false positive Google Books hits, as is typical. Only primary sources are currently present in the article. CtP (t • c) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Page was created not that long ago, creator may have not yet gotten a chance to assert notability. I'll wait to decide. — kikichugirl inquire 18:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently the article provides no evidence of notability, and is written in a promotional style, e.g. "Sagacious Consultants currently offers three unique service lines" and "Sagacious Consultants values corporate citizenship", not to mention the somewhat tautological "Sagacious provides a wide breadth of EMR consulting services.." (emphasis added). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jordan (photographer & director)

[edit]
Jim Jordan (photographer & director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are provided which establish some notability but I'm not sure they're enough, and there seem to be WP:COI issues in play. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Bodies (Blessthefall Album)

[edit]
Hollow Bodies (Blessthefall Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about an unreleased album, relies on Twitter announcements, or short excerpts on a music website about Twitter anouncements. Certainly not prominent enough for advance publicity on Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS at the moment. Sionk (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the album is already discussed to fair depth in independent sources that the article uses as references, making this pass the general notability guideline. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the album covers all facts that are available through first person twitter announcements and Music websites and magazines. More information about the album will become available in the coming weeks since the album is less than a month away from being released. All new information will be included on this page as soon as it becomes available. (User Talk:Wrestlingpunk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the same reasons I'm arguing for deletion. The article should be written when and if information becomes available. Information isn't available at the moment - no reviews or descriptions, only announcements that it will be released. As WP:NALBUMS says, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". The article needs significant secondary coverage, not brief announcements. Sionk (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand the nomination. I see coverage from a number of reliable third party sources, like AltPress or Revolver. The album is out in less than a month, and will be barely 2 weeks away by the time this AFD is likely to close. Seems kinda pointless to delete it now just to recreate it in 2 weeks. (Let's be real. Its a notable band who prior three albums are notable. If its not notable yet, it will be upon release.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There "isn't little more than a track listing" - there is a background section already (which could be expanded) and a good lead. There is no reason why we can't keep this article and wait for more info; it's only a month away. What a waste of time it would be to delete an article, then restart it in less than a month. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above. If it doesn't meet the GNG yet (though I feel it does) then it certainly will upon its imminent release. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is not yet sufficient. They are all trivial mentions. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has been covered in reliable sources [26], [27], [28] and has been reviewed by Alternative Press. It is going to be recreated within days of its deletion anyways, so no need to delete when notability is sure to be unquestionable within weeks. Already has a release date, album cover, and tracklist. STATic message me! 11:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I forgot that one. Yes, it passes WP:HAMMER as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send back to Afc or user space until the album is released - Right now most of the press is just announcements of the upcoming album. A couple of the news reports are announcements of upcoming articles. There's no need, though, to delete it and make someone create another article later. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even with reviews from advance copies already rolling in? Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling in? Really? In journalistic sources? Maybe you could share some with us. Reliable reviews of their other albums are almost non-existent, so I'd be surprised if this was such a remarkable exception. Sionk (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Alternative Press published a dedicated review, which is indisputably reliable source, as a decade spanning print magazine, and has consensus as such at WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. (Its been added to the article.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have uploaded Alternative Press review for you all to look at that, in case you need to do so.HotHat (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. First review. One more and it meets notability guidelines. I'm not sure why editors simply go on opinion rather than policy. This AfD should have closed within a few days as a move to user space or AfC and then brought into the mainspace when it met notability guidelines. When we don't follow these guidelines, it's harder for us to get rid of non-notable articles that have existed for months or years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Within the first 2 days, this received 4 "Keep" !votes, so an Admin would have had no business sending it back to AFC. Even now, only one person has suggested that, 2 if we count you, who still technically say delete. Against 6 keeps. What you suggest, does not gel with a consensus that has ever existed in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, I don't buy that argument when there's enough known about the album to meet WP:HAMMER - if the label went bankrupt next week, it'd be a huge news story and it'd get coverage as a lost release, get transferred to another record label, etc etc. Whatever the scenario, that would generate coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It's not just some passing comment by a band member about how someday they'd make an album; this is a finished product by a notable band sitting in a warehouse, already written/recorded/mixed, and being reviewed by reviewers with advance copies. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key word in your argument is if - none of what you said has actually happened, so it doesn't detract from the fact that it's just not notable enough yet. Would waiting a month be the end of the world? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "if" in my argument, the only "if" mentioned was in regards to what you said. I'm saying that no matter what the scenario, by this point, with the product this far along and already receiving reviews, its going to get coverage, released or not. (I've already argued it meets the GNG already. Not many reviews yet, no, but there's plenty of reliable music websites reporting on it and its singles.) Its upsetting that people waste their time discussing or moving on this sort of nitpicking regarding likely things when there's so much real garbage to clean up or delete. Why worry about moving it just to move it back when we can have it in the public space and it can be better maintained? Its a waste of experienced people's time to have to keep an eye and track this type of thing. It's this sort of Bureaucracy that deters people from sticking around, or leads to duplicate of even worse quality to pop up in the mean time. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea why WP:HAMMER is being discussed, other than the fact it reminds authors there's no hurry to write advance articles. The title and track list of the album is known in this instance. The problem here is the lack of reliable advance coverage, apart from the one Alternative Press review that has been "rolling in". Sionk (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying, I'm all for deleting speculative articles that are titled things like Random musicians fourth untitled studio album or whatever, but that its silly to cite CRYSTAL when a notable band has an album article that passes HAMMER, has been written, recorded, mixed, mastered, and even released to reviewers, and have third party sources to verify all of it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stevan Luković

[edit]
Stevan Luković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 22 July 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) 17:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 18:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 18:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first four sources mentioned above are transfer announcements, which makes them routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG, the fifth is a call-up announcement which falls under the same category. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS, although from the refs above this looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Stupenengo

[edit]
Marcos Stupenengo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CV-style (auto)biography about a non-notable individual. Pure (self)promotion with no encyclopaedic value. A similar article has been repeatedly deleted on the Spanish language WP as an autobiography with no encyclopaedic value, and equally repeatedly recreated until salted, so I suggest that the article name should be salted here too. Thomas.W talk to me 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional info. An article about Marcos Stupenengo was created earlier this year using the normal process but the submission was declined at AfC on 26 March 2013 because of a lack of reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. The present article was then created directly in article space in early June, most likely as a deliberate attempt to evade the AfC process and the scrutiny of the article that is part of it. Thomas.W talk to me 14:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the above. I researched IP addresses and usernames used here and in the Spanish version. It was easy to track them to Stupenengo. Example: the user Coconuto also exists in in Youtube for uploading Stupenengo own videos. The users were used to edit only things connected with him. Besides all this, he's not well known here in Argentina, and I doubt he's well known elsewhere, I don't thin anyone should spend time rewriting this CV into a real article. niqueco ✍ 02:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied. Article is now at User:Finnegas/Kader Bidimbou Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kader Bidimbou

[edit]
Kader Bidimbou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This player fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level). GiantSnowman 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Talented youngster signed by one of Africa's leading clubs will pass notability guidelines once he makes an appearance. Could the article be Userfied I would be more than willing to re create once the subject is notable. Finnegas (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see much reason to userfy a stub, it can be easily created once / if he makes an FPL appearance. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice - there is no consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Palenque

[edit]
Taco Palenque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taco Palenque is not a notable restaurant. The only independent source I could find is this Houston Press source being cited here. This article looks a bit like promotionalism too. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 00:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a chain with 15 restaurants, of course it's notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.92.128.150 (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there needs to be more independent coverage for there to be an article on this topic, not just a single Houston Press article and a primary source on the history of the restaurant. Sure, maybe there are a lot of restaurants in this chain, but just because of that does not mean it can be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. No offense, but your argument is cleary one of those types to avoid, which are listed on this page. I don't know which one, but I know it has to be one of those. Please do not come up with any such argument again. Thank you. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be very well a chain of 50 castles, if there not enough coverage, it doesn't suffice its notability and its article should not be maintained. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 20:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Glane23, Taco Palenque is well known in Texas. Has 343,000 hits on google.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MokaFive

[edit]
MokaFive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article on non-notable company. It might be possible to write an article about the academic project that ultimately have rise to the company,because some of that projects ideas were used elsewhere. The refs are either about that project, or the general concept, or non-reliable press releases. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Bazerk

[edit]
Son of Bazerk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Group fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being re-listed twice, there is no consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Sahay

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Uday Sahay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

renomination of this page on a non notable retired civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being re-listed twice, there is no consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decomposed Subsonic

[edit]
Decomposed Subsonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable musician Lester Foster (talk | talk) 16:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Kansas League

[edit]
Eastern Kansas League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this high school sports league. Fails the notability guideline at WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL In this case, (1) a nomination and (2) an agreeemnt to delete (3) without opposition should function the same as an unopposed WP:PROD and a WP:SECOND, which should be deleted rather than simply relisted without any reason given.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been closed differently if it were a PROD, but this is not a PROD. I don't really consider two !votes in one week to be enough participation to justify closing an Afd. Afd and PROD have different rules, so you shouldn't expect a PROD outcome if you choose Afd. If I closed this as I would a PROD, I'd also have to undelete it upon request as I would a PROD. Waiting for consensus takes a bit longer, but makes the deletion more "final". If you feel strongly about this issue, you should try to change the guidelines instead of complaining on individual Afds. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the essay WP:RELISTINGISEVIL for reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Eyes

[edit]
Covenant Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. [Edit: See my new vote, visible below in my comment added 23:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC).]

Tagged with {{notability}} for almost a year. PRODded. Seconded.[41] Deleted. Undeleted thanks to a single-purpose IP which geolocates to just 40 miles (65 km) away from company headquarters with a lame excuse.

But the subject fails WP:GNG. (Non-Wikipedians: See WP:42 for a summary.)

Article cites only Owosso's local Argus-Press and a page at Wired.com. But:

  • About the Argus-Press coverage:
    • See Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard; expand the "Quick introduction to common criteria" box. You'll see we demand "coverage of a kind that shows actual wider interest by credible published sources, not [...] the kind of occasional, routine or local coverage that any business or person might get now and then". Well, this coverage is just local coverage.
    • Worse yet, User:JamesBWatson and I think it's press-release-derived POV churnalism. I saw not one word of coverage from those who believe that, for example, young adults should be free to browse sex-ed websites without being monitored.
  • The Wired.com page fails WP:SIGCOV. (Non-Wikipedians: See here.)

Subject has three current Google News hits, but none meet WP:SIGCOV. The Courrier International hit includes just two sentences of coverage. In the two other hits, authors do nothing but cite statistics published by Covenant Eyes. I didn't see anything really impressive in Google's archives either.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I really wanted to say Delete, but a Google Scholar search shows at least one patent citation, and quite a few scholarly references, so unfortunately, while the article is written like PR (please, someone else fix that), they appear to have some notability in their sad little field. —Geoff Capp (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions:
  1. How can the company's patents meet WP:IS?
  2. Also, we can't decide based on hitcount alone. Which Google Scholar hits meet WP:SIGCOV? I am not convinced that even one does. Does your institution provide full-text access to the articles by Behun RJ et al. or Harkins JW? How much coverage of Covenant Eyes does each include?
  3. The POV material in the article has been there since it was added a full year ago,[42] and still, nobody's rewritten it. I propose that, since it's been a year, the article be deleted. If someone wants to fix it, they need only contact the closing admin, get the article undeleted into the WP:Article incubator, then fix the article. So, I wonder if you'd please consider changing your vote to "delete for now"?
I have sent you a Talkback notice. Please do reply when you have time.
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this is helpful, but I was doing remote support on a end users computer and came across this software. I had no idea what it was, I was thinking it could possibly be a virus or something. This article was the top hit on Google and was useful. If we can get some better citations, I think it's worth saving. People are using this software (in my limited anecdotal evidence). KLoverde (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi KLoverde. If someone does find some acceptable references, we can always undelete the article later. Or better yet, we can recreate it from scratch, free of PR-speak. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As well as the local press coverage, it received significant coverage in Christian media. Additionally there are briefer mentions in Wired and Salon and other tech news sites of less renown. Google Books shows mentions in various Christian-interest books[43][44][45] that I don't exactly have the qualifications to evaluate, but e.g. Thomas Nelson (publisher) is a very long-established and major Christian publisher, and Xulon Press is at least notable. An alternative would be a merge to Accountability software which is a very short article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. Do any of the "briefer mentions" on tech news sites meet our significant-coverage threshold? If so, which mention? (I shall now send you a Talkback notice to point you here.) Also, dear all: Are religious publications normally considered reliable for establishing notability? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There are PLENTY of articles out there establishing the notability of this website and its services if one simply knows where to look. Here's a sampling:
Clearly, the subject does not run afoul of notability guidelines. JayHubie (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Post, Sun-Gazette, and NBC News stories all fail WP:SIGCOV. I'm pretty sure the State Journal-Register article does too. If you find any article that includes significant coverage (IIRC one lengthy paragraph or more about Covenant Eyes), please let us know. I shall now leave you a Talkback template in order to point you here. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are finding excuses to reject these acceptable sources that establish the company's notability. JayHubie (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV is not an "excuse": it's been part of our inclusion guidelines since at least 2008. Please see WP:WHYN for why SIGCOV is required. If you've read WHYN and you still are unhappy, feel free to complain at WT:N. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way you are using it, yes, it's an excuse. SIGCOV is a guideline, not a policy. Even if you are right, which you are not, the notability of Covenant Eyes would fall into the realm of "unclear notability," not immediately into "no notability." The notability guidelines state that "[f]or articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." It looks like you jumped immediately to the deletion nomination and are using whatever excuse you can find to justify it. JayHubie (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more sources that aren't press releases found through Google News:
Independent.ie
CNET
New York Times
an ABC News affiliate
University Daily Kansan
Like I said, there are plenty of sources that meet even your absurd demands. JayHubie (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Post and Sun-Gazette articles merely cite statistics provided by Covenant Eyes. The NBC and Times articles each include only half a sentence of coverage. The CNET article includes zero coverage. None meet SIGCOV. By linking to them, you have wasted people's time. Please, check for SIGCOV before you link to an article.

The ABC article is just WP:LOCAL coverage. The Kansan article probably fails WP:RS. The Independent article is really mainly about an Irishman named Colin Howell. It includes just six sentences of Covenant Eyes coverage. I'm not sure it meets SIGCOV either. Plus, some of those six sentences may have been based on the lead section of our Wikipedia article as it was written at the time.

I suspect I shall decline to comment on future links you post unless you first tell us how many sentences of coverage they include.

Notability is also only a guideline. Exceptions may apply, though please ask an administrator before you try to apply one.

This Wikipedia article has perhaps failed WP:NPOV for most of its existence. Long before AfDing the article, I tried fixing it. But a Covenant Eyes employee came back again, silently removed Template:Notability, and resumed adding advertorial content. This POV damage remained in place for over six months. Perhaps nobody really cares about the article.

I don't have time to maintain the article. It should be deleted or merged. If it's deleted, well, deletion doesn't have to be permanent. If someone steps up and volunteers to watchlist it, to enable watchlist email, and to guard it against POV edits, then they can try asking the closing admin to undelete it again.

When an editor more experienced than you makes a !vote or cites a guideline, please assume that they know what they are doing.

P.S. I think that Covenant Eyes is useful software, that it serves a useful purpose, and that it helps society. I just think the article should be deleted or merged. If you have any questions about the preceding two sentences, please ask them on my talk page, not here.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the least bit surprising. Oh, well. Whatever. I've had my say and I don't need to convince you anyway. That's up to whoever decides to delete or not. JayHubie (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James River Cup

[edit]
James River Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This lower-league local soccer rivalry fails WP:GNG, and thus WP:NRIVALRY. There are very few web results related to the rivalry, and they're largely limited to primary sources. BDD (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital look-alike

[edit]
Digital look-alike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promo The Banner talk 23:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, delete. It seems the user has since worked on improving the article in good faith, going through the usual struggles with Wiki style. Another good example why we need to encourage new editors to improve existing articles for a while even more before letting them create new ones. Maybe it could be userified? Or some material suggested to be merged into, say, computer-generated imagery? Or merged into Paul Debevec since it is somewhat a promotion for his work. His article right now is mostly just talking about how his awards, listing movies without a source, and in-line promotional external links. From the categories perhaps the intent was to focus on using computers to intentionally fool people. I suppose that might be a topic if enough sources are found written about that aspect. But now it seems a bunch of statements about movie special effects? I just checked a few of the "sources" and they do not seem to use the specific term "digital look-alike". One calls it "Digital Cloning" for example. This article right now is still an orphan and has so many other problems. W Nowicki (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bats in the Air, Bats in My Hair

[edit]
Bats in the Air, Bats in My Hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Selfpublished children's book, does not appear notable. Sources are all apparently "local interest" news items ("Local woman writes book" and the like), and most of the links are broken anyway. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banded speed cosmology

[edit]
Banded speed cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like WP:OR and seems a little bit promotional. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following was posted to the article page by Camellia Plant (talk · contribs) (diff):
<!-- Answers to other editors.
Answers supporting objection to deletion.
Invisible text added by Camellia_Plant

Answers to Jackmcbarn:

"Looks like WP:OR". A: It is not Original Research. Three peer-reviewed sources are correctly cited.
"and seems a little bit promotional". A: This assumption must be demonstrated.

Answers to Phil Bridger:

"The cited articles were published by a well-known predatory publisher." A: Only a personal opinion. Official Court decisions must be cited for demonstrating this assumption.
"Why do supposedly intelligent academics fall for such scams?" A: Only a personal opinion. Besides contributions on Wikipedia should be polite and should be based on technical reasoning and not personal opinions.
"And why do universities not warn them that publishing in such a journal is career suicide?" A: Academic politics it is totally irrelevant on Wikipedia. Besides careers belong to the single persons and Wikipedia editors should not be worried about them.

-->
Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a lack of third party reliable sources describing this work, (e.g. newspapers, books, science mags. etc.). There is also a lack of material published in journal by people other than the authors concerned, i.e. the theory has not been taken up by the wider scientific community. WP:FRINGE applies here. wrt to the science (this is probably the wrong place), if I understand their theory correctly, then these three electrical engineers seem to have missed a key point of relativity in that there is no absolute frame of reference.Martin451 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:FRINGE idea not appearing in reliable sources. -- 119.225.135.178 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The three so-called "peer reviewed" sources cited by the article are published in a questionable open access journal known as the Journal of physical science and application (which is listed as such here and is even called a scam here). Moreover, this journal has only one worldcat holding. Apart from being primary sources (rather than secondary sources as specifically required by the WP:NOR policy), these sources don't even pass the WP:RS smell test. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to respond to this edit (which was removed because of WP:DUCK) wherein it is insinuated that the journal is in fact a quality journal despite my evidence to the contrary. Remarkably, while my evidence was called in to question for essentially ad hominem reasons, no positive evidence for the credibility of this source was offered. It is a fact that there are many open access journals that publish essentially anything submitted with minimal peer review (assuming they get their open access fees). These are so-called "predatory open access journals". It is also a fact that David Publishing, the publisher of this journal, is listed in Beall's list (which is widely regarded in academia as a definitive listing of predatory open access publishers): [46]. The total lack of library holdings of this particular journal also makes it very suspect. Finally, there is this abstract published by this so-called "peer reviewed" journal. Can anyone reading that abstract honestly think that anything published in this journal is a reliable source for physics? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of the reliable secondary sources needed to pass WP:GNG. The existing sources are neither reliable (per Sławomir Biały) nor secondary, and even if they were published in a more reputable journal I'd want to see multiple independent groups working on the subject before having an article here about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that i'm new to wikipedia and i don't know all the rules about science pages, but i don't understand some points:
1. why all the answers objecting the proposal of delete have disappeared;
2. why should be important the professional career of the paper's authors for the page in question.
3. it seems that there isn't any technical motivation in favor of the deletion of the page, only "politics".
4. the main objective of an encyclopedia should be to report the facts of the world without filters and don't make appear the facts more or less notable than they are.
5. the first paper cited in this page appear published in a congress and this should demonstrate that the theory is being accepted by a wider scientific community and even there, to my knowledge, the given criticisms have always been more political or formal than substantive.
6. even if this theory will be disproved, an encyclopedia should report the failed attempts by the spirit of information. -—Cellomac (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is a direct violation of WP:SOCK to use different accounts during a deletion discussion, as it gives the illusion of more support for one point of view. Postings by sockpuppet accounts have been removed. 2. I don't think it is important. What's important is the lack of any reliable secondary sources on the subject. 3. Our purpose here isn't to evaluate the merits of the theory. We have articles on many so-called "theories" which are known to be completely bogus on technical grounds, but there exist secondary sources saying as much about such theories: see WP:FRINGE. The technical aspects are not very relevant to the AfD process. 4. We aren't a compendium of everything. We can only report what is consistent with our WP:PILLARS. In this case, that means that we cannot report original research that is sourced only to primary sources (primary sources, moreover, that do not seem to have a reputation for much peer review: see my post above). We demand independent secondary sources (in the sciences that usually means peer reviewed secondary sources). 5. If "the theory is being accepted by a wider scientific community", then that requires evidence. Are there independent secondary sources (published in a reliable place) that discuss the theory? 6. If the theory were to be disproven, then that would actually be a point in favor of including a discussion of it in the encyclopedia, as it would imply that the theory is notable. But if no one other than the originators of the theory has taken note of it, then it is obviously not notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Cellomac. 5. Just because a paper has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, does not mean it has been accepted by the wider scientific community, even the person/people reviewing it might disagree with the conclusions. 6. There are millions of papers published a year, thousands of new theories. Many new theories are just that, we do not need an article on every new theory, and if wikipedia fills up with WP:FRINGE theories, it will be difficult to find the commonly accepted, or massively disproved ones, which is why wikipedia only has articles about theories once they have been discussed by people other than the authors.Martin451 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bunionplasty

[edit]
Bunionplasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is WP:SPAM that has been primarily created and edited by Dr. Neal Blitz and a marketing group named "Medical Practice Specialists". This "Bunionplasty" procedure appears to be used by only Dr. Neal Blitz and so this page appears to be solely created for the promotion of his practice. Mercrome (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G7 (article creator blanked the page and no significant edits from others). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 532

[edit]
Gliese 532 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League

[edit]
Sheffield and Hallamshire County Senior Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:FOOTYN. Also completely unsourced Mdann52 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you look at the football pyramid there are a lot of leagues that have pages created for them which would fail the WP:FOOTYN. If we accept that this article is not notable then we are now putting in a policy to delete all leagues at step 7 (level 11) and below as they cannot play in the FA cup. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This league is a feeder to level 10 and features several clubs that have achieved notability. Technically all leagues taht allow passage for clubs to get to level 10 are notable.Babylon77 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the comments made in this discussion by those advocating for the retention of this article. This league is notable enough for clubs to gain entry into the FA's national cup competitions plus as established a long time ago, individual clubs at this level which have either previously played at a higher level or have played in a national FA competition are considered notable enough for separate articles by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force.(Rillington (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - does the article need cleaning up? Yes. Does it need proper referencing? Yes. Is it notable? Yes. GiantSnowman 08:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bebj

[edit]
Bebj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism created just this year, Google News/News Archives and Google Books hits appear to be false positives from other languages in which "bebj" is actually a word. CtP (t • c) 14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rather close one policy wise, but considering this is a purely BLP list of simply red links, and we need to be cautious about those things, something not really mentioned by the keep commentators. Secret account 05:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgian mafiosi

[edit]
List of Georgian mafiosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very serious WP:BLP issues with this list. If such a list is to exist at all the references must be scrupulous and the people so listed must self identify as members of it. All else contradicts BLP. Fiddle Faddle 14:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The article should definitely stay. In time it will be surely expanded. As for your concern, all of those people in article identify themselves as "Thieves in law" which is same as mafiosi and belong to Georgian criminal clans operating in different parts of the Europe. --GeorgianJorjadze 14:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a problem with a page that asserts people are criminals while sourced to all-Russian sources. As with many lists that categorize people negatively, this is a potential BLP nightmare all the more so - we don't generally have a problem with non-English references but this is too much given the topic and context. I have no idea what the criteria for inclusion is. Have these people been actually convicted of a specific criminal offense that corresponds with our understanding of organized crime? I can't tell, because every single supporting reference is in Russian. Will there be a full-time trusted Russophone‎ editor that will curate this list? It's just too problematic in all senses. Also, WP:WTAF would have been nice here since it's more likely that a full article on a subject will support their inclusion in a list like this one. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you support deleting this article what would you say about List of Sicilian mafiosi? And what's wrong with the Russian sources? Italian sources which are majority of them only in Italian is OK but Russian ones are the only one which are invalid here or what? There's no logic. Georgian mafia is no less influential and famous in former USSR than Sicialian/Italian mafia in Europe so such article should definitely stay. GeorgianJorjadze 11:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On this, GeorgianJorjadze is right: sources in foreign languages are still as good exactly as English-language sources. Still, having also some English-language source would be surely welcome. I'm more concerned by the fact the list is about mostly non-notable persons -I see very few bluelinks. Redlinks should be removed. -- cyclopiaspeak! 13:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this quickly as a BLP nightmare. BTW, problems are found in the Sicilian article as well--I just looked at a redlinked entry where this is cited as a reference, but the only "proof" that the subject is a mafioso is the statement by police. No trial, no conviction, nothing. To nominator, I don't see why self-identification would be necessary here, but I do believe that redlinks should not be allowed in BLP-troubled articles. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most (although not all) Russian sources seem to qualify as RS and indeed describe these people as self-identified or well known criminals. However, I would suggest to first create individual articles about every person, rather than start from the list. Jaba Ioseliani (in the list) was a criminal warlord... My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an important detail: almost all people currently in this list are known in the Soviet/Russian tradition as "Thieves in law" meaning they are openly authoritative ("in law"), visible and highly influential professional criminals. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Info will be added time by time and those red links eventually will turn to blue one. So be it. If sicilian mafiosi article is alive be this one be as well. GeorgianJorjadze 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got a better one for you: write those articles, then add those names to a list. It's not hard, and it's not too much to ask, and it's in keeping with the BLP policy which urges us to err on the side of caution. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as all entries have a reliable source saying the person has been convicted as being part of this criminal organization, then its fine. The reliable source can be referenced on this list or in the blue linked articles. Dream Focus 01:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any one of them that is notable enough to get an article can be listed on a Category:Georgian Mafiosi which would covers all those with articles and anybody wanting to see them can go there. This is just a list of links with no other text, which is what a category is already. See my argument for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sicilian mafiosi.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge, given the weight of the "mafiosi" attribute in my view we should be very zelous on the inclusion of every name, and a single source could not be enough for inclusion. I suggest keeping for now just the bluelinks and eventually discuss the inclusion of redlinks supported by multiple sources in the talk page. Cavarrone 19:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want to note that all of those listed people in the article are "thieves in law" which is even more powerful institution as such than for example "mafiosi" or "godfather". It is the highest hierarchy in criminal world and Georgia has produced the biggest amount of such godfathers which are active still in European countries and especially in former USSR states. Just a note that we are not talking about small organization of criminals but it is no less influential if not more than Sicilian mafia in this regard. GeorgianJorjadze 20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lists, especially of potentially contentious content, should not include red links to non-existing pages, and especially about living people. If this page is kept, prepare that someone might remove all red-linked objects/subjects of the list. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping and Analyzing Data Matrices in Real Time

[edit]
Mapping and Analyzing Data Matrices in Real Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a promotional white paper for an upcoming software product called "Matrix Mapper". Since this appears to be the only information available online about this upcoming product, I'd say that notability is an issue in addition to promotion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons stated by nom. This really seems to be an article attempting promote a product by cloaking itself as an encyclopedia subject. There may also be some copyvio concerns. - MrX 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan Adhyayam Ondru (2013 tamil film)

[edit]
Yohan Adhyayam Ondru (2013 tamil film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon. Unreferenced. Declined CSD. GregJackP Boomer! 11:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup. After discounting the SPA !votes, and after using tags to search through reliable sources such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times, and The Telegraph (Calcutta), it's clear this woman is no longer a low-profile person. The article needs some serious NPOV and MOS cleanup, but it's a keeper. KrakatoaKatie 20:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Shakti Nagpal

[edit]

Not notable, in the news for one incident, does not need an article as per WP:BLP1E. - Aurorion (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this -- Though her suspension may be a single incidence, it is likely to have far-reaching consequences, particularly parliamentary elections before end of term of Lok Sabha are likely to be announced in India. Further, this incidence has strained the political relations between Samajwadi Party and Congress in India, as Congress wants to gain political mileage by coming to rescue of Durga Shakti Nagpal. Hence people in future will want to know about Durga Shakti Nagpal, although most of the Indian politicians of Samajwadi Party do not want to give any publicity to this matter. hence it is understandable that they would like deletion of this article, since their entire government is surviving because of support of money obtained from illegal mining. It is already well-known that Indian political parties are opposed to Right to Information, and want to keep secret their sources of funding received.
  • Keep this -- This article does not come under [[47]] because she is not likely to remain a low profile individual.Subhash198 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this - Sources are clearly quoted in article. Why this article should be deleted? 71.190.181.71 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Sandeep Chilukuri[reply]
  • Keep this -- Every one want to know about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.22.146 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - The comment that it is just an ongoing news is not correct. In fact the lady officer has already created history by cracking down on the most powerful and corrupt politicians in a state which has a record of honest officers getting murderd by such elements. Has it happened in ever in the history of India? Her action assumes historical significance as it came at a time when general atmosphere in India full of hopelessness due to new scams unearthing every week. It gave a hope to the common man that all is not over, It gave people someone to support for. We have wikipedia pages for honorable Anna Hazare and honorable Kiran Bedi. Ms Nagpal has done what both Annaji and Ms Bedi are also doing in their respective capacities- enlighten, give hope, awake. 15:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shravanshukla (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - This article is about a person who is becoming an icon of fight against corruption. The report submitted by her supervisors exonerated her, while the government seems to on the back foot. The original contention below is no longer valid. One can find hundreds of article, and tens of related events that followed the original incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadasoham (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC) — Sadasoham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Article is about a person who is fighting with corrupt system and milestone of society. This article is information about, we should not surrender in front of mafia, corruption etc. Article is more important comparison to Politician.(Gokulchandola (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not for you to WP:SOAPBOX. noq (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gokulchandola perhaps means that the subject is notable for her grit in taking on corruption. No soap boxing there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That just says its too early for an article - at the moment it is just a news story. If it becomes more than that then an article could be created - but this isn't it. noq (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you go through the article again? I have added some content, which may establish notability - maybe you could suggest some improvements. Also, the article can be loosely divided into 3 separate incidents. One is the illegal sand-mining and its crack-down (see this and this). Second, and the major part is about the officer's suspension after the crackdown. Third is the legal context due to filing of the PIL in the high court. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable in the article would be better placed in Mining scam in India rather than this article. noq (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article looks good in the current form. The person was solely responsible for the action against the illegal mining in Noida. Yeah, the background section can be expanded a lot, and can definitely be added to the Mining scam in India article. But the person in question is already notable for 2 different, tho related incidents, and is the reason for a third. With more time, the article can be expanded even more. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks credibility? As this is a WP:BLP, I have ensured that all references are reliable sources. Can you help me in locating the portions which lack credibility, so I can correct them. Also, you say the article is copied. Do you mean there are copyright violations in the article? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most of the sources are cited properly and they come under WP:RS. Assuming good faith the sources cited should be considered right. My suggestion is that the article requires a bit cleaning.-- 14.98.89.139 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC) — 14.98.89.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: After spending quite a lot of time in expanding the article, I believe I should change my vote. Though it may have initially felt like a 2-day news event, on deeper study I have tried to establish that the subject of the article was "in the news" over a period of several months before the current event. I have expanded on that, and in all likelihood, it can be expanded even more. Also, as per many reliable sources, the matter is not going to die down, in fact, it is set to gather more steam. Also noted by the sources is the fact that it is quite a unique event for administrative officers in India to actively rally against the political hierarchy. Hence there is large possibility of future expansion, and it is not a one-off news event. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that as of now, WP:BLP1E can definitely not be applied here. WP:NOTNEWS is also not longer applicable due to the very large coverage of the events described in article, and the person's centrality to all of them. Since the reasons put forth by the nominators for deletion no longer exist, this AfD should be closed ASAP and the article kept. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event gives grounds for deletion. Firstly, the event of her suspension is clearly significant, since there has been significant press coverage about it, and apparently nationwide protests. Secondly, it's clear that she has a central role in this event. Thirdly, coverage is about two separate topics: her enforcement of laws against sand mining, and her suspension, which was (allegedly) for unrelated reasons. Horatio (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Inappropriate tagging.
  1. wp:LOTSOFSOURCES reads: "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Search aggregators are also prone to picking up user-comments too. So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them, and to consider whether these sources provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject, rather than a hopeless stub. This also applies to lists of 'Media Coverage/In the News' sections on websites". I don't see any of the above in relation to the present article; (1) There isn't trivial mention (2) They are all reliable sources (3) There is a significant treatment of the subject (4) The actual sources are used (5) there is significant treatment in reliable independent sources. (5)We are able to write a detailed article and not a "hopeless stub". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. wp:GHITS : The editor isn't talking about ghits, the subject has significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources in relation to multiple reasons. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. wp:GREATWRONGS: Is about original research, "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." In this case there is no OR. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. wp:CRYSTAL is about "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article doesn't contain unverifiable speculation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are relating to comments in this discussion - they are pointing out problems with those arguments, not with the article. IF you read the comments they are applied to they make perfect sense. noq (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One keep voter writes: "This article is about a person who is becoming an icon of fight against corruption. The report submitted by her supervisors exonerated her, while the government seems to on the back foot. The original contention below is no longer valid. One can find hundreds of article, and tens of related events that followed the original incident." In Wikipedia jargon I read the above: "The subject is notable, her notability has been established by various reliable sources related to multiple reasons for notability." How is this Greatwrongs or Lotsofsources? One has to agf and allow for the lack of expertise of new editors who are contributing to this discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the page view statistics here. We have an article here which is of interest to some 150 million people, and when some of them reach this page, they see a big bold box which says that the article is considered to be deleted and they can contest that. So of course some of them comment here. To accuse them of being ignorant of wiki-policies, or being SPA or canvassed users is a little funny. :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
35280 page views and counting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with YK. Experienced editors, especially admins, should do better than simply quoting wiki jargon. If they indeed wanna help, they can write in a single line what they want to say. Don't they know that directing someone to chunk is as good as writing chunk here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have voted once before. Do not vote again. You may however comment as many times as you want.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument that she is a young administrative officer who is fighting corruption really cannot be held valid here. We are an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. If it satisfies Notability, Verifiability guidelines, it is enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree. The article shouldn't stand merely on the merit of "fighting corruption", which would contravene WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We should get a better sense of WP:Notability etc. once the story unfolds. Rohini (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly wp:oseish for someone of your experience? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other users. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take it as attack or setback. It is fine for me, and I have always maintained that an encyclopedia can not be created based on consensus. --Bhadani (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bhadani, i agree that many of the IAS/IPS officers would be notable enough to keep for their various works but only that we don't get enough sources. If you are interested and have time, i think you should know that there was a recent mass AfDs of many such articles. That's more like FYI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't close this AfD before every active editor from India has voted keep, then I'll print this AfD and hang it on our study wall as a keepsake as an AfD that polarised Indian editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So true! Such a good number of IP's editing the article too. Hope all experienced editors will help with solving reviewer's comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Durga Shakti Nagpal also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a debate on whether she does her job or not. This is to discuss the notability of this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a majority vote. This will be closed after a week or so after being kept open. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The events that have happened after the decisions made by her are receiving significant attention in the country. As a result, people are keen on knowing more about her. This article is very valuable as it provides a background about the officer in question that media articles have not carried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.13.162 (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: On the whole, a well-researched BOLP article with lots of inline citations. I googled "durga nagpal" (in quotes) --> 520,000 hits. All articles on the first five response pages were about this person, and seemed quite different. Even if that number includes many copies etc, notability is not an issue. I support User:Abhijeet Safai's comment above -it is surprising to see this article tagged for deletion. mukerjee (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep this article. Durga Shakti Nagpal is a shining example of how young generation of India wants to fight corruption and how bureaucracy is used to subvert honest and just actions in name of appeasement of minorities. It should also be noted that how well known leaders have come together to fight this injustice. --Saravana tk (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. This a good reference for political science student. Particularly some one who is interested in looking into the role of administration in managing public expectations and implementing rules clashing with contemporary political establishment. A relevant case study can be formed based on this article in future.--Abhi (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Please Keep" wikipedia has always been a help in knowing the information which is generally not available any where else, this is the article which should be kept as now we all want to know about herAnand P Dubey (talk)
Haha! Right! That tool checks for only bold words. So if i write keep, keep, keep, keep, many times, it adds them all, i guess. Lets check now! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ohkaaay! It doesn't do that. Its not as dumb as i thought it is. But i expect a better admin to close this. I only bolded the opinions so they are visible to admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It counts the first letter of the first word, the first word should be Keep or Delete in bold. Even votes with 'Please Do not Delete' does not count. -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 17:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AfD Vote Counter is not showing my view. This is wrong method to count votes. I am creator of this article and want to keep. But tool is showing my vote in Deletion favor ??? joke/// This is not question about Vote ... Counting of Votes, wrong method??. I am also surprise that, this tag is still exist (AfD) what administrators are doing. Mean they should take decision.(Gokulchandola (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You've voted once, hence I am striking out your vote. The tag will exist for long enough for consensus to be built in this case. Do not blame admins for anything, they already have a tough role out there. The AfD counter only checks the first letter of the vote. D for Delete, K for Keep, R for Redirect and M for erge. Don't blame the tool or it's creator gagain. Also, you do not OWN the article because you created it, everyone has an equal vote here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case I am replacing do not delete with keep.--PremKudvaTalk 08:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? To those who say this case is not notable enough for Durga Shakti Nagpal to warrant a page on its own, I would point to the long rich pages dedicated to page 3 celebrities and reality TV starlets. Taking down this page would be inconsistent with Wikipedia criteria. My own two-cents: People clamouring for removal of non-offensive content is good reason to retain the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.197.164 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC) This[reply]
  • Strong Keep : Ms Durga Shakti Nagpal is now icon of freedom to work honest as IAS officer vs. Political influence over bureaucracy and whole nation (india) is clamoring for her cause and support.She is notable person as her work qualified or lead to national expose of political influence on government machinery. I recommend a strong keep.Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.2.207 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" : This article should not be deleted. The source of this article is whole Indian Media. People must know about her as she has set an example of honesty which is still rare in the country.


Reason enough to keep, but these new accounts and IPs make me smell some sockpuppets. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP page is linked to news stories about this on Google News, that could be a major source for many of the hits. Moreover, this is surely a hot topic now. When I nominated this for AfD, it was still a new news item; but now it has stayed in the news for several days. I am now quite ambivalent about whether it should be deleted. - Aurorion (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The excessive detail--and the arguments for keeping -- are essentially promotionalism. The merit of the cause being promoted is irrelevant. It might be possible to start over , if someone is prepared to write a proportionate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your concern is only the shabbyness of the article and not notability. Is my understanding right? And which can be solved by simply working on the current article itself than rewriting everything from start. Isn't it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of the article matches the tone of the reliable sources that have covered it. Please go through the article and its references again. Excessive detail is never a cause to delete an article. I never supported to keep the article for the "merit of the cause"; a lot of editor who edit in this field have supported to keep the article citing policy. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 06:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be rewritten, it doesn't have to be deleted for that. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidently "Australia A" refers to the full Australian national team; I'll be aware of this next time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Spanos

[edit]
John Spanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; there's no in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and the article's previous claim to notability, that he played for the full Australian national team, seems to be incorrect; he played for the A team, not the full team. He also doesn't seem to have ever played for a professional team; the NSL wasn't fully pro. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he's listed as cap number 303 in Football Federation Australia's list of full international players. Unless they've recategorised the match between Australia and Indonesia on 7 December 1980, he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I think the nominator has misinterpreted the footballwa.net profile. In Australia, "A international" means "full international" whereas other matches are referred to as B internationals. Hack (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mr Spanos played for Australia against Indonesia in 1980, as verified by both sources present in the article. That match is a full FIFA international as verifiable at FIFA's fixtures and results search page. And there's a reasonable amount of contemporary coverage from the Australian papers available via Google news, if anybody fancied expanding the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per speedy deletion criteria G11, G3 -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adameda Murray: The Biggest WomanTo Ever Walk The North Country

[edit]
Adameda Murray: The Biggest WomanTo Ever Walk The North Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to be entirely about a book, with no evidence given for that book's notability. I can't find any evidence for an "Adameda Murray" myth other than references to a series of books by the same author as the book cited here. The Anome (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found the exact same results as above. I'd say that this is all a hoax in that while stories do exist, they aren't folk tales that have been handed down from generation to generation. I think that this is just one guy trying to promote his work on Wikipedia, as can be seen by the deleted article at Adameda Murray, which was deleted as a spam article. The content is almost identical, except that there is no name dropping of the book. Looking at the edits of the original editor, I think this is a clear case of spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it as a speedy as a hoax and as a spam article. I've also tagged a copy that was in the editor's userspace, as they seem to be cut and pasting a copy of that into the mainspace. I'd actually recommend that the editor in question get blocked for a short period of time or indefinitely since their only edits have been to try to introduce this character onto Wikipedia as a genuine folk tale creation as well as to try to add the author's book onto Wikipedia since December of last year. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments above, and just having seen that the sandbox page was added to Category:Legendary people, I concur: in the absence of any evidence that these are well-established folk tales, this is a job for speedy deletion, and doesn't need an AfD. Speedied.-- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval tisf Nativ

[edit]
Yuval tisf Nativ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Provided references are from company website and a brief mention in WSJ. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable to me and it's not just a mention in the WSJ, the guy is quoted. Tags have been added that I don't believe are fair, such as the COI tag. Nothing can be inferred by usernames about the COI. I'm usually the first one to delete, but this one seems to have the notability required. Regards, --Manway 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject of the Wikipedia article is not substantially covered in the WSJ article. He is only quoted a couple of times - far from non-trivial coverage. Concerning the COI, the author is a student of the subject. Per WP:COI, "You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics." "If you have a personal connection to a topic or a person, (such as being an employee, familial ties, or other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Hialeah shooting

[edit]
2013 Hialeah shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT Transcendence (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy and WP:EVENT guideline, there is no indication that this tragic event will be a "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance"; there does not appear to be any significant coverage outside of the US on this what little there is is unlikely to continue outside the current news cycle. This is what Wikinews is for. LGA talkedits 06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean this should; I think that your comment that "[this] shooting is the deadliest in the US in months" adds weight to why this should be in wikinews and not here; if you could say that it was the deadliest in ten or twenty years that would go some way to showing that this was an unusual event and of lasting significance but the fact that you have to go back only a few months to find a similar event only goes to highlight the routine nature of such events. LGA talkedits 08:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that is true. However, as I said, many articles about shootings with 1-3 fatalities exist. There are even articles about shootings that never killed anyone: Heritage High School shooting, Tacoma mall shooting. If this should go, then those other shootings with a small number of fatalities should be nominated for deletion too. It would only be fair. This shooting is one of the deadliest to have ever occurred in South Florida, so it is indeed a notable event for people who live there. Cyanidethistles (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they should but that's why we generally don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument in deletion discussions, unless we have prior precedent in previous AFDs that these should be kept (which as best I can tell, hasn't happened.) --MASEM (t) 15:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you could say that it was the deadliest in ten or twenty years that would go some way to showing that this was an unusual event and of lasting significance but the fact that you have to go back only a few months to find a similar event only goes to highlight the routine nature of such events. Just thought I mention that you have to go back 31 years to have a deadlier shooting in the entire Miami area (8th largest in the U.S.) Soulbust (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENT supercedes WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically no - EVENT clarifies the GNG for events focusing on the type of sourcing that is needed. In line with the GNG we need significant secondary sourcing, which is not provided by simple news reports that this story presently has, but by analysis and impact on the larger world. Still, even in light of the GNG this article fails that due to mostly primary newspaper reports. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody has explained how this event could have lasting significance beyond Hialeah. It's tragic, but not very unusual. There has been little international coverage and it doesn't seem to have had any political impact. For what it's worth, I'm not sure why 2012 Azana Spa shootings has an article either, but that's for another day. A merge might be possible, if someone has suggestions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is NOTNEWS, this is not encyclopaedic its a news event. Created largely for ITN as are most of the other such articles mentioned. And even though OSE is a guideline not to use in such discussions, I would support the deletion of most of those shootings/bus carhses/tanker explosions/bomb attacks. Some are notable like Giffords or other large bomb attacks with repercussions, but most are just stubs created in the heat of th emoment and then forgotten forever. Neither are such one-time incidents notable enough to be on full fledges pages of the city, etc which dates back to ancient history and not 23 April 2022 or whathaveyouLihaas (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's recentism. Three decades in the history of Miami? Its not like there aren't regular shootings either. Hardly stands above and beyong, unlike olumbine to its history and profile.Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a paper encyclopedia - our standard is not "worst ever" (i.e equivalent to Columbine). Once in 30 years is way rare enough for something to be unusual by our standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what premise?Lihaas (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are asking, but if you mean what makes this shooting notable the answer is the same as any other article of any kind - coverage in reliable sources (about and beyond that which can airly be describes as "routine"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENT gives examples of what makes an event notable, first of all it lists "Lasting effect", so what is this events lasting effect ? answer as far as the article goes nothing. Secondly it lists "Geographical scope", this event effected only a tiny region. Also we need to look at the "Depth of coverage" nothing comes close to the sort of In-depth coverage you would expect from a notable event, it is all WP:PRIMARYNEWS reporting. LGA talkedits 23:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a bit soon to cry "No lasting effect" just ten days after the event? As WP:LASTING states: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. (Thusz (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
As an admin, you should know that sources do not, in and of themselves, grant notability. Could you elaborate on your reasoning? FYI, you just copied and pasted the same thing on two other AfDs. Transcendence (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am also wondering, do you find these to lack notability? Frankstown Township shooting, Cupertino quarry shooting, and 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting have their own articles, but none of them seem to be well known at all. If this Hialeah shooting page should be removed, then those should be as well, because they aren't notable in any way. I have relatives that live near where the Cupertino quarry shooting happened, and they seem to hardly remember that event ever happening, as probably with most people who live in that area. Cyanidethistles (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, yes. Transcendence (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the suggested requirement of "analysis and impact for the larger world" in an unrealistically high bar, amounting essentially to "famous". The not news requirement is meant to prevent the coverage of most single murders and similar events. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Radio Arts

[edit]
Mercury Radio Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no separate notability ; in-house production company for Glen Beck. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 22 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kulbashian

[edit]
Alex Kulbashian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The quasi-judicial law and court under which the evidence was submitted has been repealed by the Canadian Government for being unconstitutional The Article, once edited, ends up becoming mostly blank with no content WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. No AfD notice was placed on the article until 00:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC). That said, there was no activity here, so I don't think it necessarily affected the AfD process. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


More information Law was repealed because Canadian Parliament and Senate felt it was unconstutional. Having information about a "fine" issued against someone under an unconstitutional Act is prejudicial. It was not a criminal court, there was no conviction. [48] [49] WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's content-related and off the main point of whether this person is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once the content relating the the overturned Law is removed, the article becomes a stub. Notability is questionable as well. Someone who ran an ISP were racist messages were posted is not notable. WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STAR (conference)

[edit]
STAR (conference) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 22 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Saskatchewan Students' Union

[edit]
University of Saskatchewan Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unclear notability, referenced nearly entirely with primary sources. Maclean's article is focused on one event. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources where the subject of this article is the focus of that coverage. RadioFan (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 22 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denim (band)

[edit]
Denim (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two bands called Denim. The other one ( Denim (UK band) ) are notable enough, but this one... well, it's hard to tell. According to Discogs they did release one LP on Epic in 1977 (see here - http://www.discogs.com/artist/Denim+%287%29 ), but that's about it. The page even admits that the majority of their output has been self-released. The page has been tagged for notability for four years without any improvements. There are quite a few 'pages that link to' but these all seem to be referring to the UK band. They don't seem to have even a single listener on last.fm (all of these tracks are, again, the UK Denim - http://www.last.fm/music/Denim ) To sum up - they could have been notable, but nobody seems to want to demonstrate it. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 22 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being re-listed twice, there is no consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PGDCM

[edit]
PGDCM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable diploma. Not a realistic redirect, the article is unreferenced, spammy, and I can't see how it satisfies GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 22 July 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weeve

[edit]
Weeve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see evidence for notability here, besides some local publicity./ 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The sourcing in the article is primary or to local papers which may or may not be a reliable source. The Vancouver Observer will publish news for a charge. The Digital Journal article above is a little bit better. But overall, there is not a lot out theere. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being re-listed twice there is no consensus to delete the article (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nizamani

[edit]
Nizamani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced affair that seems to be based on WP:OR and is severely POV. Application of WP:TNT seems the best option. The Banner talk 22:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mz Fontaine

[edit]
Mz Fontaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 July 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) 05:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett per CSD G6, with the closing comment: "Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 11:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne (disambiguation)

[edit]
Avril Lavigne (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary disambiguation page for an artist with a single self-titled album. Does not improve disambiguation beyond that of a hatnote, see WP:2DABS. Example exception Weezer (disambiguation) where artist has multiple such albums. — MusikAnimal talk 04:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator following improvement with no delete !votes. The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Decatur (1815–1876)

[edit]
Stephen Decatur (1815–1876) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, and with a dubious claim to be Stephen Decatur's nephew. He co-founded Decatur, Nebraska, but that's a small place. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added a bunch of information and several references to the article. Looks like he was an important pioneer in Nebraska, and the town named for him is the second oldest settlement in Nebraska. A book reference I found gives a different death year for him, so if the article is kept it may be necessary to change the name to Stephen Decatur (1815-1888). --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: his birth year appears to be 1812, and some sources list his death year as 1889 rather than 1888, so those do not seem like good disambiguators. However, it turns out that his birth name was Stephen Decatur Bross and he later dropped the surname "Bross". So I would suggest that if the article is kept it be renamed Stephen Decatur Bross. BTW the article was full of misinformation, including the name of his supposed father; this was apparently a guy who made up stuff about himself, and some of it got into the article. The frontier was full of guys like that; one of the sources I found for him was book called Colorado's Colorful Characters. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This one was fun, he sounds like a real character. No blame to you, the article as nominated was pretty hopeless. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 8th Horcrux

[edit]
The 8th Horcrux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There appears to be no notability for this duo beyond Ottawa, Kansas. I am One of Many (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convent Of Sacred Heart Lahore

[edit]
Convent Of Sacred Heart Lahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion before by another editor, so I am brining this to AFd. The entire article has several issues; the people on the notable alumi section are not referenced and proof of their existence is not there, there are no references in the entire article except for the link to the school's main page. I believe this article can change if the initiative is put in to improve it. Thanks in advance Prabash.Akmeemana 02:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fearless Vs. the Zorg Women, Pts. 5 & 6

[edit]
Flash Fearless Vs. the Zorg Women, Pts. 5 & 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD contested. My concern is that this does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Beerest355 Talk 01:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the bulk of the text is a copyvio of the Allmusic link. That said this is a notable album and we should have an article on it, but we'll have to start fresh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 518

[edit]
Gliese 518 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this meets WP:NASTRO. Although it is indeed a somewhat close white dwarf, it's not that close or one of the very closest to really be notable based on that alone. Otherwise, it's a very normal white dwarf that doesn't have anything notable about it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Google scholar finds one paper with this in its title, but apparently it's actually about British politics and only uses it as an example of something remote. Nevertheless, there are a fair number of hits for it under the name "Wolf 489", including one [53] which calls it one of the first two K-type white dwarfs known. Is it enough? I'm not sure, but maybe. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A move isn't necessary, but Wolf 489 should at least redirect to this article. -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleting the article currently. In case someone wishes to redirect or merge, please go ahead (userfy requests will be entertained) Wifione Message 08:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 481

[edit]
Gliese 481 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melania Dolorico

[edit]
Melania Dolorico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CREATIVE. unremarkable career and I found nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://digi10ve.com/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_July_29&oldid=1142631813"