Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 March	28 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Jae-Suk[edit]

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

He's a retired MMA fighter who had 1 top tier fight, a loss, so he fails WP:NMMA. He also doesn't seem to have the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one top tier fight, so he fails WP:NMMA, and I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked. Note as well, he had a history of recent sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Astudent0 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remains 2 top tier fights shy of meeting WP:NMMA. No other WP:SIGCOV to suggest notability beyond his record. Mkdw ^talk 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Bollinger[edit]

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

With only 1 top tier fight he fails WP:NMMA. There is no significant coverage of him, except for an article that ranks him #9 on a list of featherweight prospects (not sure if the source is reliable). That's the problem--the article appears to be WP:TOOSOON. He's young so he may well get the fights he needs to pass WP:NMMA, but right now that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one top tier fight, so he fails WP:NMMA, and I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remains 2 top tier fights shy of meeting WP:NMMA. No other WP:SIGCOV to suggest notability beyond his record. Mkdw ^talk 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted A7 by Secret (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhal Hammami[edit]

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

Violating his rights. Nino995 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Nidhal Hammami[reply]

Delete I have no idea what Nino995 is up to with this hot mess. He created the article, and then he nominated it for deletion. In any case, it is clearly a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (and so tagged). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 27 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) 10:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phase lag (rotorcraft)[edit]

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

Unfortunately the author has got entirely the wrong idea as to why the control inputs to rotor swash-plates are 90° out of phase. Best to start again WITH a clue. Petebutt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 27. Snotbot t • c » 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's a valid topic, but is wrong, fixing the article is preferable to deleting. WP:SOFIXIT Roodog2k (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of secondary references describing phase lag and rewrote the article from those references. It is shorter, but hopefully on a more solid basis. In my search for references, phase lag looks to be a notable topic and it is an effect to be accounted for in all modern helicopters. A notable topic, per WP:GNG and an article with surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests that the article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The version nominated for deletion did have issues but the subject does appear to be notable, having multiple third-party sources showing notability. The issues with the article seemed to have been solved by Mark viking's rewrite, but even without the rewrite, the issues with the article were those that could be solved without needing deletion. - Sudo Ghost 12:11, 28 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) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salauddin Ahmed[edit]

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

Notability not established, and I couldn't find any major award, built project or publication about this architect. There is an interview [1] which attests existence, but not notability. The article already once created by the same editor has been deleted as copyvio in 2011. ELEKHH^T 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 20:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 20:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable to me. Interviewed by major sources here and here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The mentioned buildings would probably be notable for articles too. In ictu oculi (talk)
Keep - he won a major award, and the article has reliable sources. Past copyvio has not been a bullet the the heart of a resurrected article (pardon the bad mixed metaphor). Bearian (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local awards by the paints industry fail to convince me that represent a "major" recognition in architecture, but anyway, seeing that every football player on Earth has a Wikipedia article, I'm giving up caring about any standard of notability. --ELEKHH^T 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is local about the awards? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socio-geographic scope. --ELEKHH^T 03:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are national awards in the world's eighth most populous country. Hardly local. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, but the award doesn't seem to be for vernacular architecture, so the potential competitors are not the whole population but merely its apparently 1,700 architects, and is not clear from the references how broad participation is. The news reports which serve as reference of notability are merely truncated versions of the press-releases. Anyway, given the improvements to the article since this AfD has been initiated, at least I could identify one of his projects, so finally the article starts to kind of give some useful information. As said above, since every active football player already has an article, is only fair to create one for every active architect. It also helps Wikipedia grow, even if not in quality.--ELEKHH^T 08:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was tagged for speedy deletion, procedurally closing AfD as totally unnecessary. Safiel (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lunaticiocity[edit]

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

Nkansahrexford (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this is a neologism as far as I can tell. PK T(alk) 20:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This one is so obvious, I am going to go ahead and close this AfD. Google search returns only the Wikipedia article page and one Wikipedia user page. Tagged for CSD G3. Safiel (talk) 20:47, 27 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. No policy based arguments from those wishing to merge as to why a large chunk of in-universe text should be merged into the main article. I am willing to WP:Userfy for anyone who really thinks there is something worth retrieving here. Spinning Spark 14:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Harris[edit]

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

This biography of a minor television character is written in a completely in-universe style with no third-party sources to prove notability. A biography of this character of sufficient length and detail can be included in the main article on the series. There is no reason this character needs or deserves a separate article. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of other fictional characters from the same clearly notable television series, with no prejudice against an article split-out once individual notability for this character is demonstrated. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such article; all the cast members, both regular and recurring, are discussed in the main article. This should be deleted and redirected there. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposed merge. Create such an article, and merge these into it. bd2412 T 22:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for such an article. All of the cast is dealt with in the main article for the show. Why create an article which is unnecessary? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article. Editing to reduce excessive detail wouldn't be a bad idea, especially as some is likely to be already in the main article. Creating a separate article for cast members is unnecessary and risks ending up as a cruft-dump. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to a List of Homicide characters article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge or redirect: this character is not mentioned on the Homicide: Life on the Street, is he a major enough character to merge this to that page? I suspect not. This is probably only appropriate for a Wikia specific for that program or genre of programs. J04n(talk page) 10:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor character hardly even notable in the show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Homicide: Life on the Street#Recurring cast members, where the character is already mentioned, without any prejudice against either expanding this section of the main article, adding more details, or creating a dedicated article on the minor characters as suggested below, or splitting this article back as a separate one once the character gains encyclopedic notability, which is at the moment, as the discussion demonstrates, not sufficient to keep a separate article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Barnfather[edit]

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

This biography of a minor television character is written in a completely in-universe style with no third-party sources to prove notability. A biography of this character of sufficient length and detail can be included in the main article on the series. There is no reason this character needs or deserves a separate article. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of other fictional characters from the same clearly notable television series, with no prejudice against an article split-out once individual notability for this character is demonstrated. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such article; all the cast members, both regular and recurring, are discussed in the main article. This should be deleted and redirected there. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposed merge. Why not create such an article, then? bd2412 T 22:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for such an article. All of the cast is dealt with in the main article for the show. Why create an article which is unnecessary? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cast is listed, which is hardly the same as providing the level of information in these articles. bd2412 T 02:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What level of information are you talking about? The level of information in these separate articles amounts to nothing more than a rehash of in-universe episode information. And these are minor characters, by the way. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have many such articles - see Category:Lists of minor fictional characters. As for the "level of information", suppose a reader is indeed interested in this character? Should they have to read through the whole collection of episode pages to glean that information from the episodes where the character appears? bd2412 T 03:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article; edit for length and detail to avoid inevitable repetition. Plutonium27 (talk)
Keep or merge into a List of Homicide characters article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homicide: Life on the Street#Recurring cast members, this is not a major character I see no reason to merge this into the page. He is listed among the recurring characters so a redirect to that section seems appropriate. To support merging to a not yet created page listing a program's recurring characters seems premature but if someone was willing to start such a page I would support userfying this and similar pages to them. J04n(talk page) 10:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability for this character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Prince Mannathoor[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY not asserted or established. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. St Anselm (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not even asserted. No reliable source coverage found in search. Article is mostly ~~searched~~ sourced from a church blog. Other sourcing is equally unreliable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not supported by reliable sources. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC,but a copy must be placed in the article creators sandbox as he can improve on it.Uncletomwood (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nothing notable about his career. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Per above; fails WP:BIO. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:04, 31 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 a1, very short article with insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLeaf (PC game)[edit]

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

Non-notable PC game, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL Revolution1221 (talk) 19:05, 27 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) 10:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Review[edit]

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

This is just a list of news services named "Independent Review". It's not a disambiguation page, because none of the listed entries are notable enough for an article, so it doesn't serve any kind of purpose. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a disambiguation page with no valid articles, but if the article(s) get created in the future, I'm not prejudiced against recreation of it. ^King Jakob _C2 22:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unqualified to be a disambiguation page due to lack of valid articles, unqualified to be an article as it clearly fails WP:GNG. Per King Jakob, no prejudice against recreation if related articles surface in the future.--JayJasper (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not suitable as an article or a DAB page. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ASSAR[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria per WP:ORG and WP:GNG -- and includes WP:HOAX material. It appears to be only one person's website (built by the article's creator), all text is sourced to and copied from that single website, and a search found no independent reliable sources. Furthermore, the creator tries to pass off online sources which are entirely unrelated to topic but merely share the name "Assar" (for example, a paper by Ahmed N. Assar, an exhibit by the Assar Art Gallery in Iran, a book by the Assar Architect Group of Brussels, etc.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization Not eligible for discussion in list of Organizations-related deletion discussions because its not an organisation as per the findings of its base research and until & unless its categorised in India & Asia, we should wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:ORG and more likely a promotion. Most references are WP:Primary. Dejakh~talk!•Contributions/Dejakh 19:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete It definitely sounds like promotion but promotion of 'Humanity' and if Wikipedia is defined as a voluntary association of humanitarians working to develop a common resource of human knowledge, there is no point of deleting such valuable article WP:NPOV that showing a way to prevent Human Rights in ASIA by people itself. Instead of depending on secondary sources Wikipedians who are knowledgeable enough to challenge, discuss, elaborate, suggest improvements to bring in on Wikipedia standards. Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)— Asian-Social-Editor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck comment from sock of Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete copyright issues and not fit to be on Wikipedia Uncletomwood (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncletomwood, I see that the source website states its material is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL which means there is no copyright issue and doesn't qualify for G12 speedy deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a promotional crap with no reliable sources. Salih (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dislike WP:IDL as it looks promotional may not suffice the ground for deletion but such notable subject must be given a chance WP:CHANCE Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not Eligible for Speedy Delete Agreed with CactusWriter contents on source website are under Sharealike 3.0 Unported License CC-BY-SA 3.0 and free from copyright issues and can be used anywhere without consent. I tried searching independent media materials about ASSAR's founder and have included some articles published in local media as reference.Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Struck comment from sock of Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Critical Issues with this article is this that it is being written on a research done by a Human Right's Defender & RTI Activist from Asia and attacks on HRD & RTI Activists in Asia is very frequent and they are grass root protectors of human rights but often they often act alone, moved by anger at corruption and other illegal activities without coming in media notice due to their security reasons. They receive media attention only when killed or seriously injured. According to Secondary or tertiary sources on Wikipedia itself more than 143 HRD & RTI activists were killed & assaulted in India only in last 6 years which makes it obvious that such activist prefer no publicity of their work in local media & tertiary sources.Attacks on RTI activists in India Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Struck comment from sock of Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Secondary or tertiary sources citation issue of this article is attracting critics because the nature of research done is not categorised as of now in Asia which has been adequately explained in its para Criticism. Please read this again before taking a biased decision to delete it. It looks like WP:OR Original research written in form of WP:NOT PAPER may appear like promotion without Secondary or tertiary but its promoting a cause WP:PROMOTION of Human Knowledge and values related to Human Rights not promoting any person or organisation. Asian-Social-Editor (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Struck comment from sock of Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Deletion of unrelated references has been practised as suggested by (talk) but not justified to includes WP:HOAX material because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day as ASSAR was not created in one day also. However during the years of its research it was not available on line but after completion in 2012 it shown up as a programme of humanitarians which meets eligibility under Wikipedia:Notability category and sub category Wikipedia:Notability (web)Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Not eligible for delete under WP:ORG as its never been about an organisation. While it should not be deleted because its meets eligibility of WP:CREATIVE as the people developing this article & programme have to be creative and Secondary or tertiary sources are coming from other editors also there are strong possibilities that more Secondary or tertiary references will come in future as it develops therefore it deserves to be given a chance under eligibly of WP:CHANCE. Tagging it for speedy deletion is like putting a deadline WP:DEADLINE and deleting it in lack of references cited as of now is like killing an notable effort WP:DEMOLISH. There are notable references yet to come from countries like Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, India & Afghanistan where media is little influenced and controlled.Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Poorly Written may be a justified tag WP:UGLY for this article but not a ground for deletion. Experienced senior contributes can improve its formatting and alinement's to look more appropriate.Abhijeet Sinha Sinha (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck multiple KEEP opinions by two user accounts above. I am also struck by the similarity of their formatting and interest in this article. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most references are primary sources, therefore also fails WP:WEBCRIT. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability, and Wikipedia is not a webhost, or soapbox either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Drinks (vegetables)[edit]

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

This is utter nonsense pseudo-scientific garbage based on woefully inadequate sources. Apparently it helps oxygenate the body. I think most people manage to get most of their oxygen from the air they breathe. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are mainly blogs, recipes, promotional sites and other poor quality soources. The claims are not based on scientific facts, but pseudo scientific claims made on these pages. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge to Vegetable juice - Why this article has to be viewed from scientific perception? This is a kind of recipe that is increasingly becoming popular. This article can fall under the categories of Fruit juice or Milkshake etc. I've put citation from [2], [3] and [4] which are reliable sources. —- Voidz (t·c) 10:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see how this topic differs from that of the existing Vegetable juice article. Anything in it (including the term "green drinks") that can be attributed to reliable sources can be merged there. No need for duplication. Deor (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that separates this information from vegetable juice is that all of them are green in color. "Green drinks" don't exist as a separate, widespread, recognizable, significantly covered cultural phenomenon. And just about the only content that could be merged to Vegetable juice is the ingredients mentioned. Individual recipes don't belong (Wikipedia is not a how-to guide), and the health claims are not supported by reliable sources. Ibadibam (talk) 16:09, 29 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) 10:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Dead Hand[edit]

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

According to WP:NSONG: "Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position." IronKnuckle (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator seems to be at issue with content, not notability of topic. Sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The coverage of this is at best routine and tied completely to the actor's notability; there is no indication that this has or will have any impact in any policy debate about gun control or anything else. There is already a paragraph in the Carrey bio, and that is more than enough in my opinion. Notability is not inherited. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:NSONG can be interpreted to read this way; the statements you are making hold true for most singles. Impact on "policy debate" has never been criteria for inclusion, nor should the notability of the musician exclude the single simply by association. There is an immense amount of shallow coverage and a significant amount of significant coverage. Surely this piece in the Daily Mail isn't focused solely on Carrey and his whacky beliefs/humor.
Besides, you seem to be misreading WP:INHERITED "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Nobody is arguing that this article should be kept only because the singer is notable, which is the point of the guideline you linked to. This is an argument against "There is no coverage, but he's famous, so we need an article." The song has significant coverage in articles that are about the song itself, which is WP:GNG. Some journalists wrote about the song because of the singer, but that does not violate our policies, and has nothing to do with WP:INHERITED. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't even look at WP:NSONGS. I was looking at it from a general notability perspective, and WP:NOTINHERITED. The question here is why this is receiving coverage: Is it because of the video itself, or is it the association by Carrey? Obviously it's the latter. Thus, it merits a paragraph in his bio, not a standalone article (and obviously no prejudice to expanding to article if it actually turns out to be a big deal). I would have recommended a redirect in lieu of delete, but the title isn't a plausible search term and the article is too new. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, but that argument isn't supported by guidelines and doesn't pan-out. How can we prove that any song by any famous artist became notable solely on its own merits and not because of the artist? We can't, we can only show that it is notable. We can't prove the song wouldn't have sparked outrage if Carrey weren't involved, remember that his backing band was The Eels, and gun culture is a hot-button topic right now. I agree that notability is not inherited, but it is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is what this song has received. No matter why it has received this coverage, no matter the nature of the coverage (apparently Fox News has spent a week lambasting Carrey and this song[5][6][7]), it is still significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for those links. I think it's obvious that this has gone beyond just the latest famous person's little side project, so I have no problem with reversing my !vote to Keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Carrey article. It's telling that all the sources are referring quite directly to Carrey when discussing the song. The song is really only notable because he's the one behind it, and we ought to merge any useful material into the main Carrey article. Ducknish (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The material (such as it is) is already there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic is notable and can significantly be improved. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have numerous articles about popular songs. The widespread continuing coverage is sufficient to establish notability. I agree it may not have received coverage had the artist not been famous, it does not detract from the notability. Agree also with JohnnyMrNinja that OR and POV in how an article is written is not sufficient reason to delete, if those problems can be corrected. TFD (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic which can be expanded upon utilizing secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nom --IronKnuckle -- is now indef blocked.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Made-for-TV movies that no one has ever heard of get unique pages, so do songs much more obscure than this; it's not like this is some shocking new contradiction to the rules. Master Deusoma (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that the nom is indef blocked, and the other !votes, I would think this could be snow closed at any point.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alsbridge[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Despite many references, almost all appear to be verbatim reproductions of press releases and the rest are directory listings and own web-site. I can see no notability by third party reliable sources here. Fails WP:CORP again at the second time of creation. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little has changed since that last AFD a few months ago. There are insufficient independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Peacock (talk) 22:59, 27 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) 10:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keranique[edit]

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

Seems to be promotion by single-purpose account; WP:NOTABILITY not established; prod removed by creator Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. Search of Google News Archive found a few press releases. Search of PubMed found nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half the "sources" don't actually support the claims in the article, and independent sources are few and brief. Wikipedia is not a directory listing for every cosmetic product that gets mentioned on some TV show. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 28 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) 10:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phase lag (rotorcraft)[edit]

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

Unfortunately the author has got entirely the wrong idea as to why the control inputs to rotor swash-plates are 90° out of phase. Best to start again WITH a clue. Petebutt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 27. Snotbot t • c » 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's a valid topic, but is wrong, fixing the article is preferable to deleting. WP:SOFIXIT Roodog2k (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of secondary references describing phase lag and rewrote the article from those references. It is shorter, but hopefully on a more solid basis. In my search for references, phase lag looks to be a notable topic and it is an effect to be accounted for in all modern helicopters. A notable topic, per WP:GNG and an article with surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests that the article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The version nominated for deletion did have issues but the subject does appear to be notable, having multiple third-party sources showing notability. The issues with the article seemed to have been solved by Mark viking's rewrite, but even without the rewrite, the issues with the article were those that could be solved without needing deletion. - Sudo Ghost 12:11, 28 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. L Faraone 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She Dick[edit]

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

Burnberrytree had some technical problems when nominating this article for deletion. I found this posted on the notability noticeboard by Burnberrytree:

I don't know how to re-nominate the band She Dick for deletion. Although the former result from years ago is keep, the sources presented for notability only come from local papers where the band is based (Dallas). The band has not charted, has no reviews, has no awards, and is an "orphan."

prior AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/She_Dick —rybec 08:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the administrators: it might be appropriate to let this run until the 19th. I didn't put the proper headers on this page until 01:50, 12 March. —rybec 23:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to agree with Cirt here, but almost all that coverage is from July 2007--I don't see more than a flash in the pan, a 1E kind of blimp, so right now I'm leaning delete. The first AfD leaned keep, but only by a hair; if there is nothing further than we should conclude that this is not in fact notable. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But just barely. Subject meets at least two criteria in WP:BAND, article has multiple sources (albeit only local) that meet WP:RS. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Uncle M. Secondary source coverage has only improved (mainly from New York publications since 2009, e.g. [8]). Needs expansion/adoption. – SJ + 05:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely notable doesn't cut it here if we are dealing with topics like BLPs and Bands, the only reliable sourcing I have seen is from the local news media in a one month area, easily fails WP:GNG as that isn't considered to be significant, independent coverage of the band, it needs more sourcing outside Dallas and a concert performance video (albit from Brooklyn but still....) Secret ^account 21:14, 26 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per WP:BAND I'll give the group some leeway, they have at least a reasonable degree of notability. Ducknish (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails criteria of WP:BAND, and I don't consider those mentions in local blogs/the Dallas Voice substantive coverage, they read like promo material. Hekerui (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gigantour. Spinning Spark 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantour (album)[edit]

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

does not meet notability guidelines Wolfinruins (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 20. Snotbot t • c » 05:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable live album, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album is integral part of the discography of nine bands, including superstars like Megadeth, Anthrax and Dream Theatre. It should be expanded with details of the tour, not deleted. Lewismaster (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Gigantour page (which is rather weak in itself). Perhaps the tracklisting and other relevant information could be worked into that section and then the overall article cleaned up? I don't see how a few live tracks on a tour compilation could be integral to the discography of Megadeth (or most of the other bands featured on the compilation). Mustaine probably isn't even aware of its existence, given the amount of time that he spends surfing Infowars.net and watching 700 Club reruns.Wolfinruins (talk) 05:21, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 27 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gigantour and be done with it. J04n(talk page) 10:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ewan Dobson. J04n(talk page) 10:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Army Love Potion[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable musical recording. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ewan Dobson. No coverage found in reliable sources for this release; plausible search term. Gong show 21:46, 20 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 27 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ewan Dobson. A non-notable album, and no content to preserve apart from track listing (which I'm not convinced we need, and isn't referenced to a reliable source). Whether Ewan Dobson is notable is another question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebound therapy[edit]

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

This article reads like promotional literature and is not reliably sourced. Worse the notability of the topic is highly questionable. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I support deletion of this article. I could be convinced otherwise only if a properly sourced version were to replace this one. The current version relies inordinately upon an obviously biased site (http://www.reboundtherapy.org) and the primary author of this page is affiliated with that site. (He is a Course Tutor and Consultant at Rebound Therapy UK, the organisation sponsoring this advertisement.)

Comment - There are better versions in the history, those that Paul V Kaye didn't edit and an IP editor had changed it to. They are more general articles rather than dealing with the focused commercial trademark program that the article is currently showing, which is also probably a mass of copyright violations at the same time. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CT for your comment. If there is a better version can we revert to it? In the meantime, I am still in support of deletion. This is because of the reasons stated above as well as the fact that the name is currently the topic of a legal dispute in the UK (apparently--I read this here on a WP talk page and have not read any news accounts or other supporting sources). If it turns out that the lower-case "rebound therapy" tag is found to be the IP of Rebound Therapy UK then we will have to delete or rename the page to avoid a copyright violation. Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam. Trash. Deep-six it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be sufficient independent sources to indicate notability. Peacock (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like spam, sounds like spam. Must be spam. I see nothing indicating notability Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear advertising on behalf of Paul V Kaye. – Richard BB 12:09, 28 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) 10:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sensafloat[edit]

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

This article reads like a sales brochure and is of questionable notability. Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claim of notability is the "CBI / Toshiba Invention of the Year" award, but I can find nothing of note about it, and most Google hits searching for this award are Sensafloat-related promotional pages. This product does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the editor who submitted this for deletion I of course support deletion.
Delete - sales page for non-notable product. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Nothing about this 'invention of the year' award other than promo stuff from sensafloat as far as I can see. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:50, 28 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. L Faraone 03:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Z. Ekelund[edit]

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

Article was requested for speedy deleted in April 2012, but this was declined by User:WereSpielChequers, with the rationale "I'm not convinced this would survive AFD, but I don't see this as meeting speedy deletion criteria". Nominated for PROD in February 2013, but this was declined because it was nominated for BLPPROD in May 2010. The PROD-rationale was "No indication of notability, fails the general notability guideline" which is still valid as the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable source. See also Talk:Bjørn Z. Ekelund for comments from April 2012. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant sources independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment A prior BLPPROD is not a reason to decline a PROD. See Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion which says: "The prod blp/dated tag may not be removed until such a source is added, and if none is forthcoming within ten days the article may be deleted. This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed." AllyD (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is this paragraph biography in a book to which the subject is one of many contributors, but I am not finding enough to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look further - his team methodology appears to have been cited and used in at least one other study: Positive Factors at Work Page 45 2008 "TSS was originally developed by Bjørn Ekelund (Human Factors AS, Norway) as a tool for assessing cross-sectional teams in coaching processes. In the present study, TSS was used as a standard questionnaire measurement. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry[edit]

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

Whole page is a plot summary, delete as per WP:PLOT elphantsandbacon ^{Care to talk?} 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is but a few hours old. It needs improvement as the nominator states, but I don't see that as a valid reason for a nomination here. This certainly seems to be a notable novel, top 12 finalist for the 2012 Man Booker Prize, bestselling hardcover book from a new author in the UK for 2012, widespread critical attention, etc. With some work, I am sure we can all agree the AfD can be truncated.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York times gives it a complete review. [9] So does the Washington Post [10], among many others. [11] Dream Focus 03:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Major additions and minor edits have been made. No need to delete. Roger1uk (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improvements and inline references mean that this article is shown to be notable and well documented. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:48, 28 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. This was a difficult close, so I'll explain my rationale. The crux of the debate comes down to whether appearing on the Gaon singles chart is enough to provide notability for a song, given the chart's unusual way of dealing with albums (specifically, WP:NSONG #2). This is particularly tricky as that specific criterion is currently under discussion.

In crude numerical terms, we have 7 people supporting the use of Gaon in this situation, and 4 opposing it; a majority, but not a large one. The arguments to keep the article propose that we should take NSONG#4 at face value and accept the Gaon chart as enough to provide notability. This is supplemented with sources which contain minor references to the song, or references which discuss each song on the album individually. The delete votes question the extent to which these sources can establish notability and argue that Gaon should be treated differently because it handles albums in a differen tway, making it easy for songs on a charting album to chart individually.

The delete votes win the argument about sources: they adequately show that the current sources are not sufficient to establish notability. Regardless, the strength of the keep votes is in their interpretation of NSONG#2. Both sides offer strong, policy-based arguments, so that debate seems to end up pretty even. The result of the debate about the chart will determine the result of this AfD: if Gaon counts, the article should be kept; if it does not, it should be deleted. The relative equality (both in terms of numbers and arguments offered) leaves me no option but to close this as no consensus. Because there is an ongoing discussion about NSONG#2, it would be wise to revisit this article when that discussion has concluded.. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lengthy rationale and this might be contentious; I'm happy for people to leave me questions at my talk page (you might not get a reply until tomorrow, though). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Never Lied[edit]

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

I was reviewing this for GA and when checking the references I noticed that the song isn't the subject of any of them. The subject of the articles is the album that this song appeared on, not the song itself. Below is my analysis of the refs.

Unless I am mistaken, the Gaon Chart lists songs indivdually when purchased in an album. The album charted at #4 and this is the fifth song on the album. This song was not released as a single, so the song didn't chart independently of the album and notability is not inherited.

I don't believe this song is notable, it appears that it's being masked by lots of references, but unfortunately none of them are good enough (in my opinion). James086 ^Talk 14:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is info about the song specifically, and it did chart. Wikipedia is about building an Encyclopaedia of information. — AARON • ^TALK 15:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Agree with Aaron above, there is no need of having separate online reviews for the specific song, the album reviews are fine to be used. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the subject of those reviews, as required by WP:NSONG to prove notability. It explicitly says "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single," which is the case here. I'm not suggesting that the comments about the song are invalid for inclusion in the article, I'm saying that they aren't enough to prove notability. James086 ^Talk 17:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: Tomica is the primary author of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no. Album reviews confer notability to the album. To meet the WP:GNG you need song specific reviews or at the very least album reviews that have a large focus on the song in question. Charting is just a presumption that these sources exist, when they come here you need to produce those sources. AIRcorn (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not even singles get that many reviews now, so that's a weak point to make. — AARON • ^TALK 23:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then those singles probably won't meet the GNG either. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so according to you we should delete all the singles that were not reviewed separately from the album hm? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What singles? I still don't see how this is relevant to this discussion? If they have coverage in sources then they would be fine, if they don't then they run the risk of being nominated for deletion. AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song didn't chart as part of the album, that is not possible. It charted due to individual sales, meaning that people bought that song specifically, not just the album as a whole. The song charted very high on a national chart and while there isn't any article discussing the song in great detail (not many song articles have this, mind you, sometimes not even singles), I believe that there is enough information here to establish some sort of notability that is alright with me. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom and Aircorn. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Aircorn. I'm skeptical of the sales = notability argument; I'd prefer some reliable sources giving significant coverage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a requirement at GNG for songs to have charted. It doesn't matter if they chart or not. So there is no argument here. — AARON • ^TALK 16:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In three years I've seen the same nominations over and over again, the only thing that changes is the song (or in some cases "it never charted" but it has coverage like D.S. or Speechless). If the problem is WP:NSONGS, go and change NSONGS. What would happen if the fictional song "The Song" charts in 10 countries, but all of them in low positions, e.g. UK 190, US 120, Fra 99, Spa 95, Can 98, etc., and it received multiple album reviews and one or two independent reviews, and that's it. Should we discuss if it is notable? It charted, and as long as it is a requeriment to creation, it must be respected. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it received one or two independent reviews then it would most likely meet the WP:GNG (assuming they were reliable etc) so notability would not be a problem. Charting should not automatically guarantee notability, it should just mean that it is likely sources exist that cover the song in depth. Everyone seems to miss the "may" part of "Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the relevant subject specific guideline just fine. WP:NSONG 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, Dream Focus 07:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No independent reviews of the song, just brief mentions in album reviews, and its only charting is entirely dependent on South Korea's combining of album and song sales on its chart: 18 of Gaon's top 28 singles in its debut week were the 18 tracks from the deluxe version of Overexposed, including the remixes. In my opinion, this chart by itself is not evidence of notability for a song from an album. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per meeting criterion 2 of WP:NSONG. I have trouble justifying the deletion of a well written, well sourced, non-spammy page. If this was a 3-liner I wouldn't consider the listing on the South Korea Gaon International Chart to be enough for a stand-alone page and would recommend a redirect or merge, but there is good stuff on this page and it's not like Overexposed (album) needs to be expanded. So that is the thinking behind my opinion. J04n(talk page) 10:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, all songs on an album could be made into articles if the album got enough attention so that each song was given snippet mentions in reviews and "about the album" articles. (This is one of seven song articles so far from an album of twelve songs; there's also an eighth article on a deluxe track.) It actually happens sometimes—every song from Christina Aguilera's latest album had an article before AfDs reduced the number—but just because an article can be written with some "good stuff" doesn't establish notability for that particular song. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough information to write an article about, then it should have an article. If not then a merger would most likely take place. Notability has been established by the subject specific guideline created for this sort of thing. Dream Focus 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is case of a song "falling through the gaps" in NSONG. This song only charted as part of the album. It was not released as a single. Using the same notability criterion, every track on every album that enters the GAON chart meets the standard for inclusion such as "Intro" or "Credits". Surely you see the folly of this logic? James086 ^Talk 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it charted on the single's chart. That's mentioned in the lead of the article. Dream Focus 21:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, it wasn't released as a single. James086 ^Talk 21:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads "the song peaked at number nine on the singles chart in South Korea with sales of 31,977 digital copies." Direct download you can buy just one song usually. Dream Focus 22:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the chart also lists songs that were purchased as part of an album. So if you buy the whole album, each individual song on the album gets bumped up the chart. It could be that loads of people loved this song and purchased it, but that seems a very unlikely coincidence when you consider that this song charted 9th, Lucky Strike (the song before it on the album) charted 8th, Daylight (which actually was released as a single) charted 5th, Sad charted 12th and Doin' Dirt charted 15th. I consider that sufficient evidence to say that it didn't perform well in this particular chart on its own merit; it was only on the chart because it was on the album that sold well (Overexposed). Not all charts work this way, the GAON chart is the only one I know of that works this way. James086 ^Talk 22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep NSONG #2. I grant the GNG case isn't clear, but there's a wide breadth of small mentions, not only what's in the article, but [20], [21], [22], [23]. [24]. I'm left echoing J04n --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G4 (non-admin closure) - Mr X 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never Heard of It[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article appear to be reliable: two are deadlinks as well. They were never signed to a major record company, they don't appear to have ever charted, none of the band is notable, and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources anywhere (admittedly, the ambiguous name really doesn't help, but there's nothing I can find). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the mess Page Curation made suggests that someone needs to check if this is CSD:G4-worthy. If this band was non-notable in 2008, then they won't be notable now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It doesn't seem as if they have done anything notable since the last AfD, so I have nominated it for WP:CSD#G4 speedy deletion. - Mr X 15:02, 27 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) 11:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Howe[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability. No independent sources are cited, and my searches have failed to produce significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Note: A PROD was removed without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doctor Who is clearly a notable series, but is the nerd who produces books about it (and apparently litlte else)? I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 30 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agua Blanca (Ibiza)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned up the article to remove the promotional content. The beach seems notable enough, as evidenced by available sources such as [25], [26], and [27]. - Mr X 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a geographic feature of reasonable importance. Ducknish (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus. Dennisbluie (talk) 08:13, 28 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cala Benirrás[edit]

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

advertising, largely unsourced The Banner talk 13:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It is both Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus. Dennisbluie (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – I have read this article through and can not see where this article could possible be accused of advertising. Its content is about a beach, a natural feature of this island. It is well referenced there is no reason for deletionDemax (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 05:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Deb. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Pakistan-Israel Relations[edit]

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

I created a redirect page by mistake, so it should be deleted, I was looking for "Pakistan-Israel relations" But mistakenly created "Pakistan-Israel Relations" Faizan (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you could Speedy Delete it (WP:CSD) but it seems a reasonable redirect actually; either way, it doesn't really need to be here, so you could mark this "Withdrawn by author" if you like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll speedy it. Deb (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ólafur Hannesson[edit]

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

Worried about lack of notability and reliable sources for notability Msrasnw (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.
Comment You can find useful background information on User_talk:Vejvančický#About_delition_of_two_noname_Iclanders. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hannesson seems to be known for his political activities (Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn party[28]) - [29] (Pressan), [30] (Dagblaðið Vísir), [31] (Morgunblaðið). However, I'm not sure if it is possible to find out more about him or if this is enough to meet our notability criteria. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficient sources. And in a case like this, I will also pay attention to the fact that the Icelandic Wikipedia didn't find sufficient sources either. Iselilja (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Icarus of old (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, like all the other NGEO-related AFDs. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cala Salada[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 13:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus. Dennisbluie (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 05:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viðar Helgi Guðjohnsen[edit]

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

Dubious about notability and sources are not reliable Msrasnw (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can find useful background information on User_talk:Vejvančický#About_delition_of_two_noname_Iclanders. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable TV host. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has hosted a show for years. the article claims he is a television host, needs better sourcing not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide better sources, BabbaQ? The article as it is doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems he is one of several supporting hosts, it isn't his show. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a "television host" hosting a show. Alone or with others are irrelevant. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do you think BabbaQ that co hosting a TV show on one man/one technician TV in Iceland, that have less then 5% viewings and the show even less, make a person notable? Is that enough? The other host, Ólafur Hannesson, is also up for deletion. Bragi H 11:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is up for deletion doesnt make it non notable. If you think that then you misunderstanding the purpose of the AfD process.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry BabbaQ, you are right. Bragi H (talk) 18:30, 29 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 A1, A7, etc --B (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Namseoul university gonghak1 gwan[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an apparently non-notable building on a university campus. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 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) Mediran (t • c) 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platja S'Estanyol[edit]

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

advertising and largely unsourced. WP:OR The Banner talk 13:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:NGEO. This is not an article about a business that fails to assert notability, it's about a named geographical location or natural feature. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus.Dennisbluie (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 05:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cala Bassa[edit]

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

advertising. No reliable sources added. The Banner talk 13:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Has both sources, and indication of significance. Note sources need not be Internet-based and need not be written in English. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Named place of verified existence, keep per longstanding consensus. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:NGEO. This is not an article about a business that fails to assert notability, it's about a named geographical location or natural feature. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It is both Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus.Dennisbluie (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cala d’Hort[edit]

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

advertising. No reliable sources added. The Banner talk 13:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Named place of verified existence, keep per longstanding consensus. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:NGEO. This is not an article about a business that fails to assert notability, it's about a named geographical location or natural feature. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus. Dennisbluie (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – I have read this article through and can not see where this article could possible be accused of advertising. Its content is about a beach, a natural feature of this island. It is well referenced there is no reason for deletionDemax (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. I also believe this is technically a Blue Flag beach which makes it no small average beach. For example, while spain has many, Canada only has 11. Mkdw ^talk 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cala Tarida[edit]

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

advertising. No reliable sources added The Banner talk 13:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Named place of verified existence, keep per longstanding consensus. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:NGEO. This is not an article about a business that fails to assert notability, it's about a named geographical location or natural feature. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus.Dennisbluie (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. Any POV issues are stylistic and editorial and largely surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, when it is a geographical location it is impossible to delete it, even when it is highly promotional and not reliable sourced? The Banner talk 11:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer, yes. WP:OUTCOMES is what is the most easy to immediate cite. Particularly WP:NPLACE and WP:MAPOUTCOMES. These say that major geological features and places such as attractions often survive AFD. The other regularly cited is WP:NGEO. We technically have no official guideline or policy when it comes to legitimate geographic places especially those that are populated. Wikipedia notes WP:SPAM as, "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." The beaches are public and do not fall directly in line with this definition. While the article reads promotional in style and lacks reliable sources, it's been show that A) it's a legitimate place (as in it exists) and B) that the article contains useful information and would likely need to be re-worded/trimmed/promotional content removed, not deleted because it's "unsalvageable". For example, you could wipe out most of the article except the lead and call it a stub -- this is a non-time consuming edit that would easily make most of them neutral and accurate. Obviously edits would need to be done on a case by case basis but you can see how it's a problem easily solved. These are defined as surmountable problems and are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 02:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cala Vadella[edit]

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

advertising. No reliable sources added. Partly WP:OR The Banner talk 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Named place of verified existence, keep per longstanding consensus. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow, is there a consensus to keep advertising and promo? The Banner talk 19:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:NGEO. This is not an article about a business that fails to assert notability, it's about a named geographical location or natural feature. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And it is written as an advertisement... The Banner talk 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, but we're not here to discuss stylistic issues which can be fixed. And honestly, while I'd agree that the prose is slightly inappropriate, I don't see just what the article would be advertising. It's a geographical location. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – This is an article about named geographical location or natural feature. It is both Has both sources, and indication of significance. keep per longstanding consensus. Dennisbluie (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a legitimate geographical place, geological feature, and possibly a populated place. Under all our guidelines and essays regarding these subjects, I see no grounds for deletion. The fact that it's written like an advertisement does not mean wholesale deletion. It's an editorial content problem that is a surmountable problem. Mkdw ^talk 05:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human vulnerability to climate change in the Caribbean[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD removed without rationale. Prod reason was: This is an essay or a paper for a school or college project, not an encyclopaedia article. It contains original research and is not written to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for these items. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Today's original research with ref spam becomes tomorrow's coatrack for link spam. - Mr X 13:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's highly filled with WP:OR, it's all someone drawing their own conclusions. Ducknish (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in 48 hours: I know this article is pushing the deadline for a decision, and the current status of the article certainly meets most of the conditions declared in {{multiple issues|{{POV|date|March 2013}}{{essay-like|date|March 2013}}{{tone|date|March 2013}}{{Refimprove|date|March 2013}}{{Orphan|date|April 2013}}}} header. The poster of the article has come to WP:TH requesting assistance with the article. I have suggested to the poster that they request the article be moved to their [[|WP:UP|userspace]] as a {{userspace draft}} and am about to give more description of why it doesn't meet article standards on wikipedia. I'm requesting that the article get 48 hours (until Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:38:55 +0000) and then be Deleted at your discretion. Thank you. — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 12:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt Retribution Squad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hunt Retribution Squad

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

Group never appeared to exist in an official sense, and their existence is hard to prove- it was just the name temporarily used by a few animal rights activists involved in other organisations. One ever two incidents actually occurred where those involved called themselves the 'Hunt Retribution Squad'. As said, these people has links to other groups, so I think that their actions could instead be put under the Animal Liberation Front or the Hunt Saboteurs Association page

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 20. Snotbot t • c » 22:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt Retribution Squad is unique from all other groups as they have chosen extremely high profile victims and have taken extreme measures. They should not be placed in a larger group as they have come from them to create what they are. ^[1]

The question is though, can they be classed as a group? There were, after all, only three incidents which occurred where they used this name, and only one high profile (or serious) one so I wonder if it justifies an article on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htinfo123 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 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, J04n(talk page) 10:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the existence of the group cannot be reliably shown, then it doesn't need an article. Even if it's an umbrella term for people, that's still not article-worthy. It might justify a redirect to Animal rights activists though, or something similar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Luke said, if the existence of the group can't be verified, we can't have an article. Beyond that, they seem to have had relatively little impact and taken little action, which brings notability into question as well. Ducknish (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless some one can provide reliable evidecne that this exists as an organised group, rahter than being a handful of self-appointed extremists on the fringes of more organised hunt protest groups. Since their activities probably involve illegal acts, that will be difficult. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 30 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 per CSD: G5. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC) (Note: Article was created by User:Enbionycaar. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)))[reply]

Germanic peoples (modern)[edit]

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

Fork of Germanic peoples. Agreement there was that Germanic-speaking Europe should be expanded as the concept of "Germanic peoples" does not apply in a modern context. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Germanic peoples (modern) article content is not mentioned in the Germanic peoples article! Germanic peoples (modern) was specifically requested at @ Talk: Germanic peoples 95.200.80.240 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several issues needing discussion:

1. Is the subject of "modern German peoples" notable enough in reliable sources to have an article about it? I think there is no dispute that very occasionally people talk as if there are still "Germanic peoples", but it is not common. This is also a sourcing issue and has already been raised at WP:RSN. See [32]. I personally believe that this sourcing is not strong enough to justify a separate article, but maybe more sourcing is available? For example there may well be sourcing concerning the way this concept was handled by the Nazis.

2. Second question is whether or not the sourcing is strong enough to at least earn mention in the existing Germanic Peoples article. In my mind this discussion is still a bit open, but things a confused: On the one hand the paragraph which keeps getting inserted in the lead (mentioning Sudeten Germans, Afrikaners, etc) looks fringe and has very little support from non IP editors. But this is not the only option in my opinion. That paragraph is in itself not good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD request on whether there should be a stand alone article (e.g., WP:GNG, WP:NOT, WP:CFORK) on Germanic peoples (modern). Discussing whether or not the sourcing is strong enough to at least earn mention in the existing Germanic Peoples article in this discussion may confuse things. On the other hand, if you think merge of Germanic peoples (modern) into Germanic peoples is a viable option, it would be fine to discuss/maintain that view in this AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Maybe I should have stated upfront that according to me, no one has yet given any sources which justify a stand alone article for this subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a quick googlebooks on "modern Germanic people" throws up nothing of immediate relevance. I suspect if there was adequate Reliable sourcing out there, the content would already have been validated and stayed in the Germanic peoples article already. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot see the rationale for keeping this article when we have German language which tells one what what one wishes to know about this subject. In any case, if people from one part of the world have been in another country for several generations, if not centuries (e.g. USA), this article's raison d'etre raises several questions. The German language article does the job splendidly.--Zananiri (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 27 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. 28bytes (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinnergod[edit]

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

This band is not notable and fails both the general notability criteria and WP:BAND. The current references are either affiliated with the subject or they're blogs and promotional sites. I've tried to find reliable independent coverage but apparently there's nothing. Given that they're just recording their first album it might be too soon for an article. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:38, 14 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, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There's a Blabbermouth article, but it is nothing more than mere mention of an album. Everything else is self-promotion or passing mentions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:25, 20 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, Jenks24 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 16:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All refs aren't really outside, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 21:29, 27 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. L Faraone 03:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snare technique[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As far as I can determine, the two redlinked entries on this dab page appear to be the same (based on the ext. link). That leaves one partial match. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, that link includes "It's important to note that the snare device may be used with or without heat or cautery.", so snare cautery seems to be different from plain snare technique. But as neither seems to get a mention in any Wikipedia article, as yet (and there are redlinks in the dab page at Snare too), ... on the other hand there are refs like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661526/ and http://daveproject.org/colon-polyp-adenomas-removed-using-snare-cautery/2003-11-25/ which suggest the two topics ought to have articles. Leading to ... PamD 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now - either or both of the surgical techniques ought to have an article. But will someone please write them, or at least make links from existing articles. PamD 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't like the looks of it, and the footnote needs to go somewhere else, I do think that it notifies the reader that the Wikipedia is not ignorant of the other meaning(s) of "snare technique" and that, at least in principle, the surgical techniques might rate an article, but that one has yet to be written. I suspect that this is an appropriate case for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --Bejnar (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. First, I'm not sure that the sources given by PamD indicate two different procedures. It is the same basic technique using a loop of wire to remove something, for which the instrument may be heated to cauterize the site. However, as the technique is general, I'm not sure what sort of article could be written. As used in a colonoscopy, colonic polypectomy may be a relevant target. However, the same basic technique can be used in other areas of the body, as for example opthamology, esophageal cancer, endoscopic foreign body retrieval, or tonsillectomy. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider what links here for "snare device". My suggestion would be to make a stub at snare (medical device) that would describe both the general form of the instrument and some common applications. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snare and merge what little might be worth merging. I don't see any need for a disambig on Snare technique separate from the disambig on Snare. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thangal Uppapa Uroos[edit]

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

There are two sources. The first is from a website which seems to be involved with promoting this event, and the other is a COMMENT on a news site. Fails WP:GNG big time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or merge to bio. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 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, Courcelles 01:01, 12 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, Keeper | 76 14:36, 20 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, Mediran (t • c) 07:30, 27 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. L Faraone 03:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELCA[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this a notable technology. Searching on Google, there seem to be no sources independent of ITU, and even those seem mostly to be working papers. Seems like a nice, possibly up-and-coming thing, but as the article is from 2004, it never up-and-came. Unless significant Danish sources exist, this is non-notable. Chris857 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: the only significant editor was the IP that created the article, and the address hasn't edited since 2006. Chris857 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 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, Mediran (t • c) 07:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated there is barely any information about this. What little information to be found is on the project's website and is very old and outdated. I agree that this seems to be a project that never came to fruition. Considering those factors and that pages associated with the project have not been updated since at least 2008 deletion is the best course of action. --Karverstudio (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

700 Clicks[edit]

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

I declined the speedy for this as it was tagged with A1 and the article does have context. I don't, however, think that this term is particularly noteworthy as far as memes go. I can see where it's somewhat used, but it looks to be more of a WP:NEOLOGISM than a meme that would merit its own article at this time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not sure why an A1 was placed on this, that was obviously wrong. I PRODed the article because it's one of the CSD loopholes: Not a recognized neologism, no notability. The author's insistence of calling it a "meme" is just icing on the cake. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - do we really need a debate for this? Dejakh~talk!•did! 19:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Delete under G3 Couldn't find anything to substantiate it. Mkdw ^talk 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Playing card#History. L Faraone 03:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Origin of Playing Cards[edit]

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

A well written article about the chinese origin of playing cards, not about the article written by William Henry Wilkinson. It looks like a synthesis of a number of sources describing the possible origin of playing cards from China. Wilkinson's article seems nonnotable and the current state of the article seems to be a coatrack for the Chinese origin of playing cards. Curb Chain (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to Playing card#History, with opens with "Playing cards were invented in ancient China." --BDD (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Start again -- I note that the article claims to derive from 1911 Britannica, but we really cannot have an article on an article, other than exceptionally important ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Playing card#History This article is a bit puzzling because it's ostensibly about a paper published in American Anthropologist back in 1895. However, much of the article's body contains a more general discussion of the origin and early history of playing cards and cites several other works, some of which were published after 1895. A WP article dedicated to a single journal paper normally would fail WP:GNG, but this article is something of a hybrid as it contains a fair bit of content that goes beyond the scope of that paper. One option would to rename the article Origin of playing cards, generalize the lead so that it adequately summarizes the subject (not a particular paper written about the subject), and make other edits accordingly. However, the article's body causes me concern: In the section entitled "European similarities", a Google search on "Playing cards first appeared in Europe in the 1370s......making them luxury goods for the rich" revealed that this entire phrase appears in the current edition of Britannica, but NOT in the corresponding entry in the public domain 1911 edition. Moreover, the article cites references published in the years 1924 and 1927, but nothing more recently than that. I'm concerned that substantial parts of the text may have been copied from an edition of Britannica published sometime after 1922, which would therefore still be copyright in the United States (i.e. possible WP:COPYVIO). Without the potential copyvio issue, the article may have been salvageable, but I'm thinking that it's just better to delete and let the editors at Playing card decide if a new WP:SPINOFF should be created for the origin of playing cards. However, the American Anthropologist article is public domain in the United States (published 1895), so it could be transcribed to Wikisource. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Playing card#History for a chance in the future. Dejakh~talk!•did! 19:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Gold Coast Rugby League season[edit]

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

Non-notable season article. Competition is in roughly the third tier of rugby league in Australia. Mattlore (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete no need to report a third tier competition. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gold Coast Rugby League. A blow-by-blow summary of a the weekly results of a local footy competition probably isn't suitable for inclusion, but the competition is notable and major results could be added to that page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:16, 31 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. 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Percy[edit]

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

Another person whose article fails to establish any properly sourced reason why he would actually warrant coverage in an international encyclopedia, with a claim of notability that's exclusively local in nature. It's referenced mainly to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, such as the general webpages of organizations that happen to be mentioned in the text, or to non-notable blogs — its only valid source is a cursory mention of his name within an event listing, failing the substantial coverage test. Imagine, too, my utter lack of surprise that the article is an outright WP:COI violation, as its original creator was User:Shanepercy. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article do not show significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I was unable to find any such coverage that provides biographical details. Routine event listings are insufficient for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and self-promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A fairly large number of blog posts related to the long-running dance night conducted by this DJ. I'm not seeing anything counting towards GNG, however. If the subject has news clippings about himself (not the gig) from the press, holler here and I have a hunch somebody will help get this GNG-compliant. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet the WP:GNG for now and may be later. Dejakh~talk!•did! 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 05:46, 30 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. 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Inn & Suites Atlantic City North[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel. Any chain hotel could be created. What is so special about this? Tinton5 (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator's question is an outstanding one, and the answer is "nothing". This is a run-of-the-mill chain hotel that, quite predictably, has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources. I am all in favor of articles about notable, historic, unique, architecturally significant hotels. This simply isn't one of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your average, dull budget-priced hotel conveniently located just outside town near the airport. Unless someone can find some sources telling us it serves the most amazing continental breakfast ever and has gigabit wi-fi, it's just yet another Clarion, and we're not Yelp. Creating editor's name of Clarionacy (talk · contribs) suggests that their given name's probably not Clarion Acy, either. Nate • (chatter) 09:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable source coverage found in search. Is notability even asserted? This is a run of the mill hotel with strictly routine regulatory filings provided as references. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just about as notable as any other Clarion ever. That is, not at all. Ducknish (talk) 21:35, 27 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. I have to take issue with Isarra's claim that WP:N does not really apply. It most certainly does apply, in particular WP:ENTERTAINER is explicitly indicated as the relevant guideline by WP:ATHLETE. However, no argument was advanced that this article does not meet that guideline. The shortness of their existence is not an argument based in policy. Length of the period of notability is not one of the guideline criteria. Spinning Spark 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ShoMiz[edit]

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

A controversial article. ShoMiz won the unified tag team titles and defend it in WM, but the tag team lived for 3 months only. I think that is is a short lived tag team that we can redirect to the articles of the wrestlers. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagreed entirely with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom and I still do now. Winning a title doesn't make a team notable. They need a credible run with enough information to warrant a subject. Most of the information in this article fits in their individual articles. In fact, most of the information is repeated anyway in those articles which makes ShoMiz a perfect example of cruft. It needs to go. Feedback ^☎ 16:44, 24 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, Keeper | 76 02:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-covered, won an apparently somewhat important thingy, and while WP:N doesn't entirely apply to this sort of thing there's probably enough here to merit keeping especially on account of the winningness. If anyone searches for 'showmiz' they'll probably be wanting this instead of an article on one or the other of the guys regardless. -— Isarra ༆ 19:38, 30 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. L Faraone 03:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N441 – Steam Locomotive Project[edit]

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

Referenced entirely by primary sources, one of which is now a dead link. No evidence of notability from reliable, third party sources. Fails the Google test. Ferroequinologly (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting article, but completely non-notable. In addition to Google, I checked HighBeam, Questia and NewsBank, and found nothing. - Mr X 03:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. This sounds really really interesting, but it absolutely does not belong on an encyclopedia. Perhaps Wikiversity might be a better venue? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable source coverage for this project or the group sponsoring it. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I have found the link, via a link in the article. This appears to be a substantial on-going engineering project, of a kind of which there have only been a few worldwide. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pods Framework[edit]

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

Pods Framework does not meet the notability criteria and the article does not contain substantive information on it's own Sc0ttkclark (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 27. Snotbot t • c » 02:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 02:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software (wordpress plugin) article with no RS references. Dialectric (talk) 23:27, 27 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. 28bytes (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Tommy[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP on the grounds that he has played in the UEFA Europa League. A claim not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty reliable to me http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2012/clubs/player=98454/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.191.147 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also very clearly says 0 appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is not Moldovan National Division fully professional? Here it is listed as such. If this is the case, he passes WP:NFOOTY. If not, the article should be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list is unsourced making it an unreliable source of information. The list used for notability purposes is WP:FPL on which the Moldovan top flight does not appear. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be we should add it there, since the Moldovan federation states (see page 2, I also checked the Russian version) that the National Division is fully professional.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source certainly raises some interesting questions, but without a clearer explanation of what is meant by "non-amateur", I don't think it's sufficient to include the league at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to keep the two discussions separately; let us delete this article and discuss on the WP:FPL talk page. If the Moldovan league makes it to the list, one can always restore the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 2 April 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, Keeper | 76 02:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. As Ymblanter states, let's delete this article and restore it if we find out that the Moldovan league is fully pro. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Occidental College. L Faraone 03:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KOXY[edit]

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

Per WP:V and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of available sources to establish notability per WP:BROADCAST. I was only able to find a couple of articles that make passing references to the radio station. - Mr X 02:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the basic rule for notability of radio stations is that they are or were formally licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. This article's description makes it quite clear that this was, at best, either a closed circuit or Part 15 station — confirmed by the fact that queries at both {{FMQ}} and RecNet come up empty — and therefore, it would need impeccable sourcing to actually be considered notable. Accordingly, this station is certainly entitled to be mentioned in our article on Occidental College, but may not have its own independent article as things currently stand. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Disruptive nomination, user has slapped a tag of some sort on over a dozen pages I created or significantly edited in the page p b p 05:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' KOXY was created in 16:24, 22 August 2010‎ and is still a one sentence stub. No proof of notability in the article.. Dream Focus 06:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOLITTLE, WP:NOEFFORT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those links aren't valid. This isn't a short article, this is no article at all, just two sentences, with no references or proof of notability at all. It is a student run radio station that didn't do well enough to stay on the radio, they switching to just a webcast instead. No reason to believe it is notable. Dream Focus 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Actually, they're very valid, because "created X time ago and is still a one-sentence stub" is exactly the argument to avoid they describe. No reference? WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "It is a student run radio station that didn't do well enough to stay on the radio". The radio station was on the radio for 40 years, then has been streaming for the last four. That is why it is not currently listed in an FCC list of radio stations; it most likely was in the past. Remember that notability guidelines afford the same amount of notability to a defunct enterprise as to an extant one. p b p 16:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why not put that in the article then? Why create something an article then abandon it? And don't a lot of schools have radio stations? What makes this one notable? Dream Focus 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, it did say that it originally operated at the frequency 104.7 in the article. It's said that ever since it was created. I'm desregarding your "Create, then abandon" comment as not germane p b p 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There are methods by which a radio station can operate without FCC approval — stations which broadcast by closed circuit, carrier current or under Part 15 rules do not require FCC approval, and can operate in that manner for decades without ever going to the FCC for permission; a station only requires FCC approval if it wants to serve a broadcast range larger than a few individual buildings. You're also wrong in that FMQ does not only turn up currently operating stations — if a station has ever had an FCC license, then a complete licensing history (right up to and including the surrender of its former license) will turn up in an FMQ query whether the station still exists today or not. But KOXY turns up nothing, which means that it has never been a licensed operation, but was a closed circuit, carrier current or Part 15 station instead. And again, the core criterion for radio stations to get an automatic presumption of notability on Wikipedia is not "this station exists"; it's "this station is licensed by the FCC". An unlicensed station could still qualify for an article if you can add really solid sources to get past the lack of an FCC license (we have numerous very good articles about pirate radio stations, for example), but it is not entitled to keep an unreferenced article just because you assert its existence. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find much on this station in any real way except it was an annoyance to the college and eventually went web-only, where it seems to be reduced to the level of a hobby club. We're not looking at one of the classic college stations here, but just a basic common carrier station which is little regarded, even on its own campus. The claims of a bad-faith nomination I don't see; I probably would have nominated this article or redirected to the college myself after finding a lack of sources. Nate • (chatter) 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Occidental College, adding the information there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of notability and Bearcat's sound analysis. I have found a few sources that trivially mention the radio (eg [33]), but none of them discusses the station in an meaningful way. Cavarrone (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning delete~~ Merge - Sources are scant; other than 1 article I found, the remaining articles provided by Google News archive only have passing mentions, and Google Books doesn't appear to yield any results. Here's an article from the Occidental Weekly, Occidental College's student newspaper: Long tuned-out, KOXY makes a comeback. However, this may be considered by some to be somewhat of a primary source, and it appears to be the only one available online that offers significant coverage. Perhaps a merge to Occidental College may be in order? Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration, changed my !vote above to merge. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the College's page. There is not enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG, and this does not pass the guideline for radio networks that would otherwise make it notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete content but require nominator to merge into Occidental College in any event: Based on nominators initiation of Talk:Chili_burger#Proposed_merge_with_Hamburger, he's got his panties in a wad over some surely inane dispute with article creator Purplebackpack89. If someone is going to waste our time with WP:POINTY bullshit, that incivility should be punished severely, by making the editor improve Wikipedia articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely inappropriate comment for an AfD discsussion. Please consider redacting the personal attack. - Mr X 13:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real civility problem on wikipedia is people who purposely attack other editors through masquerades of claimed legitimate editing. I won't redact, but i will refrain from further comment on this AfD, I've said my piece, and I think it was a fair response to uncivil behavior by the nominator.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: KOXY is not listed in the FCC database, so the station does not meet GNG nor does it enjoy the established notability under WP:BROADCAST. I would not have any qualms about it being merged into the Occidental College page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See comment about broadcast history above. If I read WP:BROADCAST and WP:GNG correctly, it need not currently be active to be notable p b p 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find some references? I mean, that would save the article, right? Also, why not just make it a section within the college? It would serve visitors best that way. Just leave a redirect behind. After all, it's two sentences with no refs. Why do you want it to stand alone anyway? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its a tough case for notability here. As Bearcat and Nate allude to above, low-power stations like this are rarely notable (even if it was still broadcasting AM or FM) see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCKS (college radio).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot to see there. There were also follow-up comments here. Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occidental College. This is just a campus radio station, not a general-broadcast station. I added a sentence about it to the Occidental article, so the "merge" has already been done. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campus radio stations are entitled to the same presumption of notability as general broadcast stations are (i.e. FCC license = in.) What makes this one nn is not the word "campus", but the word "unlicensed". Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Occidental College better than creating another radio station stub. Dejakh~talk!•did! 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - per [34],[35],[36]. In addition, radio stations receive coverage from the Federal Communications Commission. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlicensed radio stations such as this one do not receive FCC coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've asked this question once and didn't get a clear answer, so I'm asking again: what happens if somebody could prove it had an FCC license at sometime in the past? p b p 19:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then that would certainly help, although finding evidence would be the tricky part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it did have an FCC license in the past and you could prove that through properly reliable sources, then the article could almost certainly be kept given that improvement. However, given that its existence doesn't, in and of itself, prove that it was licensed (see what I said above about closed circuit, carrier current and Part 15 stations), the onus would be on you (or somebody else) to find proper references which explicitly clarify that it was licensed, not on anybody else to automatically presume that it was licensed in the absence of references which explicitly clarify that it wasn't. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - More source coverage Google books. College radio became commonplace in the 1960s when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began issuing class D licenses for ten-watt radio stations. Also see Low-power_broadcasting#United_States. I do not see any reliable sources supporting the claim that KOXY was/is a pirate radio station. The U.S. government strictly regulates airwave transmission and is not going to allow a college to send radio communications over the U.S. airwaves without control, even in the 1960s. While the source material already found supports having KOXY as a stand alone article, it is reasonable to presume that the station received additional source coverage through government documents and those can be used to expand the article as well. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the sources you have found support a stand alone for KOXY. Yes, it was cited in relation to a lawsuit raised by Jason Antebi against the college, but none of the sources have KOXY as main topic nor discuss the station in an meaningful way. Cavarrone (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nobody said that KOXY was a pirate radio station. There are numerous ways in which a station can be unlicensed without being a pirate, such as closed circuit, carrier current or Part 15 — the numerous pirate radio articles that we do have serve as examples of how unlicensed stations can still garner sufficient coverage to be notable in spite of the lack of a real license, but they're not the only kind of unlicensed station that exists. A station broadcasting via closed circuit, carrier current or Part 15 is not in violation of any US government rules — in fact, it's in full accordance with them, as the rules do allow for that kind of thing — and thus existing without an FCC license does not make it a "pirate".
      And again, it's not enough to infer that a station must have been licensed just because you don't understand how it could exist if it wasn't — a station can exist without having an FCC license and many others here do understand how that works. In fact, at least two of the sources in your own Google Books search (i.e. the Broadcasting Yearbook directories) explicitly list KOXY in a dedicated section for unlicensed "campus-limited" (i.e. closed circuit, carrier current or Part 15) stations, separate from the listings for conventionally FCC-licensed campus stations that broadcasted to a whole city or region — so thanks, you've actually proven that the station wasn't an FCC-licensed operation. (It is generally a good idea, a propos of nothing, to actually read some of your sources first!)
      Again, the lack of an FCC license does not make KOXY a pirate — it makes it closed circuit, carrier current or Part 15. But the lack of an FCC license does mean you have to meet a much higher burden of sourcing to get past the license issue than a conventional FCC-licensed station would have to meet — and not sources about the college which merely mention KOXY in passing, or broadcast directories which simply list it, but sources which are actually, substantially about KOXY itself. The sources in your Google Books search are certainly enough to support mentioning KOXY in the main article on the college — but they are not sufficient to support a separate article about KOXY, because KOXY is just mentioned within them and is not their subject. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Airstrike[edit]

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

This tag team has done nothing of note. Their crowning achievement was competing in a multi-tag match along with 14 wrestlers at a PPV. They have had no prominent feuds and have hardly been on television. Although the team has not been formally disbanded, we can't speculate that they might garner notability in the future. Feedback ^☎ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete like other tag team, a no notable article about a tag team that only wrestled in weekly shows, no major feuds, storylines or matches.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they go on to greater things, we can resurrect. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-presidency of Bill Clinton[edit]

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

This article is redundant with the section "Post-presidential career", in the article Bill Clinton. Perhaps a merge of any detail not already covered at the BC page. Also, BC gets about 9,000 hits per day, while PPoBC gets about 40.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't that the point of WP:SUBARTICLE? Praemonitus (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My first instinct was to merge and redirect to Bill Clinton, until I saw the amount of content in this article. This seems to be a perfectly appropriate SPINOFF article. - Mr X 03:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. - Yeah, perhaps this was a good split-off, but I'm only seeing about 800-1000 words that are not included verbatim or paraphrased at BC. Also, the BC bio is just over 8,000 words, so its not like it couldn't stand to be a bit larger. Also, I think with the right editing, this could be merged back into the BC article, and you would likely see an increase of only about 300-500 words at BC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mr. X has it right on. This is an excellent place to break an over-long Bill Clinton article; a sub-page. Sourced to the max, no GNG issues. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Disruptive nomination, user has slapped a tag of some sort on over a dozen pages I created or significantly edited in the page. Also, keep because the Bill Clinton article is too long and the post-presidency of Bill Clinton not only is a reasonable content fork, it even passes GNG on its own p b p 05:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: also per MrX. And this does smack of some tendentious disruption aimed at the article creator. He iro 06:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep--Scaldjosh (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out. This is a sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs)}. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legitimate WP:SPINOUT from the parent article Bill Clinton. Cavarrone (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm looking at both articles to see what this one has that the other one doesn't already have in it. Environment, Sestak, and Soccer are the only sections in this article, which don't have the content found in the main article at Bill_Clinton#Post-presidential_career. Anything worth keeping, could be stuck over there. I don't see how this side article expands enough new information to be worth keeping. If the main article got too long, I could understand breaking off part of it to a different article, but there is no reason to do it if most of the information is found in both places. Dream Focus 08:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge If the article has too much content in one section, then it can be expanded into an entirely differently article. For now it seems like a merge. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 09:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was created, Bill Clinton was too long (over 100KB). It is again too long. The problem is that people haven't bothered to add new events to the post-presidency article, they have added them to the main article instead. If you converted some of those to summary style and put the main content in the post-presidency article, you'd have plenty of content. What I'm seeing here is an argument for the article being fixed, not upmerged p b p 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this wasn't a POINT-y nomination it would still be a keep. Not only is the reader better served by having a separate article for the topic, but there's actually plenty of substantial coverage from reliable sources focusing specifically on his post-presidential life and career.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Seems like this is a perfectly acceptable spinoff article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – legitimate Spin-off article that will continue to grow given the subject. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid and useful article. Deletion will not help our readers. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:48, 27 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. Nomination is based on flawed assumption (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 16:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crab puff[edit]

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

There is already an article Crab rangoon, which is the exact same thing with a different name. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge, but there's really nothing to merge. Delete Go Phightins! 01:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Redirect~~'Keep ~~to Crab rangoon and everyone's happy.~~ - MrX 03:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep, per addtional sources and clarification of the difference between a crab puff and a crab rangoon. - Mr X 12:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Disruptive nomination, user has slapped a tag of some sort on over a dozen pages I created or significantly edited in the page p b p 06:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two sentences created without any references at all. Pointless stub. No proof of notability. Dream Focus 06:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOLITTLE, WP:BELONG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. Going by what I can read, Crab rangoon is wrapped in wonton, Crab puff is dipped in batter - those are not the same thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC) (Changed to "Keep" after seeing sources added by The Bushranger - there do appear to be plenty of suitable GHits -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, they aren't the same thing p b p 06:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [37]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After looking this over and some Google poking about, this looks like it should be notable enough for its own article - but it does need work. However AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References added; also gNews hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to excellent work of sourcing by The Bushranger. Weak because, if I haven't missed something, the sources basically are just collection of recipes. Keep because however the dish was covered in a good number of reliable publications. Frankly, given it has not too many chances to be expanded in a meaningful way I would prefer merging and redirecting the content somewhere, but in lack of a definite target I'm leaning to keep the article for now. Cavarrone (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A crab puff and a crab rangoon is not the same thing. The whole basis for the nomination is thus invalid.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:52, 27 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 Shadow Project. 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Tuned Out[edit]

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

Non-notable album that never charted. The Banner talk 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep (or at a minimum merge) - Placing more than 2-3 albums within an artist article is cumbersome. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shadow Project - no significant coverage found, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. For similar reasons, I went ahead and redirected three of the band's other albums (Dreams for the Dying, From the Heart (Shadow Project album), A Beauty to Fight For). Gong show 02:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shadow Project. Nothing notable about it. We don't need a full tracklist just because it exists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, so no need for an article; and I don't see why we need a redirect for the title of a thoroughly non-notable album. Nor do we need a complete track list for every non-notable album.
And note the Tendentious editing: this is yet another perma-stub on a non-notable album created by User:Jax 0677 just to increase the link count on a pointless navbox. The article was created only after {{Shadow Project}} was nominated for deletion. Jax created 4 stubs on this band's non-notable albums: [38], [39], [40], [41]. If Jax doesn't stop this disruption, the next step will be sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep (or merge LOSSLESSLY)~~ Reply - Per this discussion, the album and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Shadow Project. Also, WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Duplicate !vote struck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have lost count of the number of recebt AFDs in which I have seen Jax commenting. In none of them have I seen him pay any attention to the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG, and he remains true to form here.
  It's also a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a musician's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album by a non-notable band of which he happened to be a member. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - First of all, I apologize for accidentally voting twice. There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no requirement to retain all the info on a non-notable topic, and a size split is not grounds for creating an article on a non-notable topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - If it may be added, then if it gets deleted, it shall be merged losslessly, as people in the discussion wanted track lengths to remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply. It may be added, in which case it may then be removed as excessive detail on a non-notable album. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Frietjes (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shadow Project, absolutely nothing here to merge. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus appears to be that the subject does not meet the general notability guidelines, and there is no apparent consensus to merge or redirect. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Still[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-noteworthy blp, deleted twice prior. Some minor note as being a losing minor party candidate in a primary, but not enough to sustain a bio. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Not otherwise notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Secret of Oz to open the doors for the future. Dejakh~talk!•did! 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment The Secret of Oz is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Secret_of_Oz Enos733 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's non-notable, and I don't think it should be redirected to the Oz movie, as looking at the article it seems to be of dubious notability itself. Ducknish (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Subject has received some coverage, but none that I would be considered significant coverage. As those mentions are about a notable event, it could be said that the subject may fall under WP:BLP1E. Per POLOUTCOME, a redirect should be left in the article space to the event which is the subject of the article United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:FILMMAKER. Mkdw ^talk 05:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 is not a bad idea, he is listed there and redirects are cheap. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted A7 by Secret (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhal Hammami[edit]

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

Violating his rights. Nino995 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Nidhal Hammami[reply]

Delete I have no idea what Nino995 is up to with this hot mess. He created the article, and then he nominated it for deletion. In any case, it is clearly a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (and so tagged). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 27 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.

^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S8EBAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22hunt+retribution+squad%22&source=bl&ots=4EGASYRPtE&sig=AlxUU_SLoL6OMGIFlE-EY7mG2wY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b-lKUdfcPISo0wWj-oHoCA&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepag

[1] ttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S8EBAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=%22hunt+retribution+squad%22&source=bl&ots=4EGASYRPtE&sig=AlxUU_SLoL6OMGIFlE-EY7mG2wY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b-lKUdfcPISo0wWj-oHoCA&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepag

[1]