Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 February 2 March >

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. J04n(talk page) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Whale Foundation[edit]

Atlantic Whale Foundation (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 pains me to do this, but this article about a whale charity has been sourced entirely from its own website. I left clean-up tags in October 2011 but the problem hasn't been addressed. In fact, judging by todays edits the article is being used as an undisguised promotional call for volunteers for their projects. I had a look in 2011 for independent sources and looked again today, the best I could find was a brief mention about the involvement of a volunteer with a stranded whale in 2006. It's probably time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that the stranded whale in 2006 onlyhad brief mentiosn of the volunteer in the material I saw and fell well short of what would be needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - This is a "whale" of a charity but despite performing multiple detailed searches with Google News, the only news links I have found are this (event listing) and here (fundraiser) along with Google Books providing a group profile. In my Google News search, I also found a "Fortnightly Tenerife News" article but it seems the website no longer exists and I couldn't recover it at archive.org but it seemed to only briefly mention them. In that same search, I also found justgiving.com donation links but that's not an acceptable reference. Unfortunately, the article reads like an advertisement without substantial third-party links. I searched the BBC News website in hopes to find articles but I only found this gallery photo for the 2006 stranded whale. Searches at The Telegraph, The Guardian and New York Times didn't provide anything. I have no objection to userfying or a future article when notable. I love nature very much and wish I could say keep as this is obviously a noble cause but notability is required. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Synechron. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Husain[edit]

Faisal Husain (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 written by the same IP adding spam to the Synechron article. He is only quoted in the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Synechron. I can find stuff like this which can verify his role in Synechron, but no sunstantial coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Synechron - Google News and Books searches provided nothing substantial or independent of Synechron. The first reference is a press release which says he won the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award and the award's website notes it "is considered the world’s most prestigious business award with a lifelong network of gravity-defying entrepreneurs" but I think this man is best known for Synechron and the award would probably be below the bar notable for an entire article. Of course, I have no prejudice towards a future article if there is significant coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MattyBraps[edit]

MattyBraps (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 kid is only ten years old and does not warrant an article about himself yet. First, the songs he sings are mostly written by someone older than him, like his parents or possibly a songwriter. This means that he basically just sings the songs (which other artists do as well...but other artists help write their songs) Secondly, he has not made videos with other musicians, or gotten to the level of fame that other Youtube stars have gotten to on Youtube. All in all, he is just a child/kid who raps songs he most likely does not write. Even some of his videos where he is just talking, it sounds like he is reading words off of a teleprompter or something. Perhaps this article can be recreated when he becomes notable outside of Youtube, like Cimorelli, Cody Simpson, Austin Mahone, Ryan Beatty, and Justin Bieber. For now, he really is not much different than some other ten year old that posts a video of them singing or rapping, gets a million or so views on their video, and ends up on Ellen or something (which makes them possibly just as famous as MattyB). Lastly, the amount of press he receives seems less than other Youtube musicians, like the ones I linked above, receive/received when they were only notable on Youtube. Andise1 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - well, he may not be everyone's idea of a pop star but he's been on chat shows and covered in news sources for several years. For example Wendy Williams Show (2010), SWNS (2011), Fox Atlanta (2011), Fuse TV (2012). However, the article is very poor - I can't see any sources for his full name or his date of birth, so they need removing quickly! Also he's known as Matty B, not MattyBraps (which is his website name). Sionk (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Birth name and DOB are featured prominently on his website [1], which I believe would be acceptable per WP:PRIMARY -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Changed my mind; charting on Social 50 is not notable. Keep - As much as I despise these kinds of articles, the subject of this article appears to meet notability guidelines. He charted on Billboard. His age is irrelevant, as is how old his songwriters are, as is the fact that he doesn't write his own music (some of the most notable musicians never wrote their music), as is someone's judgment of the quality of his music. Cresix (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be nitpicking here, but the relevant notability guideline, WP:MUSICBIO, says a subject is likely notable if "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." At first I thought that the Billboard reference covered it, but that's not a music chart, it's the Social 50 chart, which covers someone's YouTube and other social media views. I don't know if the appearances on local programs and other things make artist notable, but I don't think the Social 50 chart meets WP:MUSICBIO #2, because it's not based on songs or albums, but YouTube views which could be easily manipulated. - SudoGhost 06:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to play Devil's Advocate, WP:MUSICBIO also says "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network", which he has been more than once. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think performing on a show is the same as being a featured subject, those shows were most certainly not about the individual. I'm still looking into the notability issue, but if the subject is notable, it isn't a strong case for notability. - SudoGhost 11:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The primary criteria is WP:GNG, which he probably meets. WP:MUSICBIO doesn't override WP:GNG. I agree, his TV appearances are unremarkable, with nothing much said about him other than being 'cute' and young. Hence my 'weak' keep. Sionk (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not a guarantee of notability, it is a presumption. When a musician falls short of the relevant notability guideline for musicians, that is more telling than a few brief sources that would barely meet WP:GNG. Meeting the WP:GNG does not mean that the subject warrants an article on Wikipedia, especially when the notability guideline that specifically deals with this type of article says otherwise. - SudoGhost 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the opposite understanding from the one I've always had. WP:NMUSIC are alternative notability criteria, not the primary one. But I've no great love for a rapping kid, so it's really neither here nor there to me :) Sionk (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a popular YouTube channel has nothing to do with articles belonging on Wikipedia. The article's subject must be notable, as shown through reliable sources, not YouTube views. - SudoGhost 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's your point? I get as much say as you. WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.43.201 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • There's also the rather concerning issue of you vandalizing the page. When you want to keep an article you seem intent on vandalizing, it creates a WP:BLP issue and it is far preferable to delete such an article when the subject has a weak claim of notability, to prevent these legal issues. - SudoGhost 18:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also need to stop using phrases such as "GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL". Not only is this a violation of WP:CIVIL, it does nothing to help your argument. Your threat to repeatedly create the article if it is deleted, and your assuming ownership of the article, also indicate that you have no intention of following the usual procedures of discussion and collaboration that are a foundation of Wikipedia. Your profound immaturity has probably done more to damage the case for keeping this article than anyone in this entire discussion. Cresix (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a musician, the subject fails WP:NMUSIC. The subject arguably meets WP:GNG by the skin of its teeth, but what coverage does exist is far from significant coverage, and isn't enough to base any real article off of. It is probably just a case of it being too soon to have an article about this subject. - SudoGhost 15:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST KEEP - MattyBRaps has been on the Today Show, Fox News Alanta, the Dr.Phil Show, the Westie Wilhem Show and Ellen. He has met Katy Perry, Far East Movement, Perez Hilton ( who is a big MattyBRaps fan, Ryan Zecrest and many other celebrities. He has recieved more youtube views than Rebecca Black and no one has decided to take down her page. He has also recieved more subscribers on Youtube than Harry Styles and is ranked 188th out of all youtube channels by subscribers. He has recieved more youtube views than cimorellitheband, espn, BarackObamadotcom, pbs, googlecrome and playstation. He has the 10th most populare keek account for the US and 20th for the world. He has more keek views than all of the kardassian sisters combined. He has recieved a steady coverage from the media and his new single you make my heart skip has been aired on the radio in Wilmington, DE. He has done a cover of Ice Ice Baby with Vanilla Ice himself and to this day is the only one to have done a cover with him. He makes 1,250,000 dollars a year off of youtube alone more than Rebecca Black and thats why the article should stay hes famous and if you take away his page take away Rebecca Blacks pand the kardassians pages too since he has become more famous than them and it would seem if you take this page down there pages should go to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTO98 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — BTO98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just to let you know, Youtube views are not that relevant when deciding whether someone is famous enough for an article on Wikipedia. The amount of celebrities he has met is also irrelevant, as well as the actual celebrities he met. Being the 188th most popular channel by subscribers is also not a big factor in deciding whether there should be an article about MattyB. Even if it was a factor, being the 188th subscribed Youtuber is kinda not that special because there are 188 Youtubers ahead of him. Also, ask any teenage girl right now who is more famous, and most likely 99% of them will say Harry Styles...some will probably have no idea who MattyB is. "He has recieved more youtube views than cimorellitheband, espn, BarackObamadotcom, pbs, googlechrome, and playstation." The amount of Youtube views he receives is irrelevant. All of the Youtube accounts you mentioned (in the previous sentence I quoted) are clearly notable to more people who do not use Youtube (with the exception of possibly Cimorelli). I am positive way more people know what ESPN, PBS, BarackObama, Google Chrome, and Playstation are than who MattyB is. "He has more keek views than all of the kardassian sisters combined." The thing with that statement is...is that the Kardashians have their own television show, they are already known to tons of people in the world. The amount of keek views is irrelevant because 1) keek is not a super popular website and 2) more people know the Kardashians than MattyB. "He has done a cover of Ice Ice Baby with Vanilla Ice himself and to this day is the only one to have done a cover with him." This may be true, but it is not something that makes him special. If you look at other Youtubers, like Keenan Cahill (BeanerKeeKee19952), he has a lot of videos of himself with other celebrities. "He has recieved a steady coverage from the media and his new single you make my heart skip has been aired on the radio in Wilmington, DE." I am pretty positive getting a song to be played on a radio station does not mean you are famous enough for an article on Wikipedia. "He has met Katy Perry, Far East Movement, Perez Hilton ( who is a big MattyBRaps fan, Ryan Zecrest and many other celebrities." So have other Youtubers like Keenan Cahill, who I mentioned above. "He makes 1,250,000 dollars a year off of youtube alone more than Rebecca Black and thats why the article should stay hes famous and if you take away his page take away Rebecca Blacks pand the kardassians pages too since he has become more famous than them and it would seem if you take this page down there pages should go to." How much money he makes is also not relevant when deciding whether an article about him should be on Wikipedia. There are tons of Youtube musicians who make quite a bit of money from Youtube, but they all do not have articles about themselves on Wikipedia. Not everyone goes on the internet. To be more specific, not everyone goes on the internet and searches for videos and stuff about the Kardashians or Rebecca Black. The thing is...is that both the Kardashians and Rebecca Black are more famous than MattyB. Rebecca Black's Friday was a song that basically the whole internet listened to and talked about...like Gangnam Style and the Harlem Shake. The Kardashians have had multiple television shows (and are still on television today), been dating/married to various celebrities and professional athletes. Andise1 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mattybraps has been in comercials unlike rebecca black and lady gaga. He has recieved more youtube views in a day than sites like keek and wikia recieve in two weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTO98 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — BTO98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
BTO98, you can't vote twice. You have claimed as both BTO98 and anon 50.130.43.201 that you created the article, not to mention that both of your identities have very similar writing styles. And trust me, Wikipedia can confirm that you are using both identities, and you can be blocked for a long time (perhaps indefinitely) for sockpuppetry and vote-stacking. Please remove one of your votes. Cresix (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohh oops well number one I have no idea who the 50 person is but if its me i remove that vote I didnt know thta I was logged out today and then i logged back in but I don't know my IP adress but I don't use all caps so its probally not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTO98 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If" it's you??? You know it's you. So remove one of your votes (take it off of this page, don't just say "I remove one of my votes"); otherwise you will have to learn the hard way that vote-stacking by sockpuppetry is one of the most egregious policy violations on Wikipedia. You can make all the comments you want, but remove one of your "STRONGEST KEEP" votes. Now. Cresix (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you guys are dense. I am puppet-mastering you so, so hard. And no, you'll never manage to get this deleted. Mattyb makes enough cash to buy off Jimmy Wales himself. I also love that you're frustratedly linking an obvious troll that's insulting you to Wikipedia pages on how that's uncivil. Welcome to the Internet. Mattyb forever~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.43.201 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Cresix, this is not a vote. This is a discussion. Therefore, there is no "vote stacking" and no "second votes" because there are no "first votes". BTO98 is free to participate in the discussion as long as it is not disruptive. Also, please remember to not bite the inexperienced users and remain civil. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using multiple identities to try and influence an AfD is disruptive. That's why BTO98 has been blocked. Sionk (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption doesn't make this a vote, nor is it an invitation to bite or be uncivil. The combative and uncivil response to BTO98 only escalated the disruption. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shinmawa, the use of the word "vote" on Wikipedia is common among experienced editors to indicate a statement of "delete", "agree", etc on AfDs, RfCs, and other similar pages. That's why the word in used on policy and guideline pages such as WP:SOCK and WP:VOTESTACKING. So please spare us the condescending preaching to regulars about "not a vote". And I never said anyone could not discuss as much as they want, I said no one is allowed to VOTE more than once. If you have a problem with me, take it up on my talk page because this is not the appropriate venue. But if you consider calling an editor out for making comments such as "GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL", or for telling someone they can't violate policy and votestack through sockpuppetry, or for lying about sockpuppetry (and please, please notice that the person guilty of sockpuppetry was blocked) inappropriate, then don't waste my time and yours messaging me. We will simply have to agree to disagree about what is considered acceptable on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sensible, if BTO98 were the IP user instead of me. BTO is unfortunately dumb and did not realize I was intentionally muddying the waters. This should be fairly obvious to anyone who looks at the revisions and reads the talk history (seriously, why would BTO repeatedly vandalize his own article?). I've said this explicitly several times now, but since you don't want to look dumb for banning someone (and lecturing them hilariously) you'll continue to ignore it. As expected. Good show, Wikieditors. Don't you have some anime entries to micromanage? 64.134.184.251 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was truly uncalled for, Cresix... and quite out of line. It is that "I'm more experienced than you and therefore I can talk down to you" attitude that is the exact problem I am referring to (also, in this case, it is also laughably inaccurate). However, this discussion has gotten way off-track and wish to spend no more time on it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need to spend no more time on this issue because your laughably bizarre accusations have no basis in reality. Cresix (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - If he's hit number 11 on a Billboard chart, and it's backed up with a reliable source, then he satisfies criteria #2 of WP:NMUSIC. Okay, it might be a chart of "who's had the most time to rig the most YouTube views", but the fact that Billboard even considers YouTube views to be significant is more a reflection on the way the world is going. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard's Social 50 is not a song or album chart, which is what WP:NMUSIC #2 entails. Billboard has a few non-song/album charts but WP:NMUSIC #2 specifically excludes them since they aren't typically indicative of notability. Topping the Social 50 is certainly an indication of notability, but individuals who do that have notability that is established elsewhere; other than topping that specific chart, I don't even think it's an indication of notability, much less something that would establish notability for an article. - SudoGhost 13:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All WP:NMUSIC says is "any country's national music chart". Can you cite the specific policy that states that non-music Billboard charts are unacceptable? If Billboard ran a chart with the lamest edit wars, we ought to be able to use it, since a publication with national coverage and a track record of responsible journalism has declared them worthy of note (ie: notable) to print for wide distribution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the part right before what you quoted; what it says is "a single or album on any country's national music chart" and this individual has not had that. - SudoGhost 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with the Billboard source, I'm not seeing the kind of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that Wikipedia requires to demonstrate notability. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this boils down to whether or not you take the exact letter of the law in the notability guidelines, or think about whether other circumstances are appropriate, which will never get unanimous agreement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This MTV Greece source seems to be about him, as does this minor news article. Not a lot, but it's specifically about him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that second source says concerning the individual is "music by entertainer Matty B" and that's it, that's a perfect example of trivial coverage. The first has more content, but not much, and is not specifically about the individual, but rather several young musicians, and uses several examples, him being one of them. - SudoGhost 20:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "Not a lot!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After consideration, I feel this subject merits an article. Being in the Billboard Social 50 -- by itself -- is not notable. Being a popular YouTube person -- by itself -- is not notable. Even being featured and interviewed on nationally and internationally televised shows like "Ellen" and the "Wendy Williams Show" is not -- by itself -- all that notable. However, when taken as a group, in addition to the internet print media about this subject, shows a pattern of multiple, independent, reliable references and appearances by this young performer. In that regard, he easily passes WP:GNG. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He may pass WP:GNG, but he also has to pass WP:NMUSIC as well. As of right now, he passes #1 (but more sources would be nice). It does not seem he passes any of the other criteria for musicians and ensembles. (I do not feel he passes #12 yet because he has not been the main subject of a television show yet. Andise1 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I disagree that WP:NMUSIC overrides WP:GNG. They are meant to compliment each other, not supplant. However, it only takes one criterion to pass, which you admitted the subject did (#1). Besides, there are other considerations here. Given the unique nature of this subject, attempting to pigeonhole this into "music" ignores the social aspect. Attempting to look at just the social aspect ignores the music. This is why I'm taking more of a "whole picture" approach to this subject to see if the subject, taken in its entirety, sums up to something greater than its individual parts. In this case, I felt it did. As an aside, I disagree with your interpretation of #12. It says a "segment" not a full program. However, I think that parsing these guidelines to that degree is counter-productive (and bordering on wikilawyering). -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "social aspect" would require sources that document that, and that does not exist. If it does pass WP:GNG, it does not do so by any real measure; this article has nothing more than trivial and/or brief sources, and WP:GNG specifically points out that meeting WP:GNG is not a guarantee of any notability, especially when the subject fails the more specific and relevant notability guideline. When all it has is a weak claim of meeting WP:GNG, that's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Maybe in a few years when the subject actually becomes notable, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. - SudoGhost 18:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "social aspect" I was referring to was the Billboard Social 50 and things along that line. I believe that is well-documented here and in the article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considerations as to who does what aside, I feel this is one of those cases where the subject is scraping the edge of WP:GNG but is not quite there yet. And I do not believe WP:MUSICBIO is being met here at all.
  • Weak delete - per SudoGhost basically. I think we'd be bending the edges of WP:N to squeak this one in when, realistically, this is probably a matter of WP:TOOSOON. The obvious sock-puppetry and teenage hysteria aren't doing the subject any favours but I've tried to disregard that as much as possible in considering this against policy and both Ritchie333 and Shinmawa make some good points in that regard. Stalwart111 03:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree with that - this is right on the edge in terms of notability. In fact, I'm actually pondering switching to "weak delete" solely on the ground that not preserving the article would help the subject's privacy, since he's quite young. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even considered that, but it is an important consideration. That just reinforces it for me. Stalwart111 12:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing anywhere on Wikipedia that puts an age limit on notability. Privacy isn't a reason to delete an article. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of coverage in books. No evidence of coverage in scholarly journals. No evidence of time-independent coverage in reliable news sources. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just clarify why this is unreliable? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does MTV Greece have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Encyclopedias are supposed to be written on hard sources, not entertainment websites. Besides the dubious nature of the source website, the style of writing is thoroughly informal and not the dispassionate, disconnected, neutral style of a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, as an established news outlet, MTV would be expected to have a good reputation for fact-checking. Based on this past precedent when an MTV article was consulted on the reliable sources noticeboard, I note the consensus then was "An interview conducted by MTV seems to be an acceptable source for a music-related topic such as those you are working on". So yes, it would seem by consensus we do consider it reliable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable or not, it doesn't qualify as "significant coverage" in my opinion. I admit I can't read Greek, but it is only two sentences - there's just no room for any detailed coverage. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the toughest AfDs are when it comes down to opinions on whether the coverage is significant. That's why I said this could go either way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there - "significant" is obviously going to be interpreted differently by different people. I guess that's why we have these discussions. Cheers! Dawn Bard (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Madison Ivy (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:PORNBIO, as nominations in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. Also fails WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO with, at best, one individual award nomination. Fails GNG with no substantial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are literally countless articles about pornstars on WP, some have even less reliable sourced biographical content and fewer award nominations. Yet, no one attempt to delete those articles. It would be better to expand this article, to add more reliable bio content instead to delete it. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suitable stub article that meets WP:PORNBIO. After the last AFd of two years ago and the dismantling of of PORNBIO, it is now generally accepted that peer and genre recognition for contributions to group porn scenes are to be ignored... fine... but the article still shows multiple nominations for individual actions over multiple years. Until it is further decommissioned, the applicable guideline is met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 4 scene-related nominations and a "Best Tease Performance" nomination. Scene-related awards don't count for PORNBIO, leaving a single individual nomination. (Even that is a stretch.) PORNBIO fail. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon, but despite the confusing verbiage of that re-written guideline, it's not "scenes" we are supposed to ignore, as every actor (mainstream or genre) may receive peer recognition for whatever action they do in their "scenes"... and without "scenes" we do not have films of any type or genre. It is pornography GROUP activities that it was decided we ignore. So yes, I see the 2 nominations for "Best All-Girl Group Sex Scene", which as a GROUP activity we are to ignore, 1 for "Best Oral Sex Scene" which is an indicator of an individual's, specific action being singled out for recognition, 1 for "Best Tease Performance", which is another individual action being singled out for recognition, and 1 for "Best POV Sex Scene", which needs clarification... as in films "POV" means point of view... and I have no idea if the award was for her POV, the recipient's POV, or the camera's POV. With the last being undefined, we still have the two nominations for individual's actions. PORNBIO is met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Schmidt analysis is utter nonsense, and ignores the clear and explicit consensus reached in extensive discussion on the talkpage for PORNBIO last year. The original proposed text on this point (from Morbidthoughts) read "Scene-related award categories are disqualified from consideration"; the language was then made even more restrictive, not less restrictive, by adding language excluding ensemble scenes awards as well. The plain-language reading, excluding all scene awards and nominations, has been followed uniformly in porn performer AFDs since that time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis made per application of established policy and guidelines in seeking to reach a consensus HERE, does not equate to the "nonsense" of insisting that a guideline deconstructed by a handful has the same weight as does overarching policy and guideline built by a majority. What improves the project, improves the project. Espousing that it does not, does not itself refute that genre recognition by ones peers is not meaningless. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is "deconstructing" the guideline text here, which is plain as day: Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. There's no "overarching policy and guideline" that's involved, and your failure to cite such standard is just evidence that you're talking through your hat. The guideline text is quite clear on this point. It was established by well-more-than-a-majority consensus last year and has been followed without dissension since then. Your denial of the plain meaning of the simple text and your disrespect for clearly established consensus is inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "plain as day" is that the pornbio guideline "now" is not what it was when first created through the then-consensus, nor now as it was even three years ago... and doubtless it will be far different in another few years as consensus for additional changes and modifications takes effect to either loosen its now exclusionary effects or tighten them. I will remain polite despite your goading, and not turn this discussion into a battlefield as I recognize and history shows that consensus can and often does change. Instead of arguing interpretations at every AFD, why not dedicate efforts to getting all pornographic material removed from Wikipedia entirely and all at once instead of piecemeal. Protecting minors from being exposed to adult content material would seem a laudable and decent goal. Perhaps we could create a new consensus for speedy removal of all porn-related topics though an WP:RFC that could conclude that as far as porn topics are concerned, the overarching policies of WP:V and WP:NOTCENSORED, and guidelines WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO may not be used to assert or show an asserted notability? We could use the RFC to formulate an addition to WP:NOT, modifying NOTCENSORED to disinclude porn and creating WP:NOTPORN: Wikipedia is NOT a collection of pornography-related topics. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ratzinger family[edit]

Ratzinger family (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)

Three relatively closely related people does not a notable family make, and that's all we have here. The arms shown are clerical, not familial. As with the article on the pope emeritus's father (see deletion discussion), this is worth a sentence or so in each of the three articles in question, but no more. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - each of the notable Ratzingers have their own Wikipedia article and there are wikilinks between each of them. There's no need for an (unsourced) article joining the dots. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that three notable people do not a family article make. I personally think this was done in the post election joy but ultimately fails notability, lines in the popes articles or wikilinks servers the pedia much better. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a papal family with several members who are notable in their own right, even before the papal election it had at least three notable members in the 19th, 20th and 21st century. That makes a notable family. Whether the COA is clerical or not is irrelevant. Mocctur (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say that. If you want it to live, you need to find good sources that make it say that. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it says so. Mocctur (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no documentation that anyone thinks it's a notable family. It's just a list of three people with the (dubious) conclusion that this is enough to make the whole family notable. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Result was DELETE. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Charles Heffer[edit]

Henry Charles Heffer (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 artist. The article itself makes no claims to notability (and was tagged for speedy deletion on this basis): it does not even discuss the subject's art at all. It merely quotes various genealogical entries that the author was able to track down about the subject. (He lived; he married; he had children; he died.) The inclusion of the artist at the BBC's Your Paintings site might appear notable until one notes that this site indexes over 38,000 artists. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction -- buried in the fourth and fifth paragraphs are a brief mention of the artist's works, and their appearance (unverified) in the collections of a couple of small museums. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject seems in fact to lack the notability required for inclusion. While there are some online auctions for his paintings, he has apparently not been covered in depth by any secondary sources. This index merely states that he was apparently active around 1889. There's also a German journal for land survey that mentions one Henry Charles Heffer as the co-inventor of a device for measuring distances [2], but it's not clear whether this was the same person. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's not hard to find out that at least some of his works are held at the Museum of Croydon, which is pretty obviously not primarily interested in collecting the Great Works. Be that as it may, none of the sources for his art have any biographical data other than conjectural dates, and upon reading the article I find that it is almost assuredly a bit of genealogical WP:OR on the part of its author; for instance, at one point the text reads, "I'm unable to confirm this one hundred percent[.]" It would be interesting research if published and verified, but it's not what we should be publishing. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 03:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. John the Baptist Church (New Bedford, Massachusetts)[edit]

St. John the Baptist Church (New Bedford, Massachusetts) (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 like other similar pages up for deletion currently. ThreeHombresStandingAroundATinCan! (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the sources that TheCatalyst31 found. However, some of those sources need to be added to the article as citations! --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be historically significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  WP:GNG notability is shown.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Historically significant Church with clear and defined third-party resources. I'd like to know which similar pages up for deletion you are referring to ThreeHombresStandingAroundATinCan! I couldn't help but to notice how you made improvements to the article before nominating it for AFD. I appreciate your contributions, but before making any future proposals, I'd like to suggest that you read and understand WP:BEFORE which includes policies and guidelines for nominating an article for deletion. Stubbleboy 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daniel Powter (album). J04n(talk page) 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lie to Me (Daniel Powter Song)[edit]

Lie to Me (Daniel Powter Song) (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)

Poorly sourced article about a musical recording seems to fail WP:NSONG. No indication of charting or other notability. Lengthy (original research ?) plot summary of the video for the song. Recommend redirect back to Daniel Powter. - MrX 16:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Hugo and I am the author of the 'Lie To Me' article page. Yes it is original research. I searched far on shopping websites to get the right info for the track listings and all as far the information concerned are true. If the video plot is too lengthy you should just let me know and I can try to abridge it (I was watching it while typing it up so I understand why it seems too lengthy). Please don't delete the page, it deserves its place with the other articles on Daniel Powter's singles and has done for a very long time. As a new user, wouldn't it be best to contact and advise me. I had been planning to make new articles for 'Whole World Around' and 'Lose To Win' but now I see they could have ended up in the same position. Just don't delete it unless you make a better version of the article, please. When it came to charting I wasn't sure were to look but thinking about I could have looked at Billboard. I apologise if I need to, I only wanted to give 'Lie To Me' it rightful place on here since no one else had the time or commitment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoAlynStephens (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ardrums Little and Great Ardrums[edit]

Ardrums Little and Great Ardrums (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)

New article unsourced, possible full of OR. Book search would indicate a historic area of little or no notability. Murry1975 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we all know what Wikipedia and the paper one is an old argument, but how is this place anyway notable? Snappy (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Professional wrestling double-team maneuvers#Aided powerbomb. after deletion. J04n(talk page) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triple man powerbomb[edit]

Triple man powerbomb (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 wrestling move, and article is substantially about not-that-topic anyway. DMacks (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Professional wrestling double-team maneuvers#Aided powerbomb. The page is more about The Shield (professional wrestling) rather than the move, but I think the title would better be off pointing to the maneuver. Funny Pika! 14:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After deletion, it will be perfectly OK to re-create it as a redirect, but there is no good reason to keep the existing content (which is largely off-topic, and poorly written) in the article's history, and there is indeed a reason for not keeping it, as it includes at least some copyright infringing text. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't bother redirecting, as I can't find any evidence that their finisher is even known by this name.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original PROD. Non-notable wrestling move, and would not make a good redirect since I doubt many wrestling fans would use this search term, if the move is even known by this name. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic fan gushing. Non referenced this is a series of fan articles made by this editor that really doesn't have a place here. Appears to be a violation of WP:NOR and or WP:SYN. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with deletion of the article but it should later be redirected to the section mentioned earlier.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete with no prejudice against recreation as a redirect per FunnyPika's suggestion above. This "article" is nothing more than the creator's personal diary of his opinion on WWE events. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military arcade[edit]

Military arcade (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 appear to be a notable band according to WP:BAND. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 13:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joseph Ratzinger, Sr. (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, this is a case where we have an article that the subject is notable only through his sons. We do not have inherited notability or notability by proxy. As such this article fails to provide reliable sources for it's claims. I realize this isn't a BLP that requires sources or it's deleted but unless anyone can show how this man was notable other then being a father to a former pope it shouldn't be here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not noteworthy enough; per Wikipedia:NOTE. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's another article Ratzinger family; they could be merged, or maybe both deleted/merged to the ex-pope's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an appropriate article on the family or to the main article on the Pope himself. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's rather obvious that this is all the rather scanty material dredged up in not-especially-successful attempts to make a connection between the pope emeritus and the Nazis. What they found is that the pope's father was just a pious, "sternly anti-Nazi" (as the article puts it) policeman whose son became famous long, long after he died. This is material for a couple of sentences in the ex-pope's article(s), not substance enough of a man who plainly enjoys no independent notability whatsoever. Possibly it could be redirected to Early life of Pope Benedict XVI given that someone is sure to try to recreated it in defiance/ignorance of policy. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no individual notability. Notability is not inherited (and that means, not inherited backwards on somebody's father either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited, this person has done nothing in his own right to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. The findings AfD #1 has no relevance to this discussion, for the record; it is hard to imagine a Wikipedia era where "Keep -- he's the popes' old man" was actually considered an acceptable argument. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have serious concerns that "notability isn't inherited" is a bit idealistic and doesn't reflect reality. If you actually look at WP:NOTINHERITED it appears to have started as a "we sortof don't think this is a good argument to use" and then morphed into "this is policy" by means of WP:CREEP. The truth is that individuals connected to Highly notable individuals do acquire some notability (and especially academic interest) by association. The testament to this is that there are articles in the encyclopedia on these people in existence. (I could for example nominate Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare), to prove a WP:POINT). The deletion argument should that Pope Ben 16 isn't notable enough that a close relative of his would acquire notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point but it also appears to me that the volume of material on Hathaway is quite a bit more extensive. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the understanding. Actually, I'm not sure that Herr Ratzinger here is necessarily notable. But, if we imagine articles as nodes (WP:BUILDTHEWEB) with incoming links at special:whatlinkshere/Joseph Ratzinger, Sr., people are unlikely to find it other than via Pope Ben 16 anyway, and I'm not sure a 300 word article with a dozen relevant links is necessarily entirely out of place, especially if a photo can be added, maybe a few more biographical details. The way it's reading at the moment seems to be an attempt to distance as much as possible Herr Ratzinger from the Nazi regime, which makes it awkwardly political, and I think there may be room for possible expansion on this theme. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death in Jainism[edit]

Death in Jainism (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 does not cite any references or sources since 2009. References seems unlikely to be found. The article also shows signs of original research. It should hence be deleted. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep There are in fact references provided, but they are not in-line and do not provide page numbers. I don't think this is an essay so much as it is something written back in the days when the standards for article writing/referencing were a lot more lax. The topic is surely notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article does indeed cite 3 sources; a quick look at the web finds signs there will be many more. Santhara is certainly a death-related topic in Jainism, and there appears to be a large literature on the subject. Specialist help may be needed but the topic is, per Mangoe, indeed surely notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and work to make the sources in-line There are enough sources (albeit non-inline), and it is of the religious beliefs of a well-known faith. Notability established. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 08:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the second time within a month that this nominator has proposed an article on Jainism for deletion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atman_(Jainism). I find this odd, particularly as he has also placed a tag on another article on Jainism viz. Tirthankara. I find nothing confusing in that article either. All these articles deal with notable issues in Jainism, are informative and to the point. Given the importance of the religion, they are relevant and the references available and provided for this article, as Mangoe says, are meaningful.Santhara (see Sallekhana) as Chiswick Chap has pointed out, is indeed a notable death-related topic in Jainism.--Zananiri (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Because of low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jugnu ishiqui[edit]

Jugnu ishiqui (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 appear to be a notable actress (yet). A Google search fails to find enough significant coverage. However, I'm hesitant to nominate this for deletion since the article claims she's about top have a major role in an upcoming film. Hopefully someone can find more info about that role. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acclaimed Indian Police Officers[edit]

List of Acclaimed Indian Police Officers (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)

Mostly original research, strictly opinion article (how can you list all "acclaimed" officers?) Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 08:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obviously, we cant list all the acclaimed officers. But, we can add the important ones here. Just like wikipedia doesn't have a page for each and every renowned person. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindi_film_clans . This page doesn't contain all the clans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEccentric (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided has references on internet. I can tag each and everyname there to a webpage that regarding the subject of acclamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEccentric (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is this is an opinion article on what constitutes "acclaimed," not something solid like a clan; and please adhere to the manual of style. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 08:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Grammarxxx about what constitutes Acclaimed. "Traced Sikh Separatists" or "Stopped Rave Clubs" sounds like part of a policemans job. Gbawden (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you people aren't Indians. The information given under 'acclamation' makes one understand how big the issues were. Example, Forest Brigand Veerapan - He killed 100's of cops and was unable to trace him for 20 years. The officers mentioned went there and strived there for years to suppress this terrorist. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEccentric (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.The essential problem here is that the term "acclaimed" is not properly defined. If this were a list of police officers who had won a specific award, for example, then the article would be appropriate, because we know exactly who should be on the list. I'm not saying that these officers havent done many fine things. I'm just saying that as is, there is no way to tell who qualifies as "acclaimed". Howicus (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After User:FunnyPika's comment, I'm changing to Keep and reformat from a table to a simple list. Howicus (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to make things clearer, another synonym for "acclaimed" is "notable". There's no need to state this in the title so I've moved the page to List of Indian police officers. Like List of electricians or List of cyclists, if an Indian police officer meets WP:GNG then they would qualify for this list. The question is whether the list should stand as it is. Funny Pika! 15:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current format, but without the unlinked entries. No valid reason remains for deletion once the OR-ish "acclaimed" is removed. The table provides extra information that Category:Indian police officers doesn't. The category itself only contains 100+ entries, a manageable number for a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manta Force[edit]

Manta Force (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)

A non-notable toy line. There is in fact a little bit of coverage: they're mentioned [books.google.com/books?id=ZxVTzYQjXlIC&pg=PA56 here], but that's about it, besides the usual fan sites. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are the criteria for notability? This was a pre-internet toyline so obviously there wouldn't be many online sources. but it did have several books and at least two different comics, as well as a quite large store presence for several years. It certainly wasn't obscure at the time, but is now. Blueshift2k5 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I copied this article to Wikialpha as a backup in case it gets deleted here. Enjoy! Mathewignash (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - New Scientist provides some substantial coverage. I suspect there's more offline sources given that this toy line flourished before the advent of the internet. -- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 08:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New Scientist tells us that this was Toy of the Year and so the product is clearly notable. I'm especially liking the name of the villain — Major Vex... Warden (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's also some (slightly strange) coverage in Al Alvarez's Risky Business[11]. A merge to maker Bluebird Plc probably wouldn't hurt, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, week-old website with no assertion of notability. Salted because of repeated recreation. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hub Merseyside[edit]

Hub Merseyside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Louie Griffin (Entrepreneur) (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Non-notable social platform with no real sources other than information about the platform itself. —DuncanWhat I Do / What I Say 07:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Deletion This article has been speedy deleted twice three times. The last time was about 30 minutes ago. The user should be blocked for repeatedly creating this article.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real claim to notability and no sustained coverage in any reliable sources. It's just a site for a bunch of people chatting with each other, to put it bluntly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Agree with Ritchie333 on the sources issue below. –TCN7JM 11:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

allow upto 3 days for verified sources to be added, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescoleman1 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been speedy deleted several times already, and to be honest you're lucky that it's even got as far as a deletion discussion. You need to find sources now and you should have found them before you create the article. That means sustained coverage in things like national newspapers, lots of them, and with the articles that talk about the site in substantial depth. If you can't find that, please don't re-create the article again as it will get protected so you cannot create it at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added Louie Griffin (Entrepreneur) to this nomination, since the claim to notability is that he founded this website. Obviously if Hub Merseyside is deleted, Griffin's page should be deleted, too, so it makes sense to discuss both articles in this AfD. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck Griffin's article because it's a clear case of a speedy delete. At best, Griffin should only be a redirect to Hub Merseyside. I've speedy deleted Hub Merseyside once before myself, so I'll let this discussion go a bit more before I speedy delete it myself. (Not that I'd object to any other admin who wanted to do it now.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Macrae Aitken[edit]

James Macrae Aitken (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)

Absolutely non-notable, failing WP:GNG in every conceivable way. The "sources" cited in the article do not have anything to do with the subject of the article. The article does not even assert that the subject is notable, much less prove it. Should have been speedied. OGBranniff (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm admittedly not too familiar with what makes a chess player notable or not, but a discussion here, between folks apparently more knowledgeable on the matter than I, seems to indicate that being a national champion of a large nation is often an indication of notability, if it can be properly sourced. Also, his rating of 2525 (source) is above the number mentioned in the discussion, but again, I'm not sure how that compares with other players. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The statement you referenced is merely another editor's personal opinion on what he thinks may be notable. That is not Wikipedia policy. The editor himself stated that his own feelings about the notability of national champions may be "iffy." This article fails WP:GNG. OGBranniff (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A manifestly poor nomination. Subject is notable as ten time Scottish Chess Champion, representing Scotland in four Chess Olympiads, and work at Bletchley Park during WW II. Contrary to the nominator's bald claim, these are all clear assertions of notability. Quale (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC) I forgot to mention that this AFD is about as well motivated as that for Andrew Soltis (AfD discussion), also by the same nominator. Quale (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please discuss the content, not the contributor. Thank you. By the way, Scotland hasn't been a sovereign nation since 1707 or so. OGBranniff (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Your contributions to Wikipedia are so worthless that it's nearly impossible to avoid discussing you. Scotland fields independent teams in many international sports, including chess at the Olympiads. Nigel Short has criticized this, but that doesn't change reality. Quale (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. That's not very nice. Say what you will, it doesn't change the fact that this chap fails WP:GNG. There is not a more lenient notability policy just for chess-related articles, mind you. Sorry but thanks for asking. OGBranniff (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Quale that the individual Scottish championships are sufficient grounds for an article. Coverage in Golombek's book as well as the Oxford Companion to Chess are grounds for the subject satisfying notability guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are entries about him in Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess and The Encyclopedia of Chess by Sunnucks, so I think he is notable. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination an intentional disruption? Nominator have minimum WP competency? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- (1) surely a significant "sportsman" (2) inventor of a named variation. The article is badly structured, but that is merely a need to editing. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets GNG, per coverage in several independent reliable sources. Sasata (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chicka Chicka Boom Boom. J04n(talk page) 23:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicka Chicka Boom Boom and Other Coconutty Songs[edit]

Chicka Chicka Boom Boom and Other Coconutty Songs (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)

Tagged for notability since Jan 2008. I cannot find independent references/reviews of the album (as opposed to the book it's based on). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a level of difficulty with sources, as I'm seeing where some are shortening the title to just "Chicka Chicka Boom Boom". I do see where it's won a few awards, though.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided, leaning towards a merge and redirect. I did find where the album won a Parent's Choice Award and got included on one of the ALA's yearly lists, but I'm not entirely sure this really needs its own entry. So far I've created a section on the main page for the book and pretty much summarized this entire entry in just a few sentences. This album does seem to be used in classes, but it's used along with the book rather than separately from it. This could probably pass notability guidelines, but the question is whether or not it'd be better served by being summarized in the main article rather than a separate entry. Do we really need two separate entries in this particular case? Anything written about the album's educational merits would be along the same lines of why the book is used, which could be summed up more succinctly in one article. I won't protest a separate article being kept, but this is something to think about.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the book, I think. Deb (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the book. Even if this is marginally notable (which I'm not sure of), it's more sensible to discuss it in the context of the book. Doesn't seem to be much to say about the album, as there's unlikely to be the same level of reviews, making-of information, etc, you get with a pop or classical recording. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Tokyogirl79. Much more useful to discuss this in the context of the book. There's also a popular Weston Woods-produced video\, which could be mentioned in the book article as well; School Library Journal quotes a reviewer, "If you watch the video, you’ll never get the tune out of your head when you read the book aloud. I’m still not sure if that is a good or bad thing."[12] That's accurate, I'm afraid. :-) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Temiskaming Shores#Shopping. J04n(talk page) 23:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timiskaming Square[edit]

Timiskaming Square (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)

Small shopping mall with no indications of notability. Originally prodded, but restored on request. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Temiskaming Shores#Shopping which has plenty of room for it. An argument could be made to keep per WP:FIVEPILLARS: Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis mine). My understanding is that notability requirements don't apply to articles about places.Never mind that, I found WP:GEOFEAT. Another possibility would be to move it to Wikivoyage. —rybec 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and attempted a merge. I also asked for the photo to be undeleted. —rybec 10:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neudesic[edit]

Neudesic (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)

Nothing here is notable. Fastest growing = not yet notable, and neither is being in the top 500 in a specialized field DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, outside of significant coverage in one book, published by a non-reliable publisher (Packt) the subject has not received significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources. Most news sources of the subject are PR releases, and are not considered significant coverage when attempting to determine notability. Therefore failing WP:GNG & WP:CORP, deletion is the proper course of action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems this was "refunded" recently, but continues to be ignored. Fails WP:N. --HighKing (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Also, page creator and primary contributor are two SPA accounts with a possibly promotional agenda.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real Love (Swans album)[edit]

Real Love (Swans 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)

Unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable outside of an Allmusic review. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How should AllMusic meet WP:GNG? Multiple sources are required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that all articles need multiple sources? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says a topic passes if that "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - "sources" means more than 1 source. WP:NALBUM says "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Did you read the notability policies? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have notability policies, we have notability guidelines. There's a big difference. I would recommend that you avoid insults directed at other editors, even if you do subsequently revert them. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I've read the policies. I assume you're now going to take the tens of thousands of single sourced articles to Afd, on the back of your conclusion? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand or Merge to Swans discography. I see no benefit from deleting it. --Michig (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has secondary sources, live performance albums are still notable.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on additional references and citations added during the duration of the AFD. However, I encourage those interested to continue finding ways to improve the article further. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Venezuela relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Serbia–Venezuela relations (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 previous consensus was for redirect but since someone didn't like that and reverted the redirect I'm putting this up for deletion, since I believe consensus may be found over 3 years down the track since the last AfD. the article uses WP:SYNTH by including Venezuela's comments on Kosovo which should go in Kosovo–Venezuela relations. I can find no evidence of significant coverage of relations. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Encyclopedic topic. The countries maintain embassies with one another and have signed bilateral treaties. Carrite (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wrong on two accounts, Serbia has no embassy in Venezuela. a treaty is a binding legal instrument and much stronger than a cooperation agreement. See my note on bilateral agreements. they have merely signed cooperation agreements. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that this link to a self-written note has any impact on the fact that the Serbia profundiza relaciones con Venezuela published in the Correo del Orinoco 7 July 2010 confirms that relations are more notable than just ambassadors exchanging name cards. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - the article is poorly written. But the subject is noteworthy. Mark the page for improvement and keep it. If it doesn't get improved, then re-consider for deletion down the road. Kenenjaye Saidykahn (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is notable, and article will be fixed, this is not reason for delete. I will see for some more sources... Also, Kosovo situation is relevant reason for bilateral article information. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. You have 6 days to find sources. LibStar (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added, subject is more then referenced. I also think that this is obious keep... --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are 4 sources. 2 of them relate to International recognition of Kosovo, one of them is primary from Serbian government, so we have one source. clearly fails WP:GNG. have you actually tried to look for sources? LibStar (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly is notable per common sense, and LibStar your wikt:ultimatum "You have 6 days to find sources" comment is inappropriate. Did you search in Spanish and Serbian sources" "Serbia. Venezuela. relaciones diplomáticas" or Србија. Венецуела. "дипломатски односи" before making this AfD? I could be wrong but based on those that I have seen I hope this series of AfDs to delete diplomatic relations stubs does in fact have community support and is not WP:POINTY. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"notable per common sense" is not a reason for deletion keep. how is it pointy? no significant coverage means fails WP:GNG. over 100 articles have been deleted. you have failed to provide any sources. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nothing in my search in Spanish, all the coverage is multilateral. a mere 4 hits in Serbian excluding the WP article that comes up. and an article like this is actually about relations with Croatia. prove me wrong In ictu oculi and show me some sources. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mnean "notable per common sense" is not a reason for non-deletion. Well actually it is, common sense would indicate that two sizeable nations having relations is notable - even if that notability consists of simply not having any newsworthy tantrums. en.wp serves as a reference source on far less notable geo subjects, 1000s of American villages for example. And this comment "over 100 articles have been deleted" only suggests to me that you are keeping score. As does "prove me wrong." Do you realise that this sounds wikt:competitive? I choose not to further waste my editing bytes to prove anything because by my understanding of WP:GNG there is such a thing as latent notability - we already have sources that Serbia and Venezuela exist, and that they have relations. In the absence of a special burden/guideline with the agreement of WP Geography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations this article already passes WP:GNG since the subjects' relation is sufficiently documented. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 of the 4 sources in the article refer to Kosovo which should go in International recognition of Kosovo, one source is primary being the Serbian government. so at best we are hinging on one source. I'll happily withdraw my nomination if you provide indepth coverage. or does WP:MUSTBESOURCES apply to you? this fails WP:GNG and you aren't convincing me otherwise.LibStar (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done searches in 3 languages and found no extensive coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Yes WP:MUSTBESOURCES does apply to me in this case, not because I'm staring at a large Venezuelan newspaper article about Serbia-Venezuela relations, but because common sense indicates that some subjects have latent notability. However I have dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations to see if there is a specific burden for this kind of article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is no inherent notability here like a geographic location or federal politican. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. This is why we have mechanisms like AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"sponsored cultural relations such as volleyball matches between Serbia and Venezuela" is really clutching at straws for bilateral relations. what makes notable bilateral relations is significant trade, migration or disputes. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That also is your opinion. I finds it notable enough for keep. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the keep voters have actually provided any evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Venezuela considers Kosovo to be part of Serbia, then an article about Venezuelan relations with the state should certainly include the fact that they consider the state to be bigger than most do. Venezuela certainly thinks their position on Kosovo is in "support of the Serbian people". So I regard articles like this to be valid sources. --99of9 (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
99of9, I thank you for making a genuine attempt to find sources unlike others. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --99of9 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every statement in this article is backed by an inline citation, and questions about Kosovo are certainly relevant to Serbia, and to Venezuela when it is opposing Serbia (UN), or later when it is supporting Serbia. The article is clear, documented, and notable, and should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not seeing any instances of WP:SYNTH considering the in-line citations and the fact that the article otherwise does not seem to fail WP:GNG. Mkdwtalk 06:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "As of 2010, Venezuelan diplomats continued to offer their support to Serbia in "their struggle against separatism"". They have a significant relationship with them. The president of one nation saying and doing what he did in regards to the other, makes it a notable relationship. Dream Focus 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rawle Allicock[edit]

Rawle Allicock (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:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources to show this person is indeed worth having an article on. The article is really totally unsourced as well, and no reliable sources exist. OGBranniff (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's a lack of sources online, and while I'm sure he could beat me at chess, being 72nd in the UK isn't really good enough to establish notability. English draughts is a minority game with nothing like the coverage of chess, and I don't think his achievement there (even if properly referenced) would make him notable. We need in-depth reliable sources to avoid deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who really cares if someone is 72nd in the UK at chess? I mean, this is chess, not hockey. Hockey is a rather popular sport, however, on SportsCentre you very rarely see chess highlights. Now, if someone was 1st in the UK, then matters would be different. But being 72nd in the UK at chess isn't very notable. Delete. MTG1989 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah. 72nd isn't high on the list. He doesn't seem notable enough to me based on the information. NeoJustin (Talk page) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- obviously NN. He may achive something one day, and he can have an artiocle then. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Sasata (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Child[edit]

Kill the Child (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)

Unable to establish notability outside of an Allmusic review. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. An "Allmusic" review is sufficient to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC. OGBranniff (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete. I'm not foreclosed to the idea that there are more sources out there, but nothing was immediately forthcoming for me. In contrast to the above opinion, I do not believe that WP:MUSIC grants an assumption of notability on the basis of a sole allmusic review. Nothing in the text suggests that, and even if there was a criterion to that effect, it would arguably be invalid under WP:N's wider requirements of multiple sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AllMusic plus the other review I've added meets WP:GNG. At worst, redirect to Swans discography. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Thornberry's review is very short, more sources are still required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Very short" is subjective. A source is a source. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A source is not a source: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". (WP:GNG) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A source is not a source". Haha! You're a funny guy. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough, and there's no benefit to the project from deleting this. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has secondary sources, live performance albums are still notable.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swans (EP)[edit]

Swans (EP) (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)

Searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable outside of an Allmusic review. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep AllMusic establishs notability. This is the debut release by this band and at worst should be redirected to the Swans discography article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Swans releases generally received reviews from multiple print sources, and these may not be found online. The fact that they exist is sufficient. --Michig (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why delete a release that's obviously notable? Stop wasting other editor's time.--Soul Crusher (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A deletion outcome would be extremely rare in the case where a band has a full length article as a redirect is the described process at WP:NALBUM. The album title is hard to search for sources because of its name with the bird and matching the band title, but based upon the reception it received at AllMusic I don't think there isn't an assertion of notability, or that its a sub-article that should not exist. Mkdwtalk 06:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various Failures[edit]

Various Failures (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 only notable publications on this I can find are an Allmusic review and a brief mention in a CMJ 'record news' section. I'm doubtful that that substantiates Wikipedia-notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A delete would be extremely rare as the band has a lengthy main article and WP:NALBUM instructions redirects if the album (sub-article) does not meet the guideline. Mkdwtalk 06:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swans discography. Merger can be done from the redirect's history, if needed  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Children of God/World of Skin[edit]

Children of God/World of Skin (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 is unnecessary. This information belongs on the Children of God or World of Skin articles, not in a separate article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Swans discography as a possible search term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Swans discography: something saying the reissue exists and what's on it would suffice. The independent albums may be notable, but this is just packaging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Children of God (album) as primarily a reissue of that album with additional tracks. --Michig (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has secondary sources. Compilation albums are still notable, especially when collecting more than one album.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swans discography. Merger can be done from the history  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cop/Young God Greed/Holy Money[edit]

Cop/Young God Greed/Holy Money (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 is unnecessary. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - gives every appearance of being written based on the sleeve notes of the disc. The release is a re-release of the Swans previous albums and the article is basically a track listing, which is insufficient justification for an article (based on consensus at WP:NMUSIC). I've found one archived mention of the release in Classic Rock magazine but this is short and says little about the compilation album. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Swans discography as a possible search term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Swans discography. A separate article for a combined reissue is excessive, but a note at the discography re. the tracks included would be beneficial. --Michig (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for creating this page is because of the contentious tracklist. The title of this album suggests it is just the four releases put together. However, what people actually get is the "Cop" album, the "Young God" EP and then a strange mish-mash of "Greed" and "Holy Money" with ommisions, additions and a totally different playing order.

Find a reliable news source that says it's contentious and maybe that would change things. Otherwise that seems to be purely your own analysis, which is 'original research'. Sionk (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has secondary sources. Compilation albums are still notable, especially when collecting multiple albums.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swans discography. Merger can be done from the article's history  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filth/Body to Body, Job to Job[edit]

Filth/Body to Body, Job to Job (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 is unnecessary. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Swans discography as a possible search term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Swans discography per Lugnuts. --Michig (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has secondary sources. Compilation albums are still notable, especially when collecting multiple albums.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Die Tür ist zu[edit]

Die Tür ist zu (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 only notable publication I can find on this is the Allmusic review, and one publication isn't enough to ensure Wikipedia notability Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why isn't one publication enough? At worst redirect to Swans discography as a possible search term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Swans discography. Encyclopedic information that we should keep somewhere. --Michig (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC) It is also covered by Trouser Press here. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has secondary sources, EPs are still notable.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Children of God (album). Merger can be done from the article's history  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Mind (EP)[edit]

New Mind (EP) (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)

haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Children of God (album). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Children of God (album). This would definitely have been reviewed in the UK music press at the time, and presumably also in US print sources. --Michig (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Screw[edit]

A Screw (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)

haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Quite a decent review at AllMusic (which I've added to the article), showing WP:GNG. At worst, redirect to Swans discography. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a bit odd that it's not actually mentioned in the text of the article on the band, only in a footnote! Deb (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This received plenty of coverage at the time of its release and reached #4 on the UK Independent Chart, which was a pretty big deal in 1986. --Michig (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has secondary sources and charted.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But expansion would be really nice  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginity (song)[edit]

Virginity (song) (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 is not an article. The verified information in the article boils down to two things: it was the band's fifth single, and it sold almost 400,000 copies. Great! But WP:SINGLE doesn't tell us that such a song needs an article, only that it may. In fact, "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Now, that is not the case here: we have 13,000 bytes of alternate B-sides and a truly bizarre exhibition of "member lists". For the sake of redundancy, I'll throw in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says that "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details." And that seems to be what we have here. Without that detail, there isn't anything left one could call an article. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources provided below to demonstrate notability. 14:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Delete or redirect to NMB48. Fails notability of WP:NSONG and the rest of the content is overly detailed, tangential and duplicates the content in the artist article. It does appear that the single charted (8 out of the top 20), but there's not evidence that the article could every be expanded beyond a stub once the extraneous content is removed. As an aside, the Japanese to English translation of the song title is Vernon Gini Tea, according to Google. - MrX 04:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have a glass of that, iced of course. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like you didn't read the article. I don't understand your comment. Maybe it's humorous, but 1) The single ranked no. 1, not 8; 2) The content is necessary and doesn't duplicate the NMB48 article; 3) Google Translate? --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read all 10 words. The rest were mere listings of other songs, band members and B sides. - MrX 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant you hadn't compared the member lists in NMB48 and in "Virginity". Cause they aren't the same. The necessary info about members and rankings was there, but you need to have some training in listening to Japanese idol music to notice. The genre has its own specifics, so it's hard to comprehend what is important in such an article and what is not for a person not familiar with it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may or may not merit an article, but the single passes WP:NSONG easily, IMHO. I'm not sure where you got the 8 out of 20 number you mentioned, but the song was no. 1 on the daily and weekly Oricon charts, no. 2 on the monthly Oricon chart, and no. 1 on the weekly Billboard Japan chart. Cckerberos (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 8 out of 20 came from the only source in the article, but I may have misread it or the translation may have been faulty. - MrX 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The single ranked number 1 on Oricon and Billboard Japan Hot 100. Therefore, it passes Wikipedia:NSONG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NSONG as it has charted on a national chart, it is a number 1 at that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is the 13th best-selling single of 2012 in Japan: [13]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please bear in mind that WP:NSONG is not just about meeting one of the three minimum criteria. The very first sentence states: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article..." In my mind, this does not include listing every band member for every song on the album, listing every other song from every CD and DVD that includes the subject song or listing every B side. I will be happy to change my !vote if someone can produce 2-3 sources that discuss the song with any depth beyond just a listing on a chart. I assume these exist, but I don't read Japanese, so I can't find them on my own. - MrX 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Virginity" was a single and that single had multiple editions each with different B-sides and some that came with DVDs. How else are you going to discuss its existence as a single without mentioning its various B-sides? If it's good enough for Lady Gaga's "Judas" or Metallica's "Enter Sandman", then it's good enough for NMB48's "Virginity". And the nature of the 48 member group means that not every member performs vocals on every song, so it is worth noting who are the personnel (vocalists) for each track. Either way, it topped charts, was one of the best selling singles of the year, etc. It passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The only reason it's being argued for deletion is because the article is not the best which boils down to the authors. I can find six different news stories mentioning this song on the website where I go for Japanese music news.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ryulong, NSONG doesn't mandate a song or single have an article given some criterion or other being met: it says it may. I cited above what led me to nominate this article. You can compare with the track list of "Enter Sandman" all you want, but that article has a ton of decent, encyclopedic, verified text to offset a bit of track information (which still doesn't even compare to what our current article has (which is 30 lines). In fact, it's a GA. Natalie.mu is an entertainment news site, and you'll forgive me, no doubt, if it's not much help to me. But when I do follow your link and look, courtesy of Google translate), at one of the "news stories" you mention (it goes to a DVD article, but it's the principle that counts), well, if you want to call what I just linked a review you're being very generous: it does nothing more than list some details, larded with ads that take up the right 1/3 of the screen, a half dozen amazon.jp links at the bottom for the various versions, and a tracklist out the wazoo. So no, I wouldn't call that a reliable review, if "review" means something that helps us generate text.

        Ryulong, I don't know if you misunderstand this nomination or what: it's not that "this article should go cause it's got long 'member' lists", which is how some have been portraying my recent edits. It's that this is not, in its current state, an article: it's nothing but a collection of facts that are by themselves of no encyclopedic value. You said something about "discuss its existence as a single": the article in its current state doesn't discuss anything at all. It has barely any prose. It is overwhelmed by what appears, given the absence of prose, purely trivial information. It can hardly be called an article in the first place. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        • Drmies, it seems that every complaint you have about sources or external links has to do with the fact that there's some form of advertisement or shopping cart somewhere. Natalie.mu needs revenue like any other website (also the "advertisements" you are complaining about are links to interviews the site conducts with musicians, such as this interview with Denki Groove). I never said it was a review. All I said was that it was a news site that I use for meeting WP:V. And all I have to understand about the nomination is that it's been flawed from the start. You claim the subject isn't notable solely because the article is in a shit state, ignoring the claims that it was a chart topper and best seller. The article's set up horribly but the language barrier and the fact that every single review of this single is probably going to be in a newspaper that has no digital copy, is going to screw everything up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, what I'm saying is that you claim to have uncovered a bunch of things you suggested were notable and were "news stories" (I'm quoting you). I proved, I think pretty clearly, that at least one of the things you pointed at doesn't even come close to what most people would call a news story. (What you gave was an ad, with ads on the side.) As for Natalie etc--the things that I read for "news stories" aren't overwhelmed by advertising. Just saying that you're not really reading quality there. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Ryulong said, the long column of "ads" you see on the right are not ads. Those are links to featured inteviews with artists. Only the two bigger ones that are located separately at the very top and the very bottom are advertisements. There are also two banners (they are grouped together) that can be considered "internal ads" cause they are internal links to some promotional campains on the Natalie website itself. There are also links to the release (discussed in the article) on Amazon, but Natalie wants to earn money somehow, so they give readers the possibility to easily buy the DVD if they like it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's also a third ad, the long banner at the very top. It mostly advertises something musical, something important. Now it links to the website of a Japanese Pop Culture Festival called "Kawaii Matsuri". The Natalie website as a whole is really nothing to be irritated about. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a quick search. Here is an article by Techinsight: [14]. Techinsight is a reliable news provider, Excite News is one of the portals that use their articles. The song's music and lyrics are described there. Unfortunately, Japanese magazines don't seem to like putting their articles on the Internet. Hotexpress does, but there's no review for this particular single on their site: [15]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the way, on Natalie I've found this article about "Virginity": [16]. As Drmies may see, it is very reminiscent of what "Manatsu no Sounds Good!" and some other articles looked like before yesterday. All the 16 members who sang the title track are listed, all the covers are equally presented, all the tracklists are present, all the videos are linked. Therefore, there's no imbalance there, all the information is necessary. It's not Wikipedia editors' fault that there are so many members and so many tracks. If there are, they should be all listed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, for the love of God. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the part of the page you cited before doesn't say anything definite. The info is not "everything", it is very important. The article is just a stub. There are many unimportant things we can add to it. We can list every time it was performed, for example. What it has now is the absolute minimum. The people who worked on it left only one sentence in it while listing all the members exactly because they felt that the information is essential. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should watch some Japanese idol videos on YouTube and read comments. Most comments are about someone liking a girl, about how cute the girls are, about "who is the girl at ...". It is the same as liking an American solo singer, but 100 times multiplied. The releases by AKB48, etc., sell well because people care for the girls. They buy singles to support the members they like, because the CDs come with voting tickets, with tickets for "handshake meetings" where they get 3-5 seconds per girl to shake hands with them. If some girl didn't appear on the single, its sales would be different. It is very, very important who sings what. And by the way, the liner notes don't look long in Japanese. They are actually very short. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you're offering is a visual variation of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. If you can't see how such information is excessive, esp. in comparison to a sentence of prose, then I can't help you. Whoever these people were who felt it essential to list, for dozens or hundreds of lines, who sang in which version and what b-sides there were, those people who felt that was more important than writing words that conveyed information, those people don't know what an encyclopedia is and should shift their activities to a fan site. And fo shizzle, "this is the absolute minimum"? That's crazy talk. The absolute minimum is the one sentence I proposed, which can now become twice as long since a chart position was indicated. That's the minimum. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pending WP:HEY. Ryan Vesey 18:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. While having reached the Number 1 position in the charts may be just sufficient to satisfy the minimum notability criteria at WP:NSONG, as per WP:HEY noted above, I would really like to see someone actually add some in-depth third-party coverage and commentary, rather than just padding it out with fancruft, to truly comply with the spirit of WP:NSONG. --DAJF (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article title says "song" while the article seems to be about the entire "single". If the article is kept, either the focus or the title should be adjusted to make them match. LadyofShalott 04:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another long standing argument: making this article right would also make it inconsistent with most other music articles.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. That would make sense if "single" consistently meant one song. Since that's not the case, that is a bad rule. LadyofShalott 06:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Singles and songs have different infoboxes, though: Template:Infobox single and Template:Infobox song. So when you open an article, you can tell what it is about by the color of the template. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is another problem. At present, songs sometimes aren't released physically. They are released on iTunes, Rekochoku (for Japan), etc. and are called "digital singles". If such a single contains only one track, it is the same as a song. The Korean music industry calls digitally released songs "singles" and physical CD singles "single albums". There's a lot of confusion. I'm not sure if anything can be done about it. (By the way, stricly speaking, I think a CD single with more than two tracks on it is called a "maxi single".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plea for consistency I fully agree that this song doesn't warrant an article, but at the same time, 99% of the articles we have on singles shouldn't exist. I've long fought for having a nugget of actual information covered under parent albums and groups as opposed to these bloated infobox+table things that masquerade as articles. I've lost. That means I can't swoop down on an article about a genre that isn't well represented on English Wikipedia and demand that they be deleted when they are essentially the same as articles about every other single we have. If we want to do the right thing and get rid of this, we need to get rid of a lot more.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're basically wanting this to be deleted so it sets a precedent that will eliminate every article on songs unless they've been critically reviewed?—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I thought it could set such a precedent, I'd be in favor of deletion. Since it can't set such a precedent, we probably shouldn't.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the existence of secondary, independent sources the fundamental notion of WP:N? LadyofShalott 23:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's the core of WP:V. Try to get an article deleted because it is based on primary sources, though. Won't work if there's any secondary sources mentioned.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • N calls for independent sources. V is a need for verifiability. Track lists are verifiable, but (of course) primary. It's the lack of independent sources that makes notability questionable. (You'll notice that I'm neither arguing for keeping or deletion for this article.) LadyofShalott 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V calls for articles to be based on independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article that is based on primary sources fails WP:V as well as WP:N. WP:V certainly permits the use of primary sources within an article, but doesn't permit entire articles to be based on them.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We like to pretend that N and V are entirely separate things, but really they are interdependent, and I think that's part of what we're running into here. LadyofShalott 03:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I can sympathize with those who complain that Wikipedia is being turned into a music database, where seemingly every single/album by any notable artist has to have an article (the same can be said about films, TV shows, seiyu, etc.). Part of the problem is WP:NSONG, which is a bit vague on what "reasonably detailed" means. That said, I still think this passes WP:NSONG, especially if some more of the articles already found are added to the article. There's been a lot of debate about track listings and B-sides and all, but the fact is that in the case of AKB/NMB/SKE/HKT, the issuing of multiple versions of the same single, with shifting groups of singers, is the core of their now notorious marketing strategy. Listing this information is in this case not fancruft, but a record of what is very much a notable (and controversial) business plan (there are even books written about this). Michitaro (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the explanation. Your point about NSONG is well taken and the information on these commercial strategies is very enlightening. As an editor, let me add one note, though: even if one doesn't call this fancruft, but "a record of what is etc.", that still doesn't mean we have to include every detail of such a strategy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse La Flair[edit]

Jesse La Flair (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)

BLP article that fails WP:BIO. Unable to find reliable sources to establish notability. Checked Google News Archive, HighBeam and NewsBank. Only found one PR piece. - MrX 02:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found this article using AWB's "Random" feature and was considering nominating it when I saw the AFD banner. Clearly fails W:BIO. Andrew327 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Great Annihilator. This is what consensus dictates. A better target can be discussed later.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Am the Sun[edit]

I Am the Sun (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 haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Great Annihilator. This is what consensus dictates. A better target can be discussed later.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Lifestyle[edit]

Celebrity Lifestyle (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 haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Great Annihilator as a possible search-term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Great Annihilator. As the EP contains tracks primarily from that album, covering it there would seem logical. --Michig (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Great Annihilator, on which the song appears; it can be noted there that an EP preceded the album's release. It doesn't seem to warrant a separate article.  Gong show 21:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Turner (actress)[edit]

Sophie Turner (actress) (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)

Individual currently fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO (the former states that an individual must have won an award for be nominated for several notable ones while the latter states an actor must have done significant roles in multiple well-known films and shows) as her only role is Sansa Stark in Game of Thrones, which she was nominated for, but did not win, a single award. She has also not contributed to the entertainment industry in any way and does not have a major fan base even if the show does. To say an actor is notable just because her character or the show she is acting in is notable violates WP:NOTINHERITED. While she is currently working on a film, we can't assume that it will make her "notable" for a Wikipedia article as we are not a crystal ball. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as she passes WP:GNG, and it isn't needed to pass both the GNG and the relevant SNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search on my reliable sources search engine for "Sophie Turner" "Game of Thrones" results in approximately 85,000 hits (see my user page for link to search engine). I think 85 thousand sources is enough to establish notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While neither Google hits nor participating in a notable show convey notability, Sophie Turner has been the subject of sufficient coverage in media sources to pass WP:GNG, e.g. [17], [18], [19]. Although more (and more thorough) coverage would be preferable, we should also take reader interest into account.  Sandstein  07:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep General notability provided by her ongoing role in Game of Thrones which leads to sufficient coverage in media outlets etc. Miyagawa (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King Jakob C2 23:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Non-admin closure[reply]

Girls’ Generation’s Romantic Fantasy[edit]

Girls’ Generation’s Romantic Fantasy (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'd like to see a reliable source that proves that this run-of-the-mill television production has a right to a stand-alone article. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm a fan of Girls Generation and it is funny how I've never heard about this tv show. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't Wikipedia great? ;) Drmies (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A number of reliable English sources have been added to the article, which passed for WP:GNG.--Michaela den (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RLM Public Relations[edit]

RLM Public Relations (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 PR company. Not the subject of multiple reliable sources. Created by an editor that seems to have a COI. Much of the information in the page is unsourced. Delete CitizenNeutral (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Borderline case. The firm and its owner have gotten a few mentions by independent sources, the owner has been quoted in the New York Times and USA Today and other publications, and the owner's book was reviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times. I couldn't find any full-length significant articles about the company (unless the USA Today article is one - paywall), but I think the cites here and there may add up to a keep. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking over the first few pages of Google News results, I don't see anything that looks like significant coverage, only incidental quotes by identified personnel, announcements that the firm had been hired or consulted, and similar rah-rah material. Nothing here suggests that this business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture of the sort that will make it worthy of memory in an encyclopedia a hundred years from now. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreliable sources. prweb rings alarm bells for PR type advertorials. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telerik Test Studio[edit]

Telerik Test Studio (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 fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article is one part of a massive Marketing campaign by Telerik Corp using WP:SPA advertising-only Sock accounts to create Spam pages. Has links but Relies on press releases, anon blog posts, paid reviews, product anouncements and merely trivial coverage or mentions which fail WP:CORPDEPTH. A google search shows only press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Lacks any "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" (WP:GNG). Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".

I am also nominating the following related "product" Spam Advertising pages:

TeamPulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OpenAccess ORM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ---Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for primary product based on references and simple search resulting in some coverage, but it's not well-known. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off we should bring up WP:SPIP which this thing seems to be clearly in violation of, then look at WP:NSOFT, which I can't find any evidence that it meets those criteria. — raekyt 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify the Telerik Test Studio. Wow, that is a whole lot of COI; I can see the case for deletion just from blatant advertising. Two sources found that are not likely to come from press releases:
  1. Review in Visual Studio magazine
  2. Review in Tools Journal
Both Visual Studio magazine and Tools Journal are independent, reliable publishers and both reviews are in depth. We then have multiple reliable sources, suggesting modest notability according to WP:GNG. Given notability of the topic, it would be better to stubify to remove the offending prose than outright deletion, according to WP:STUBIFY. No opinion yet on the other two candidates. --Mark viking (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, seems a bit naive to think you can't effectively pay for that type of coverage in one of those magazines - not sure it is entirely independent, looks like press pack coverage. ---- nonsense ferret 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My naivety is not at issue here; please be civil and stay on topic. Any reviewer, reporter, or author could be bought off to produce a positive or negative bias to a source; one can use such reasoning to call into question any source. Reviewers can also be independent and simply enthusiastic about a reviewed product. Both quoted sources seemed to use the product in question; their prose does not read like a press release and there were some criticisms of the product mentioned in both articles. It is enough to convince me that these two sources aren't just press releases, unlike all the other sources I found. --Mark viking (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These reviews are paid press packs. For example; The author, Peter Vogel, runs PH&V Information Services which provides "writing services to a variety of clients...". Its not independent of the subject and blatantly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The other author is PR writer who is paid to go to Telerik product conferences. Either way these are not considered "significant coverage", nor does "press kit reviews" establish any sort of notability. --Hu12 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails wp:notability, sources fail wp:corpdepth. Grillo7 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The only hits I get for this particular facility are plainly promotional. If we had an article on the company, I would suggest merger, but apparently it's too obviously NN to get an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romain Saint Gilles[edit]

Romain Saint Gilles (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 is a ridiculous puff piece filled with fake and made up sources. The crux of the article's sources is a hosted press release that resembles a newspaper article. Don't be fooled. This editor seems to have a COI and a habit of creating these kinds of spammy, promotional articles. Maybe Roman Sain Gilles will one day be notable, but right now he ain't. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CitizenNeutral's analysis. It was interesting and amusing, though, to see the press release masquerading as a newspaper article. Heads up! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator's rationale was that there were no sources, two have been found and added to the page, no one has questioned the sources. J04n(talk page) 00:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riding Into History[edit]

Riding Into History (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 about charity motorcycle event with no coverage in reliable sources. The reference in the article reads as an event announcement. My own searches found rehashed press releases like this one, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - since the nomination, a substantial source has been added. See [20]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two sources is kind of thin, but they are from legit publications. Notable enough to keep it going. — Brianhe (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Crawls by on its hands and knees and further sourcing is needed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Incredible Crew sketches[edit]

List of Incredible Crew sketches (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 is listcruft--a list of summaries of non-notable things based on nothing. Look at that reference while you're at it: it's not a reference. We're not a fan site for some TV show. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete References don't even seem to relate. Notability not established. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not a good sign when I've never even heard of this show on the CN schedule. Nonetheless, so much 'type what I see' recaps of sketches it's doubtful this can be formed into a coherent article in any way. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futtize[edit]

Futtize (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 have speedied this article before, but the creator moved it across the very next day through his sandbox and I missed it. Looks like an indie artist to me, and none of the references given come from a big source (they are either blogs or self sourced from this very wiki page). He has never charted, and claims to be more of an "accompanying artist" rather than an independent act. Dengero (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable artist. Looks more like a vanity project than an encyclopedic article. No real indication of portability discussion of output restricted to a very small number of releases on India labels. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graph-tool[edit]

Graph-tool (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)

Software with no third party reliably published sources that cover it in nontrivial detail and would allow it to pass WP:GNG. There is also no other evidence of notability, and past tags requesting evidence have been removed without improvement. I removed one footnote from the article before taking it to AfD [21] but it does not mention the subject at all and does not even adequately source what it was being used for (the article's claim that a particular programming style provides large speedups). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the link to the scipy performance comparison site. This site is authoritative, it addresses the questiion _directly_ that numerical code implemented in pure python can be orders of magnitude slower than pure C++ (just read the page carefully, including the summary table at the bottom). Furthermore this is _utter_ common sense, and is the reason why projects such as Numpy exists. Here is an excerpt from the Numpy wikipedia article:

Because Python is currently implemented as an interpreter, mathematical algorithms written in it often run slower than compiled equivalents. Numpy seeks to address this problem for numerical algorithms by providing multidimensional arrays and functions and operators that operate efficiently on arrays. Thus any algorithm that can be expressed primarily as operations on arrays and matrices can run almost as quickly as the equivalent C code.[1]

The only citation there is the same one which you had deleted. Please be consistent.

Would you care to elaborate why such similar software as NetworkX and Gephi is considered 'notable', but graph-tool isn't? executive_override (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re NetworkX and Gephi, Please see WP:WAX. Re the disputed source, the issue is not whether general speedups to Python are possible: the issue is whether those speedups apply to this specific piece of software. Citing a source that talks about speedups elsewhere, but then implying without sourcing that the same speedups apply to this code, is intellectually dishonest and a violation of WP:SYN. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note on this: The article has now been changed to reflect the source in a more unambiguous way: "This type of approach[1] can confer a level of performance which is comparable (both in memory usage and computation time) to that of a pure C++ library, which can be several orders of magnitude better than pure Python." It should be clearer now tha one is referring to a general approach. executive_override (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could be more explicit on your position on graph-tool vs NetworkX and Gephi, and so on. It would be relevant for the discussion. Regarding the speedups, the source does not address it in a specific case, but in a general one. It is therefore a relevant source, and the claim made in the article is very reasonable. If you require a specific _proof_ for graph-tool, the claim could be reworded instead of the source removed. I cannot provide evidence for the claim myself, since it would not be third-party.

Here is a couple of articles on graph-tool: http://nethedz.org/blog/2011/07/installing-graphtool-on-snowleopard, http://jugad2.blogspot.de/2013/01/graph-tool-python-module-for-graph.html, http://tech-foo.blogspot.de/2013/01/visualising-ubuntu-package-repository.html. Also, it is included in the macports repository http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/python/py-graph-tool/Portfile and freshports. executive_override (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I didn't actually have a position or opinion on NetworkX or Gephi until just now. Our article here on Gephi is written in a way that makes it look notable; our article on NetworkX is not. But I just checked Google scholar and both of them have quite high numbers of citations to their documentation (188 for NetworkX, 226 for Gephi). That's, potentially, as many as 188 or 226 independent and reliably-published sources on these systems, although I would guess that many of them don't cover them in much detail. I don't see anything at all there for Graph-tool. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • NetworkX is more popular than graph-tool, since it is much easier to install, being pure python (However, it is inadequate for high-performance computations, a gap which graph-tool fills). It also gathered more references, since they published papers describing the library, which make them citeable (and indexed by google scholar), whereas graph-tool is mostly informally used, and you don't have to cite if you use it. I've mentioned the references to graph-tool which I know of. If there is consensus that this does not qualify as 'notable', then go ahead and delete the page. I think it would be a pity, because it is an important element to the class of software which Wikipedia is aiming to document, since it includes NetworkX, Gephi and others. I would however like if the decision would be made by more than one single person. executive_override (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adding 'python' to the several searches generates very little relevant hits; relevant books are all Wikipedia reprints. Google News search draws a complete blank. Scholar results are mostly irrelevant with the possible exception of this paper, which contains text identical to the Wikipedia article, and notes that this software was used in some unrelated project. Bottom line is that nothing shows that this product has had significant effects on technology, history, or culture, or that it has any fame or notoriety beyond the community of Python programmers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page has now been updated with numerous references to graph-tool in scientific literature. executive_override (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi guys, I think you've been "misgoogling" this library. It happens often with terms generated from unspecific words connected by a hyphen, due to the way google interprets search input.

This search in google scholar returns 19 direct references to graph-tool in academic works. This is quite significant by comparison to the numbers provided above for gephi and networkx, given those two are easy-to-use packages intended for broader needs while graph-tool has both a more specific domain of excellence and is harder to put to use. (Also, though not really relevant, I searched by URI so all 19 are guaranteed to refer to this specific graph-tool, which I don't know is the case for the numbers mentioned for gephi or networkx.)

Sure, the article does beg for another citation in the text besides the one from scipy.org (which I judge pertinent as it states a universal fact about c++ code compared to pure python). The google scholar search I just provided might help with that. But I don't consider it a matter for deletion, not based on WP:GNG. I hope this helps settling this issue. =)

Cheers,

--Solstag (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Please note that I qualified that merge suggestion with or other appropriate article.
  2. I found that ref independently, rather than as a result of info posted elsewhere. It wasn't singled out.
Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think a merge proposal must contain an appropriate target in order to be meaningful. Could you provide a mother article in which this article could be inserted?
  2. The article has now been updated to contain 11 academic texts (journal articles and academic theses), all of which qualify as reliable and independent. executive_override (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll state my opinion for the record. The article has now references to many independent and reliable academic sources which allow it to pass WP:GNG, and as far as I can tell no remaining issues raised in the comments above were left unaddressed. DISCLAIMER: I have a vested interest in this article. I have created it, and I am the author of the software. executive_override (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further update: Now the article includes a reference to an explicit performance comparison between the library and other similar software. This should hopefully fully satisfy the objections raised above by David Eppstein. executive_override (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with at least some of Solstag's sources added to the article. Miniapolis 15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (The Mindy Project)[edit]

Pilot (The Mindy Project) (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 page doesn't have any information that is not covered in The Mindy Project. Babar Suhail (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. This seems to be almost CSD#A10, except that it was created last December. It's hardly a plausible redirect, and there's nothing worth merging. -- Trevj (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A brief synopsis of the episode would be nice, but even that wouldn't get it past WP:GNG. –TCN7JM 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Sinha[edit]

Sudeep Sinha (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 manager of a mall. Sources meerly mention him, giving no significant coverage. —teb728 t c 09:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article history shows this to be a twice-declined AfC on grounds of non-notability which was nonetheless then moved into mainspace, so has travelled to here. No evidence that this person's mall project management is sufficient to meet notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the various SPAs, consensus is clear  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies (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)

Self-published book by the prolific Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. One acknowledgement and two citations in the scholarly literature. Four sentences describing the book in an article in Inayatullah. New, renamed edition does not appear to be cited at all. Recommend delete or redirect to Sarkar bio article. GaramondLethe 07:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Seconded. It appears that this page uses the book itself as a reference to the book. For example, referencing (most likely) the book cover or the book description as a reliable source as for why the book is "different" than the previous edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpfunkz (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I stand by what I said during the first AfD nomination a bit over a month ago. I note that during that debate, one senior and independent editor also voted 'keep' with the expressed opinion that the article is "sufficiently referenced". --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article seems well written. We can improve the number of sources without deleting it.--Anta An (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete; fails the GNG for lack of substantial coverage by independent sources. As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet... bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: as already set in the recent/previous AfD nomination the article is "sufficiently referenced". The book, originally written in Bengali on 1957 with the name of Yaogik Cikitsa and after translated in English, has historical significance because it was one of the first books published by the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It also plays a particular relevance for the detailed explanation of using ancient and traditional indian herbal remedies, yogic Ásanas and Mudrás, water, proper diet, sunlight and air for the treatment of certain diseases.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Lacks substantial third party unbiased coverage to make it notable or important, so no need for a separate article. A mention about it in the main Sarkar article should suffice.--Zananiri (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why my Strong keep: I think that three quotations on specialized texts (two of which academics) are sufficient for notability as already set in the recent/previous AfD nomination. As you well know, :), this AfD has been suggested by the same user who has proposed for deletion dozens of articles on books by the same author. A single user proposing a few articles for deletion is allowed in WP but a single user involved almost always in erasing or censorship activities, hardly ever writing new articles, it's very deprecable from my point of view. This is a little suspicious don't you think so? If we want to go back to a new Dark Age, this is the best way.--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations still don't establish notability. "Deprecable" isn't the word you were looking for, but I rather like it. Censorship is the preserve of governments, not wikipedia. And two separate posts with your bolded vote looks like a clumsy attempt at ballot stuffing. Carry on. Garamond Lethet
    c     19:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)    [reply]
  • You can !vote only once. Your other comments should not be tweaked to look like a !vote. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our book guidelines and per lack of reliable sources. There seems to be a general precedent that while the author is somewhat notable, individual works are not (indeed, self-published books rarely are). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not self-published and notability is inherited in some cases: First, this book is not self-published. It is published in-house by an organization that the author founded, but that is not the equivalent of self-publishing (and it is a far cry from vanity publishing). Second, when an author is as historically significant as Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, books may inherit notability from the author, per Criterion 5 of WP:NB. Criterion 3 of WP:NB also applies here, with notability established due to the impact of this book on a significant religious movement, namely the religious movement founded by the author. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor's strong complaints:as editor of the article I expressed my strong complaints and various personal suspicions on the above user on this SPI page. Hoping for a serious intervention of an administrator. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody is using sockpuppets to vote "keep" on all the AfDs of articles that you wrote. Who would you suggest is the culprit? bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I follow your reasoning I can ask you: Who inserted all those AfD's and the "delete" on all these articles on P. R. Sarkar? I have my personal idea on that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly self-published:the author founded an organization to publish his works. That doesn't inherent make everything they publish by him automatically non-notable, but it does make them presumably non-notable unless there's very good evidence otherwise. The author is not famous enough to make everything he writes notable, as he is almost unknown except among the circle of his disciples. The only two religious writers of the last 100 years I'd accept as sufficiently notable for that and Ghandi and ML King, both of whom are famous internationally far beyond their own religious group. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

s \\\\\\\

  • Keep: Pardon me but Gandhi (correct spelling) and MLK,Jr. (who user DGG is seemingly referencing) are not the leaders of any religious groups. MLK Jr. while of course well known in the US, is hardly so outside its borders. As for the attempted character assassination of P.R. Sarkar by DGG, the organization was founded for the propagation of meditation and service having founded many schools, and a relief organization in which to help with these goals. The idea that P.R. Sarkar was limited exclusively to book selling is like saying Einstein was just doing some math. Regarding user Garamond's Lethe's SPI investigation above, pardon me but it is a questionable action considering WP policy of AGF. Mudslinging like this has no place in this discussion and falls under the category of methinks the lady doth protest too much. It just looks to me like Bob Raynor is Garmond Lethe's meat puppet (in this AFD and in Garamond Lethe's SPI). :) As this book has been sufficiently sourced, notability has been established. DezDeMonaaa (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC) — DezDeMonaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Garmond Lethe and bobraynor have extensive editing histories. On the other hand, you and at least four other accounts here were recently created and have almost immediately found their way into Sarkar-related Afds. Location (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Given that the book was published by an organization that the author founded, I agree with the line of thought that this is effectively self-published information. Location (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for the closing admin: I ask the closing admin to take a look at the table with all the AfDs and the "delete" inserted from users bobrayner, Garamond Lethe & Co. on all the articles related with Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar that I inserted at this SPI.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles you created got taken to Afd, and got lots of delete votes, because they fell short of wikipedia standards. Your content gets removed because it is poorly sourced. You got banned for editwarring because you were editwarring. When so many unrelated people disagree with you, maybe it's not a conspiracy... bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bobrayner, please this is not the right place for such a debate. If you have something to say defend yourself here where I inserted a table showing all your destructive attitudes. I remind you that the majority of the dozens of AfDs obsessively pointing on the same topic have been proposed by you and Garamond Lethe. As anyone can check in the table here many users that voted "delete" or "merge" in those AfDs are often or almost always the same. This is very suspicious to me. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious of what exactly? If a group fo articles are not notable and within the same topic area, it's not that surprising that the same editors comment. That's why we have deletion sorting after all. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 5 March 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, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translations: As we have been requested to go on discussing this for another week, perhaps I should mention that this book has been translated into many languages. It was originally published in Bengali as "Yaogik Cikitsa" and subsequently translated into other major Indian languages (like Hindi) as well as English. The English version (currently called "Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies") has been translated into various other languages, including Chinese (瑜伽療法與自然藥方) and Spanish (Tratamientos yóguicos y remedios naturales). --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither link works, but I did some googling and determined both translations are self-published (which is to say, they were printed by the publishing company Sarkar set up to publish his work). Garamond Lethet
    c     02:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks third party coverage. JK (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable book. Looks like few people are engaged in promoting Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and his works. Salih (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the article it states "Some of the herbal recipes included in the book are quoted on scientific journals", which is completely disingenuous. The Indian Journal of Biochemistry & Biophysics (low impact journal of unknown quality) cites the book with "It has been recommended [by ayurvedic practioners] that one teaspoonful of cardamom powder if taken with little honey twice a day is beneficial in high blood pressure and heart disease" [] is my insert, to provide the context, but the editor wrote the text to imply that it has scientific credibility. This appears to be the only source which is not directly connected to the topic, and it doesn't even mention the book except as a singel cite. Non-notable, and I also agree with Salih that it looks like people are trying to promote Sarkar. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indian J. Biochem Biophy is a source of variable quality, but even so, a mention there is not sufficient trto demonstrate notability . DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity (software)[edit]

Integrity (software) (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 reads like an advert. I've been trying to fix it, but many of the sections like "Requirements Management" are simply unsalvageable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is highly promotional. But worse, it seems like a duplicate of the MKS Integrity article. MKS Integrity is less promotional and has some secondary sources, such as the Forrester and CM crossroads refs, so I would recommend keeping the MKS Integrity article and deleting this one. It is not clear if there is anything useful to merge in from the present article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. Kenneth Lee[edit]

C. Kenneth Lee (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 failing WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NMUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, etc. This article was deleted in October on a prod. After the prod had expired, but before an admin had deleted the article, the article's creator, User:Dialogues88, who is probably WP:AUTO but most certainly WP:COI, vandalized the prod template. He also committed vandalism by blanking my user page [22]. After the deletion, the creator was warned not to recreate the article, but did so again in December, without adding anything new to indicate notability. For all of these reasons, I recommend a good salting of the article, and a permanent block on User:Dialogues88 for disruptive blanking and disruptive article recreation. Qworty (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Google Books and News archives hits in question all look like directory-type stuff. Salt it for good measure. I agree that the conduct of Dialogues88 has been unacceptable, but AfD isn't the venue to try and get him indef-blocked. CtP (t • c) 22:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woolley Moor United F.C.[edit]

Woolley Moor United F.C. (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:FOOTY, the team is not notable as it has not played at a high enough level of English football (i.e. level 10) nor has it played in the FA Cup or FA Vase. Initial PROD was contested at Wikipedia:REFUND#Woolley Moor United F.C. due to concerns that the club is notable as it is over 100 years old. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication this club meets notability guidelines, no indication it has been the subject of independent coverage. C679 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They are level 14 at the moment looks like they are going to be level 13 next season. [23]. However they must be FA registered club, [24] Otherwise I am unable to find any history know, very little to help. But as I rule I rather not delete non-league clubs! Govvy (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Consensus is that level 10 is the cut-off point as that is the level at which teams can enter the FA Cup. The fact that they could enter level 13 next year is therefore irrelevent, and even if level 13 were the cut-off point it would be WP:Crystal to keep the article. There are 970 clubs down to level 10, and some people argue that even that is too lenient. Down to level 13 is a further 2,500 clubs... It is very unusual for clubs this low down to pass WP:GNG. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard Shift (band)[edit]

Graveyard Shift (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)

Totally fails WP:MUSIC, having released 1½ records on two obscure labels. The provided references are completely underwhelming. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looked at all the sources. The second one, as far as I can tell, doesn't even prove they formed in 2001. The article was just published then. I can't say I'm too fond of the reference to another enwp article, either. Looking for news and books about this band doesn't work either, so I agree that it fails WP:MUSIC. –TCN7JM 01:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Numerous Google News searches including "Seattle", "psychobilly", "music" and their albums provided nothing relevant. It seems they never received an ounce of news attention and their most recent album was seven years ago. Additionally, they don't seem to have a website but there is a MySpace profile which hasn't been updated in nearly two years. Billboard doesn't have a profile for them which is not surprising and I haven't found any reviews even at Allmusic. It's likely this is another case of an abandoned band. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak (CSD A10). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nations most needs[edit]

Nations most needs (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)

Unencyclopedic WP: OR Essay Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's not an encyclopedia article at all, and can't be turned into one. LadyofShalott 00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is a hole in CSD. Not saying it's a tragedy that it exists, and it's been discussed to death, but it's still there. No CSD criteria applies to something like this, especially not the G1 that it was tagged with at the start. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be, I agree, but I don't think there is one. A1 probably comes the closest. I declined the G1 that was clearly not correct on this; an A1, I may have neither declined nor deleted, but left for some other admin to look at. LadyofShalott 01:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again? Knock yourself out, I'll come support you. But I wouldn't put much faith in it. Basically the argument is that this doesn't happen enough to justify changing CSD to the detriment of not deleting information that simply needs a bit of editing work. I would tend to agree, mostly. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:VAGUEWAVE. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A10 as a duplicate of Gun control and I have tagged accordingly. People tend to overlook A10, which is often an easy way of getting rid of crap like this. Safiel (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A10; long rant/WP:ESSAY and WP:OR. Editor also self-confessed they're under COPPA age, so we cannot use their contributions without the usual paperwork from parents. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Nixon. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nixonian[edit]

Nixonian (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)

"Nixonian" is not supported by any sources other than examples. If anything, it is a dictionary definition, not encyclopaedic. Pol098 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note - relisting malformed, but, IMO, worthwhile nomination --B (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - on a quick search, I can't find anyone actually defining the term as opposed to merely using it. "Reaganite" (the comparable term for Reagan) just redirects to Reagan himself. --B (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Rockefeller Republican, with which it strongly overlaps. I see that Nixon has been called a Rockefeller Republican, and so a Nixonian would be a flavor of a Rockefeller Republican. Seriously, these are loose, qualitative, generalizing characterizations that should be treated collectively, not in splinters. As it is verifiable, it should not be deleted, but does not warrant a standalone page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be totally incorrect. Calling someone "Nixonian" and calling someone a "Rockefeller Republican" are completely different things. See here. Neutralitytalk 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Rockefeller Republicans" were a concrete group of people in a specific time and place. This would be analogous to a page called Rockefellerian — which would also be unencyclopedic. If there is any redirect to be left here, it should be to Richard Nixon. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Nixon, or transfer to Wiktionary; here and here are good references. Neutralitytalk 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Nixon. It doesn't provide sufficient sources to prove that Nixonian refers to a distinct policy position: particularly in the article lead, the word seems to refer to almost any attribute of Nixon. A lot of the article seems a bit POV-ish attempting to construct a view of Nixon that isn't mainstream or conventional. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Encyclopedias are filled with nouns: people, places, and things. This is an adjective, as well as being a neologism, and thus what we have here is a dictionary definition. Etymology can be fun, but this is not Wiktionary, eh? Carrite (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Colapeninsula, where some sourced discussion of the term might ultimately be included in the "Legacy" or " Personality and public image" sections. "Nixonian" is a well-used term but it means different things to different people--not surprising given Nixon's extremely complex personality and record--and ultimately its only clear meaning is "similar to Nixon" (in the opinion of the user). So any encyclopedic discussion of what it means just ends up being a discussion of Nixon and his perceived qualities and legacy, and that belongs in the article about him.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; found multiple usages of the word, but none that give significant coverage to the subject in reliable sources where the subject (the adjective) is the primary subject of the source. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, deletion appears to be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Nixon. I agree almost completely with RightCowLeftCoast; there is not significant coverage of the term itself, and so it should likely be deleted. But, that said, it is a term and people do use it and I expect some will search for it, so redirecting to Nixon seems reasonable as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octavia Airlines[edit]

Octavia Airlines (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 company fails WP:CORP entirely. There just is not any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources to be found. Obviously, this (now defunct) airline did not leave a significant impact behind, so it is inherently non-notable. FoxyOrange (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The suggestion that there is 'no impact left = non-notable' forgets that notability is not temporary. However this appears to have never been notable in the first place; the presumption that scheduled airline = notability does not apply here as it was a charter outfit. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves At The Gate (band)[edit]

Wolves At The Gate (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)

Only released one EP and a studio album on an EMI imprint. Neither have charted. One charted on minor charts. Maybe in a few years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard charts Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They had an album that reached number 7 in the Billboard Christian Album chart. I have no idea how significant that chart is but for some that may be enough to be considered notable. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look for some RS sources, maybe it can be saved under criteria 2 of WP:BAND?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Trends show that Wolves At The Gate is growing in popularity, and they are signed to a decent label (Solid State Records). I must protest that we keep the page around. TubbyCat (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother)[edit]

The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother) (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 independent outside significant coverage. References used and sources exist are ratings sites. Curb Chain (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless independent verification of contents is provided. Kabirat (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep individual pages for episodes are sorely lacking and regardless of some peoples' dislike of them they provide information which simply cannot be found in other places. Syko Conor (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying to keep it because you like it?Curb Chain (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectoids[edit]

Disrespectoids (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 commercial content Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The only source I found was a promotional article, probably generated from a press release or a paid advertorial. - MrX 05:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines. No hits in Google Books, only one hit in Google News Archive, to a promotional site ([25]). Northamerica1000(talk) 21:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Non-notable advertising campaign. –TCN7JM 15:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaq Ahmed Shareef[edit]

Ashfaq Ahmed Shareef (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)

Only sourced to routine press coverage of the election to the head of the local students union, does not receive significant coverage. LGA talkedits 05:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He does not pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I am a bit hesitant only because of the available RS about his election; other than this, however, no other reliable info on the subject can be found. dci | TALK 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qeelin[edit]

Qeelin (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)

Although it the recent purchase of this company is discussed in a couple or reliable sources it doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPANY notability. I am One of Many (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep/comment As the article stands it is blatant WP:PROMO and direct WP:COPYVIO from http://www.qeelin.fr/site/swf/base.swf - but there are lots of sources on Google News in Chinese and French which don't all look like ads/promotional stuff, though I can't read Chinese and don't really understand French enough. I also see several published sources in Google Books, such as 1, 2, 3, a long section of French prose on Qeelin here, more French here, and another in Russian here. That's quite a bit of international published coverage for this company, which is why I am leaning keep, despite the immediate reaction to delete it as copyvio/promo. Mabalu (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Topic is probably notable because WSJ and Reuters have both bothered to run stories about it. I've cut out most of the article and rewritten the first paragraph to remove all the copyvios. Deryck C. 00:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Missoni Kuwait[edit]

Hotel Missoni Kuwait (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)

not notable Tentinator (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete - Sources found in searches are minimal in availability and depth of coverage. Two found were [26] and [27]. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've looked for independent RS sources of the quantity and depth that we seek to support a notability finding, and cannot find them. Though it certainly does exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  13:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Ryan Green[edit]

Brent Ryan Green (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 meet notability guidelines for inclusion into Wikipedia Kaihoku (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - sorry, the case is not clear-cut. I would be happier to vote for deletion if it were not that several of his individual films also have articles. Deb (talk) 14:09, 3 March 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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_1&oldid=1142631517"