Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 March 4 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Universal College[edit]

Swiss Universal College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Looking at the page history, this started out as heavily promotional. Now that AllyD has removed promo material, there's almost nothing left
  • Referenced solely to self-published source. I couldn't find google hits for anything other than self-published material to indicate notability.
  • The college's administrator (who shares a surname with the principal) states on her LinkedIn page that her objective is to tell as many people as possible about this new college [1]
  • No evidence offered to substantiate claims made about this organisation, both on Wikipedia and on their website. Source website uses poor English, not what would be expected from a Swiss academic institution
  • So I'm proposing deletion as there appears to be little scope for creating an encyclopaedic article on this yet. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only address for this institution appears to be in offices over a row of shops in Schlieren, which is possibly also the edited picture on their website. In that context, I see no reason to treat this as more than we would any start-up small business and ask whether there is evidence that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH? Of which I have found none. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline. Contains no useful content. Switzerland is plagued with these vacuous startup schools that often don't physically exist. This seems to be one; in Googlemaps streetview there's nothing resembling the photo on their website and the swiss telephone directory has no listing for them at Bahnhofstrasse 6, 8952-Schlieren or the number 0445 360 218 Smirkingman (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a small, privately owned college ... perhaps a night school for professionals? To test for notability, it should be treated like any private business: it needs independent sources talking about it. I cannot find any. --Noleander (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heso magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine - mostly the topic on Wikipedia of repeated spam by Brettathus (talk · contribs). All the article states is "the magazine exists and writes about a bunch of stuff". It does nothing to assert notability. Biker Biker (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence found (Google, Highbeam, Questia) to establish notability. Happy to change my view if suitable Japanese references are identified though. AllyD (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party sourcing or coverage, so no indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy the page if anyone wants to merge any of it. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of Pogrom[edit]

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

The article violates WP:DICDEF, and consists entirely of original research. As a simple example of the latter, the first sentence states There is no academic consensus regarding the definition of the term "pogrom", but is sourced to quotation that says nothing at all like that - a quotation that, in fact, doesn't even mention the words "definition", "academics", "consensus", etc. The "Common Characteristics" and "Differences from similar terminology for collective violence" sections are built entirely by the editor who created this (rather than using reliable secondary sources that explicitly discuss "Common Characteristics" or "Differences from similar terminology"). The "List of scholarly and encyclopedic definitions for the term pogrom" is a random set of items found on Google books, as is the "List of usage disputes and disagreements". This reads like an essay. Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yikes. What a silly exercise in WP:Synth. Please review that policy to save yourself a lot of time in the future. Reminds me a bit of Noleander's ill-fated "Jews and money" article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In theory, I could see a few articles regarding "definitions" of some sort. The "definition of new religious movement" for instance, is still an ongoing concern, and it might, maybe, be notable enough in enough sources for a separate article. Maybe. The evidence for this article, however, does not even remotely rise to the standard of that potential article, and I cannot see that the lack of clear notability and reliable sourcing for this page is ever likely to be improved enough to make the article meet policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    • For similar articles, see Category:Definitions, which includes Genocide definitions, Militant (word) and Definitions of terrorism. All comply with Wikipedia:Dicdef#When_word_or_phrase_itself_may_be_an_encyclopedic_subject
    • The notability of this topic is shown by the number of WP:RS that devote detailed scholarly debate - see all the very clear sources in the footnotes or read Definitions_of_Pogrom#Further_reading.
    • The proposer is "involved" here - he and I have been debating edits at Talk:Pogrom for a year. A few months ago he wrote about the article Pogrom: "Please don't turn this article into a "definition of pogrom" article, which it is not. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)". So it's not surprising that now such an article has been created, he is not a fan.
    • Every single one of the criticisms raised in the proposing post are incorrect, and simply a function of the fact that the proposer has not read the sources (despite the fact that we have been "debating" the topic for a year - hard to believe I know, but borne out multiple times by evidence on Talk:Pogrom). To his first point above, I have now removed the quote from the reference as the support for the statement is very clear in the chapter in the source - in fact the actual supporting quote is written out in the second paragraph of the article. The "common characteristics" section is a topic considered in detail by Bergmann and Engel, and it simply follows their works. Even the list of definitions is something a number of scholars have written on, such as Klier and Bergmann - the section just follows them and adds to it. Same with the List of Usage Disputes, which follows Miller and Klier. The sourcing throughout the article is of the highest quality and every care has been taken to avoid any kind of wp:or. What is needed here is some collaboration, rather than sweeping generalizations and rushed attempts to undermine.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge into Pogrom struck "merge" as it's already there per WP:DICDEF because the sources do not show the subject rises to the level of a word or phrase that itself may be an encyclopedic subject. The article is quite probably a WP:POVFORK and has WP:COPYVIO problems too. Any ongoing history between Once and other editors is irrelevant to an AFD discussion, and pointing to the status of other articles is of course no AFD argument at all per WP:OTHERSTUFF.

    Per WP:DICDEF, sources need to be provided that show that the definition of the term itself can be an encyclopedic topic and can support a discussion of the social or historical significance of the term, enough to fill out a real independent encyclopedia article. Specifically WP:DICDEF says, "While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability." Now, take a look at what's in this article: A brief discussion of the scholarly use of the term (could easily be in Pogrom), followed by a huge list of dictionary definitions and hand-picked quotes, which are, of course, WP:SYNTH. The observations that the article is made up almost entirely of WP:SYNTH and other WP:OR wouldn't normally hold weight at an AFD discussion but they must be raised here because someone reviewing the article looking for support of its thesis needs to throw out all the WP:OR, which would leave the article just a few paragraphs. Once points to "all the very clear sources..." and the article is impressive in size and number of refs, but has almost zero encyclopedic content actually on the article's topic.

    Once raises a parallel between this article and, for example Definitions of terrorism. Putting WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, the difference between the topic of that article and this one is that the definition of terrorism itself is the subject of notable academic coverage. Whether something is or is not terrorism and is therefore covered by international crime law or the Geneva Convention or would make the testimony obtained with "enhanced interrogation techniques" admissable is a very notable topic. A careful examination of the number and depth of coverage of the sources in that article as compared to this one show the parallel proposed between the articles isn't supported by the sourcing.

    I do give Once credit for compiling this list of research, it's actually a very good list of sources to use to develop the Pogrom article, but shouldn't be an article in itself. Zad68 03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because (a) this is truly encyclopedic, (b) WP:NOTPAPER and (c) it cites WP:RS and is WP:V, while (d) the main Pogrom article does not have enough room for this kind of research (which does not seem to be "original" as the nominator alleges --unless he can cite some good historical counter-arguments not based on WP rules alone.) Bottom line, (e) this is a good addition to the Category:Definitions and its growing list of "Definitions of ____" articles on WP, such as Definitions of Palestine; Definitions of fascism; Definitions of science fiction; Definitions of Japanese war crimes, etc etc etc. True, this article can use much polishing and improvement as it does show some sort of bias to de-emphasize a Jewish historical POV, but fair and knowledgeable editors, including the nominator, could easily fix that with some skillful NPOV editing. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's doubting WP:RS and WP:V are cited, but what's cited doesn't demonstrate the notability of the definitions of pogrom itself as an encyclopedic topic. And after a quick look at Definitions of science fiction... really? Articles that are simply lists of definitions by this, that and the other author are something we're doing now? Seems like a serious case of WP:NOT several times over, I'm not seeing support in policy for it... Zad68 04:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zad: You can't deny that the genre of "Definitions of ____" now exists on WP as per all the examples in Category:Definitions (and please do not cite "other stuff exists", because in this case all the other stuff does exist!), so while you may feel uncomfortable with this "newish" type of presentation, it is more than a good beginning. No need to get stuck in crusty old ways of thinking. The way WP developed from the start was to be open to new types of articles that were introduced be editors following WP:BEBOLD, and even WP:IGNORE if need be, so that many articles were quite awkward and unpolished for a long time, but of obvious interest to a general reader (not just to professors in ivory towers) and over time, sometimes a few years, with additional editing, polishing, trimming and even re-writing, some very informative and comprehensive articles, containing stacks of information presented in new ways came to be, and this is such a case in point. IZAK (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, I agree that those other things exist. Whether they follow the WP:RULES is another question. I understand that you are making a case to keep this article based on WP:IAR, but by doing so you are indeed acknowledging that this and those other articles do not actually follow the rules. It is fine for you to advocate for a change in Wikipedia's policies to accomodate articles like these, but that probably shouldn't be done through a specific article's AFD !vote, consider pursuing this at one of the Wikipedia-wide policy discussion venues. Zad68 14:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, i don't think this is an accuarate summary of IZAK's comments above. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: While editors may disagree with the contents of this article, and I am not saying I agree with all the content, but the objective of creating an article with this title should not be problematic and editors who feel it's contents need work or improvement or correction to adhere to WP:NPOV should be part of improving it rather than blowing it out of the water entirely. WP articles are not born "perfect" and quite often articles are created by editors from one POV, that then draws in editors from an opposing POV, and together they can hopefully create a truly NPOV article at the end of the day, rather than destroying a good topic. By now in 2013, not all varieties and definitions of the word "Pogrom" are the same since that term was first introduced from Eastern European origins when the Czars of Russia incited Cossacks to kill Jews for no reasons, actually because of antisemitism. Today the word "pogrom" like the word "holocaust" has broadened in usage and in its definitions to include a variety of fatal attacks against any type of ethnic or religious groups singled out for discrimination and attack. IZAK (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Initially I was thinking this may need to be deleted, but on second thought, a section on definition is useful for some articles, and if properly developed, can be seen as requiring a dedicated article. This seems well researched and useful, so I am not convinced it should be deleted. The only danger I see here is if this was a POV fork of some kind, but I see no indications this is the case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article reveals to be mostly an essay utilizing the synthesis of sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author of this amazing article spent an inordinate amount of time grinding a very large axe, selectively adducing various sources in order to try to support how this, that or the other is not a "pogrom" in some sense. The point of this is utterly unclear - after all, for each given incident we can always tell the reader what happened and what the motivations were, use the common moniker for the event in the article title, and let the reader decide how to characterize what happened - a pogrom, a series of murders, a minor kerfuffle, or a birthday party that got out of hand. I particularly enjoyed how 1918 Lwow is not a pogrom because xyz, while 1919 Pinsk is not a pogrom because abc "unlike Lemberg" - that gave me a chuckle. Is this kind of crap covered under WP:SYNTH or do I need a more precise policy justification? :) The author should seriously consider turning his or her considerable talents to some worthwhile goal, instead of this ineffective attempt at a WP:FORK of Pogrom. (And no, do not merge into Pogrom because the usage of the term is already adequately covered in that article. -- Y not? 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNTH and cherry picking various sources to create WP:NPOV violation--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For an article like this to pass WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE there would need to be at least one significant scholarly work entirely devoted to the question of "definitions of pogrom". That there isn't, doesn't surprise me.. just because there may be some disagreement between people on what it applies to doesn't mean that any of them considers there to be an important question of definition. Zargulon (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are four scholarly essays devoted entirely to this subject:
PS -Zargulon, you may remember that you indirectly suggested this article in this comment in May last year. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, if you are actually saying, based on that diff, that Zargulon in any way "suggested" that this article be created... well, all I can say is, skills demonstrating proficiency in reading the source for its intended meaning were not in evidence. Zad68 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points, but a few comments, from someone who admittedly hasn't read the sources. "What's in a Pogrom" would apparently be as per the title about "things" which are found in a pogrom, not necessarily about the definition of pogrom per se. It might potentially violate OR/SYNTH to say otherwise and use it to establish notability of an article on the specific topic of definition of pogrom. "What was a Pogrom?" might well come closer to the mark, given the title - like I said, I've haven't read it. "On the study of riots, pogroms, and genocide" seems as per the title to be about what might be called the "history of study of pogroms" or maybe "historiography of pogroms," which is also a different topic than the definition of pogrom. The Bergmann title doesn't give me anything to go on at all. This may well seem like nitpicking, and, honestly, I'm not going to say it necessarily isn't, but SYNTH is something that is really easy to do around here, and while neither I nor anyone else necessarily objects to content on some SYNTH topic somewhere in the wikimedia entities, I hope people can understand that given the number of such entities already extant and being created some of us are trying to ensure that the content in the encyclopedia entity of the WF really qualifes as, well, encyclopedic. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, thanks for your admission that you haven't read the sources (I wish some others would admit the same!). I have linked them above - a cursory glance should illustrate that this article is trying follow them in tone, content and overall focus. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, I asked for only one source devoted to the "definition of pogroms".. you provided four sources which are not devoted to the "definition of pogroms". Can you please try to explain why you did this? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zargulon, you've been filibustering on this topic for months - please stop. If you have time to support your statement with analysis of the sources, please do, otherwise don't waste everyone's time. You've used this same tactic of making baseless rhetorical questions time and time again - it appears intended solely to stop open minded editors from participating. I recognise this is not assuming good faith, but i have months of evidence to back that up on Talk:Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, please answer my question, it would really help. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is rhetorical. Three of those sources are standalone scholarly essays in their own right. Only Klier's is technically not standalone, but it actually forms the heart of his work (which, by the way is an extremely well respected piece of work, published four years after his death). Please stop wasting time and just read the essays. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, please cooperate and try to answer my question. Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that it seems I have to agree with these now repeated requests that Once directly indicate exactly how and why these sources, which others apparently have reviewed and found to not be substantive support for the notability of this specific topic, the definition of pogrom. I am in no way taking a side here. I have already indicated on Once's talk page that, in my own opinion, probably bloody near anything and everything most of us can think of regarding religion, society, and so on, given the amount of reliable sources out there, could well be found to be ultimately notable. However, there seem to be serious questions, as yet apparently unanswered, as to whether the sources provided to date are sufficient to establish the notability of this specific topic, and as per WP:BURDEN it is more or less the onus of those who seek to add or keep information to provide information as to how it meets policies and guidelines. There does not seem to me to be any sort of clear inherent assertion of notability regarding this specific topic, so it is not unreasonable to request that the existing policies and guidelines regarding notability be addressed by those who seek to keep the article in its current state. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I'll do my best to meet your challenge. Just so I understand what I'm aiming for, could you help me by trying to describe what in your mind a notable "definition of" topic would look like? The sources underpinning this article already make it more notable than any other article in Category:Definitions, so without a model I'm not sure how I can illustrate it. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply untrue to describe these four sources as "devoted entirely to this subject", and why you would describe them as such could be the subject of an interesting debate.

  • Of these four sources, Engel is the strongest in support of this article. He spends about 6 pages of his introductory essay prefacing the content of this 200+ page book giving examples of incidents called pogroms and discussing the lack of rigorous specificity in the use of the word, and then he says something very interesting: "Moreover, even if additional research should reveal that one or another of the incidents mentioned in the previous paragraphs did not incorporate all the characteristics ascribed to the as-yet-unnamed set, the definition of the set itself need not become an issue. As long as it is possible to identify a set of incidents that do share the attributes enumerated, the only question that need be discussed is to what extent thinking about those incidents together, as part of a single analytical category, offers insight into matters of concern...." (emphasis mine) So Engel is saying "Yes, pogrom has no rigorously specific definition, but it doesn't matter because that's not what's important." The rest of his essay, and the rest of the book, discuss the important stuff - the actual pogroms, their relevance to society and government, their dynamics, their causes, their impact, etc.
  • Klier is similar to Engel but he spends even less time worrying over an exact definition of pogrom in this 400+ page book. Klier uses the discussion as a framework to discuss pogroms in various societies and locations. There is no discussion that the definition of pogrom itself is independently notable, which is what would be required to support this article beyond WP:DICDEF.
  • The particular Brass essay provided is very lightweight and once again no argument is made that the topic of the definition of pogrom itself is independently notable from the general topic of pogrom.
  • Bergmann actually comments on some other work by Brass, noting that Brass concluded "it is quite fruitless in such situations to seek to define a situation precisely as either a riot or pogrom". In his chapter, Bergmann spends 3 pages of the introduction of his chapter talking about definitions, and once again there is no indication that the definition of pogrom is independently notable from the general topic of pogrom.

If these are truly the best sources that can be provided in support, then clearly there's not enough to support an article on this subject outside of the article Pogrom. Zad68 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Bergmann and Engel are both standalone essays, contributed to larger works edited by others.
And the points you've raised about what these essays say is exactly the way they have been characterized in this article!
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—extreme case of WP:SYNTH to the point that the entire article, not just an individual section, is an inappropriate synthesis. Also, while I assume good faith and point this out just as one possibility, the article appears to have been created as a WP:POINT to argue that certain events weren't pogroms, so there's no reason to keep it as it probably wouldn't have been written if this was not under dispute in other articles. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be a coincidence, but the four shortest delete comments (all of which are wholly repetitious) have come from editors who are well known on one side of the debate in the Israel / Palestine space in wikipedia. Their comments count as much as anyone else of course, but I would encourage them in the interests of integrity to actually read the article and sources before jumping to vote in support of Jayjg. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, I am completely sure that everyone involved in this discussion who has had any dealings with you wants this AFD to be resolved strictly according to its own merits. Zargulon (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once, this is a personal attack as you are questioning the integrity of four individually identifiable editors for no reason other than your perception that they are "well known on one side of the debate in the Israel / Palestine space in wikipedia", to use your own wording. Should one investigate which "side of the debate" you are on and question your integrity in creating this article based on that? This was very disappointing to see you say and in my opinion you should strike it out. Zad68 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't strike it out - I am entitled to make observations, and I am entitled to question whether "voters" who simply repeat others' comments have actually read the article or sources. Note that my comment is not suggesting that their political views (whether right wing or left wing) should have any bearing on their views here (in fact I specifically do not think there is any read across), it is simply an observation that these editors all work alongside each other in a different area of wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tidy up and merge it into pogrom. In among the editorial commentary there is quite a bit of interesting and sourced information, but probably not so much that it needs to be separate from the article on the topic that it concerns. Victor Yus (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Looks like a SYNTH of sources into a distinct topic, but a selective merge into Pogrom looks like it would keep the useful content, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORK and WP:SYNTH. Before reading this article, I read through Pogrom, which is a well-organized presentation of 1) the etymology of the word "pogrom", 2) the use of the word to describe violence against Jews, with a list of incidents in different times and places, 3) the expansion of the term to apply to violence against non-Jews. Nowhere do I see, as Definitions of Pogrom states, that "There is no academic consensus regarding the definition of the term 'pogrom'". This article appears to be a content fork that really isn't necessary, as I will soon explain. The whole tone of Definitions of Pogrom is wishy-washy and hair-splitting. What's the point? Every Jew knows exactly what a pogrom is. The other "Definitions of" articles, such as those on fascism and terrorism, deal with the nuances of philosophy and expression of the "ism", while this article just reads like a dictionary debate. The article is also limited to the point of view of English-language academic sources. Knowing the broader treatment of Holocaust studies in Hebrew, I wonder if the Israelis debate the definition of the word "pogrom" as vociferously as the Americans. Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on what you read at the wikipedia article Pogrom?! The reason why that article doesn't make that statement is because that article is WP:OWNed by the nom here. But the sources do make the statement you refer to. No comment here has challenged the veracity of the sources in this article, because they are simply too robust (or because so few people have bothered reading them). I suggest you read the actual sources in preference to wikipedia articles before concluding next time. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once hi, can you give an example of any edit diff which supports your assertion that the article Pogrom is WP:OWNed by the nominator User:Jayjg? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWN behaviour can only be clearly seen over the long term. I invite others to take a view for themselves, since I am interested here. Jayjg is by far the article's most prolific editor [2], but that proves nothing on its own. I would point to examples such as [3] where a user says "Having learned that Jayjg is the local government", a number of examples of agressive deletion with minimal talk contribution (e.g. [4] and [5]). Then since i've been involved there has been a consistent attempt to fight change, with the worst offence being [6] when after 3 months of consensus-building with other editors Jayjg returned to reverse it all without appropriate discussion. I'm sure you remember that one - that was when you made your u-turn.
Having said that, I really don't understand the motives here - it should just be about reflecting sources properly, but that has never been the issue raised. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check: At pogrom, Jayjg has made 107 (5.26%) of the 2,035 total edits over all time. In past 12 months, Jayjg has made 39 of the 300 edits; Oncenawhile has made 58 (19 more than Jayjg). Once gives this diff as proof of WP:OWN; those interested should step through the entire May 2007 nine-edit exchange, which lasted under one hour. The other examples given are normal article development that nobody was challenging, and then Oncenawhile's own interactions with Jayjg. Zad68 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zad, you left out the fact that you have made 42 edits in the last 10 months. "Fact checking" should acknowledge involvement where relevant, so as not to mislead. Anyway, you are misrepresenting my comments. None of the examples I gave are intended to be proof on their own - they can't be, because as I said "WP:OWN behaviour can only be clearly seen over the long term." More importantly, I wrote "I invite others to take a view for themselves, since I am interested here", which was directed at uninterested editors, not you. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, I presume you mean "disinterested" editors.. I doubt even you would intentionally direct your remarks towards uninterested (=bored) editors. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Zad is not a disinterested editor? Zargulon (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, can you try to explain why "fighting change" (I assume, specific changes which he didn't agree with) is an "offence"? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, nor did i say it was. Try reading my comment again. If you are going to insist on asking rhetorical questions please make sure they don't misrepresent my comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the biggest issue at Pogrom is that Jayjg has shown no evidence of having read the sources under discussion. The statements being made appear to be counter to his point of view, but he has provided no sources to support his alternative view so he simply claims that certain information is undue. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, can you please try to explain what kind of "evidence of reading the sources under discussion" other involved people, for instance you, have shown, which User:Jayjg has not? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not in a fashion that will convince you. The only way you can find out whether my statement is true is by reading all the sources yourself. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight - you are saying that the sources contain information about whether or not User:Jayjg has read the sources? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that since you ignore every single fact I provide, the only way for this conversation to progress is for you to actually read the sources. Once you know what's in them, you can reassess all the facts. PS, your comment was another rhetorical question which misrepresented my comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not saying that the sources contain information about whether Jayjg has read the sources, could you please explain how an editor would be able to conclude, from "reading all the sources himself", that "Jayjg has shown no evidence of reading the sources"? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. epzik8 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Synth and perhaps WP:Soap the article starts out stating an opinion, then provides a collection of sources supporting that opinion, ending with a list of why this, that and the other aren't pogroms. Not particularly encyclopedic, more of an essay. Drsmoo (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re suggestions of synth Irrespective of my belief that there are a number of tenuous "votes" here, I note that a number of comments have mentioned synth as a core allegation. The only way to effectively show why this argument is wrong is to point to specific statements of proof in reliable sources. However no editor is making the synth allegation against specific sentences, instead the allegation is being made against the article as a whole. Which means to show that it is not synth i can only point to the overall sentiment and content of sources which cover the topic in detail as a whole, which I have tried to do. But the comments in this discussion suggest that very few editors have the time to read these sources as a whole, but have concluded it must be synth anyway. So I am currently at a loss as to how to prove something i know to be true - that this article, both specific sentences and the overall tone etc, is based solely on reliable sources. If anyone has any suggestions as to what I can do to illustrate this more clearly, without requiring people to read the sources, I'd be grateful. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, can you please explain why a proposed article cannot be both "based on reliable sources" and also WP:SYNTH? Thanks in advance Zargulon (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I assume good faith in your continued misrepresentative comments - this is the fourth time on this page alone that you have misrepresented my post in a follow up rhetorical question - then I must also assume that you have reading problems. On the other hand, your comments may be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my comments. Which is it? I have asked you before, "if you are going to insist on asking rhetorical questions please make sure they don't misrepresent my comments." You have failed to do that once again.
My reference to "both specific sentences and the overall tone etc" are the key words above to your point. Since synth means putting A and B together to imply C through tone or otherwise, whereby C is unsupported by RS, my point is that even C is supported by RS.
I've answered your question, now you answer mine. If you think there's Synth in here, read the sources and then explain what "implied conclusion" (or C, in the A+B=C) is unsupported by the sources.
Oncenawhile (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once, can you please explain what you meant by saying the proposed article's "overall tone" is "based on reliable sources" and why it is relevant to whether it should be retained or deleted? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How much more explanation do you need!? Because if the overall gist of the article wasn't based on reliable sources, then it would be synth. But it is, so it's not. Is that clear enough?
I've continued to answer your questions, now you answer mine. If you think there's Synth in here, read the sources and then explain what "implied conclusion" (or C, in the A+B=C) is unsupported by the sources.
Oncenawhile (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article can adopt the "overall tone" or "overall gist" of a scholarly source and yet be completely fraudulent. Can you please try to explain why either of these things is relevant and why you brought them up? Thanks in advance. Zargulon (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teams which have withdrawn from FIFA World Cup[edit]

Teams which have withdrawn from FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In 80 years of the World Cup, five teams have withdrawn. Hardly a big deal. I really don't think this even merits mention at the main FIFA World Cup article, let alone a standalone article. Grammatically mangled title also makes it an extremely unlikely search title..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial article with little useful information (not even why the teams withdrew). Should be covered in articles on individual championships. Note: it may be possible to write a worthwhile article that includes general information on withdrawing from the World Cup (thus showing it's a notable subject) and specific information on individual withdrawals, but you'd change the title and include text not just stats - Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopedic or notable. GiantSnowman 19:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and really not needed. Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the comments of Colapeninsula and others. IgnorantArmies 13:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean360x[edit]

Sean360x (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY that fails WP:MUSIC. Some of the claims in the article that could potentially show notability are false, such as the MySpace charts claim, which is shown as false if you click on the source.

The author's intentions are good, but the mere presence of sources and photographs with notable people does not confer notability. If we removed all of the offending material (stretched claims, non-encyclopedic information), we'd be left with a small stub, which wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC. I recommend just deleting it, and encouraging User:Sean360x to read up on our guidelines. Alan(E) 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overly promotional puff piece full of deceptive referencing. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G7: the sole contributor to the text requested deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Petit Ros[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, I couldn't find any other sources and I can't check the one that's already there. –TCN7JM 21:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Seismicity of the Chilean coast. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 13:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Coquimbo earthquake[edit]

2003 Coquimbo earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable earthquake. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 18:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Delete — This is just one of many events on the Chilean coast and it doesn't stand out. According to a write up from the USGS there were evacuations of schools, downed power lines and associated outages, and an injury in Argentina. [7] There is a journal article that mentions the event, but again, it's grouped together with a large number of earthquakes that occurred there (the article documents events from 1997 and was published in 2006). If I were to use this report it would be to expand the Seismicity of the Chilean coast article. This single event isn't much by itself. [8] Dawnseeker2000 03:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Seismicity of the Chilean coast: the quake itself is not notable since it has no WP:LASTING consequences. The information and sources contained in the article would be useful to support the assertion in the "Seismicity of the Chilean coast" article that the top quakes recorded in Chile occurred in two distinct periods. - ʈucoxn\talk 22:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum (company)[edit]

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

Advert; all the sources are press release and links to the company website. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. As stated by nom, all relevant sources are press releases or otherwise primary sources. Unable to find any relevant or substantial secondary sources. Fails WP:CORP -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; Run of the mill VOIP business. Their geo-redundant network powers (They made the Earth redundant?) skirt close to the border of patent nonsense: a cloud-based communications provider with turnkey VoIP services, broadband management and unified communications solutions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spectraforce Technologies Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company article with no real sources CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Local outsourcing company with no national or international attention. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HaleAgnes (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Indeed it seems they haven't received much attention and Google News only found one recent news article here for a job opening. Google News archives found results here (personal profile for founder Amit Singh), here (detailed article about the company which mentions an Inc. ranking), here (job positions) and here (press release which has been republished, minor mention). I also found an Inc. profile for them here which actually lists three rankings but they aren't significant (the lowest was 182 in 2009 while the others have gotten higher). Another Google News search without the "Inc." provided results here (press release), here, here and here (these last three are all bizjournals.com, the last one is the most detailed). My next and last search was simply "Spectraforce" which provided two more bizjournals.com links (two profiles and one minor mention) and two press releases (for two events in consecutive years). This sounds like a nice company to work for and Inc. says their revenue increased $18 million in three years but aside from the numerous bizjournals.com links, I'm not seeing much notability. I have no prejudice towards a future article, SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 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) 21:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Consult[edit]

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

Non-notable floral company CorporateM (Talk) 18:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I appreciate the author's efforts to create an article but I can't see anything that makes this company notable. Google News searches found an Econonic Times article and the other article currently being used as a reference here. Google Books also found one result here (first result form the top) which appears to be a business directory. One of my other Google Books searches found another result here (vague preview but doesn't appear to be significant) along with the first one I found. As a precaution, I performed some more searches including the alternative spelling of Praveen, "Pravin", but found nothing. There isn't even much to indicate local notability but then again floral companies aren't always notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -Self Promotional article. Wikipedia is not the stage to advertise companies for marketing purpose. Jussychoulex (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel McBride Pringle[edit]

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

Clearly a genealogical piece about a non-notable junior officer in the Confederate Army. The article is almost entirely (bar a couple of sentences) sourced from unpublished personal documents and letters. Original research not suitable for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Hassan[edit]

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

Classic BLP1E where the subject has failed to garner sufficient secondary sources to meet GNG/N. Of the two worthwhile sources, one is a paragraph from a purely local sources and the second is about something else. So this fails to meet the GNG and if it did, he is only famous for one this, writing a book. Spartaz Humbug! 14:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deleteas no reasonable indication of notability. The book is self-published: Mill City Press [www.millcitypress.net/ defines itself] as a self publisher. Not surprisingly, it is in only one library. We have normally said that a self-published book is not a claim to notability for the purpose of CSD A7. Additionally, I think it would be deletable under both G11, promotional, and also as a negative BLP with inadequate sourcing--odd as it may seem to have the two together. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to be self promotional and could fall under WP:GCSD G11. Its most significant contributors are Judehassan and an IP editor that seems to be located near the residence of the subject of the article. - ʈucoxn\talk 22:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Freedom of religion in India. Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversions in India[edit]

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

First, the article is biased towards hinduism and secondly all the points pointed out is covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_India#Laws_against_conversions hence can be merged with that article Naveed (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ugh. NPOV is lacking both in the article and in the proposed redirect target. Someone really needs to write a good treatment of the topic in a neutral and encyclopedic voice. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you. Tried correcting it but found it to be in very bad shape. Someone should edit it completely , else should be deleted.--Naveed (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Business School Network[edit]

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

This organization fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:CORPDEPTH spectacularly. JFHJr (㊟) 06:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the fence for now - there's lots of stuff out there about various schools/groups joining said network, like this and this and this. Obviously, those sorts of things are from "partner" organisations so independence is a concern. But there's also a few articles like this from Bloomberg Businessweek and this and this Harvard Business Review case study. I'm not really convinced those are enough for WP:ORGDEPTH but my quick search suggests there might be more out there to be found. But if what I've found is all there is to find, then it will be a struggle. I also think there's something to be said for the fact that it is the higher education initiative of the IFC and the list of notable member organisations is impressive (though... you know... WP:INHERIT). Stalwart111 07:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also this, this (though from the same Bloomberg author) and not that it means much, but it's also one of 90 US State Department Global Entrepreneurship Program partners. There's also random local coverage like this which talks about x school joining the network (there's a few like this). Stalwart111 08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*delete* has no references in article. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ronald DeFeo, Jr.. Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allison DeFeo[edit]

Allison DeFeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete Unfortunately I don't think this victim meets the threshold of encyclopedic notability. There's nothing here that isn't already covered in the article about her killer. Since there isn't anything here potentially harmful to the encyclopedia, I think a redirect would be the best outcome, but deleting this and leaving a redirect behind is fine too. AniMate 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirct as per WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Bangladesh riot[edit]

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

POV fork of 2013 Shahbag protests. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not POV fork of 2013 Shahbag protests, reason explained in Talk:2013 Bangladesh riot. --Rossi101 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101[reply]
How not? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its already explain in talk page about WP:POVFORK. Although there is one merge proposal with 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence. Thanks.--- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 05:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't the violence happening in places other than Shahbag? In that case, this is a legit topic that should have a separate article. There is also 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence, which should probably be merged with this one. utcursch | talk 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not the same thing as Shahbag, but notable enough to be covered. I don't think the title really captures the content though. Applesandapples (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a a different and notable topic. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE! Also, merge 2013 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence with this one! --Zayeem (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Title, The title needs to be changed. The ongoing violent protests by Jamaat Shibir activists and the retreat by the Police is not a riot. The Jamaat activists are selectively attacking Hindus in Bangladesh. Please do not use the word 'riot' in the title.Enamulhoque1 (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is different from Shahbagh protests. The attacks on Hindus in reaction to death sentence on a man who has been awarded the sentence especially because of his role in the genocide of Hindus in 1971, has been taken note of by the international media. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While this is certainly related to the Shahbag protests, the Shahbag protests are mainly based in the Dhaka metro area. This article discusses Jamaati-instigated violence in rural areas of Bangladesh outside Dhaka in the aftermath of the ICT verdicts and the Shahbag protests that are more widespread. These incidents are part of an ongoing upheaval in Bangladesh, and are certainly notable enough for a separate article.Handyunits (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a different (although related) entity from Shahbag protest. The Shahbag protest is a peaceful protest by citizens demanding death sentence of some alleged and convicted war criminals, and banning of the fundamentalist party Jamaat-e-Islami. In contrast, the 2013 riots are started by Jamaat-e-Islami vandals ill-expressing their over-enthusiasm for religion, incited by the fact their demigod leaders are facing/ would face serious punishment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. —Noiratsi (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iphone 6[edit]

Iphone 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no sources at all to verify its existence. Well, there are sources in the Internet but its WP:TOOSOON. Mediran (t • c) 09:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Lau[edit]

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

Fails football notability and college athlete notability as he has never played a game in any pro league, and never won any awards/honors or had much significant non trivial media coverage as a college football player either. Arbor to SJ (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sources don't support assertions of article (e.g. one link shows that Lau ranked 18 of 53 in fullbacks for the 2007 NFL draft. Not bad, but not a "top pick" and not even in the top third). The 2007 St Louis Rams Roster doesn't list Lau as a player in 2007 or any other year. In fact, the Football Database doesn't show Lau as having played for anyone professionally. His college career was also unspectacular. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 09:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. While college players can qualify under GNG, not findin substantial nontrivial coverage in mainstream media sources. Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH (never received a major college sports award) pr WP:NGRIDIRON (never played an NFL or other professional game). Google and Google News Archive searches reveal a fair anount of routine and/or trivial coverage, but not multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. There are a handful of marginally substantive articles in the Idaho Statesman (hometown newspaper for Boise State), but multiple articles in the same newspaper count as a single source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could be notable in the future, but I'm not seeing the amount of coverage that I think would pass muster. If coverage occurs, please post and I'll be happy to review/change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:45, 4 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn following article improvement with unanimous Keeps. The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boudreaux's Butt Paste[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Boudreaux's Butt Paste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. I see no claim for notability in the article; single ref is a passing (one-para long) mention in Businessweek. As long as the article is in the current shape, it has no place on Wikipedia - we are not a listing of minor products found on store shelves, and so far, this is what the article looks like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The past and current problems with the article are all fixable. There are sources out there and a couple of us have set to adding them. The product/line has not only been slapped onto a NASCAR ride, but it's gotten international coverage. It got quite a bit of coverage just based on the NASCAR stuff and while notability isn't inherited, the articles I've found that mention the NASCAR ride all focus predominantly on the product itself. What's on the article now is just a fraction of what's out there. The main problem is sorting through and picking out the best sources of the bunch at this point, as we can afford to be more selective.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would, however, recommend making this into an article about the brand as a whole rather than specifically the butt paste. It'd be easier to have all the info in one place rather than two separate articles.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I deprodded this with an explanation that it is a well-known product with many sources evident at GNews. The AfD was filed less than 30 minutes later, while I was still putting together my first edit adding some of these sources. In the meantime another editor has also began adding sources. As I write this the article now has 11 sources, with more to come. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am glad to see the article improved, and I'll be looking forward to the point I can withdraw this nom. Per Tokyogirl79, I'd suggest reconsidering the scope of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NASCAR Busch and NASCAR Nationwide sponsor. Star767 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - May look like a poor article, but looking at WP:UGLY, the errors can be fixed, and being used as a NASCAR sponsor (I don't see why it was OK'd though, especially with a rather stupid product name) does give it some notability. But then again, refocusing the scope of the page is also a possibility. ZappaOMati 19:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the reasons given above. Also, I must say the timing of this AfD was pretty bad given that this article was on the main page as a link in a DYK entry. At least it wasn't the bolded article in the DYK hook, but given the title, it is probably one most people will click (like me). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At this point the article has been expanded sufficiently that the nom can be withdrawn. Thanks to all who helped to save this article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Foxy Brown (rapper). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Roses (Foxy Brown album)[edit]

Black Roses (Foxy Brown album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose for redirection. Foxy Brown has been pretty much semi-retired since 2001 when her last main album Broken Silence was released. Only one album has been released since then, the moderately successful and critically mixed street album Brooklyn's Don Diva in 2008. She has made only 16 guest appearances on other artist tracks since 2003. This has been in preparation for 9 years with no update since early 2011 and only 2 singles nearly 5 1/2 years apart from each other. I don't think she has any inclination to complete this now or in the near future. Thebirdlover (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bordes[edit]

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

Notability of this article is in question. I improved it a bit to save it from immediate deletion, though. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it would need a lot more improvement to save it from deletion. There's no indication that any of his companies or "projects" has any notability so it's difficult to see where his notability lies. Just being a company director doesn't confer notability. Deb (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Non-notable projects. Alan(E) 17:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sufficient in depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997#Attacks outside Northern Ireland. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (review) 18:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Hazell[edit]

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

Non notable biography per WP:1E Mo ainm~Talk 06:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly notable incident, mentioned in prominent newspapers 6,000 miles away and publicly condemned by the British PM and the West German government. I can move the article to "Murder of Heidi Hazell" if you prefer, but it's clearly too notable for deletion. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I've moved it to Murder of Heidi Hazell. Problem solved! --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain article - as well as the comments at the time, including as noted in the article the German Foreign Minister and the British Prime Minister this event and person is still notable. For example, in 2011 in an article for the Sunday Independent it says " Germany was particularly outraged over the 1989 killing in Dortmund of Heidi Hazell, the civilian German wife of a British soldier" [9]. If it is still being explicitly referred to in the mainstream media over 20 years later and cited for its impact on German opinion then this event passes any reasonable test of notability.--Flexdream (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect as above. A standalone article on this topic is always going to have issues of WP:BALANCE, so it's best to integrate it into a long-form article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (review) 18:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a copy of the Wikivoyage/Wikitravel article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Kaldari (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Topic is a valid one. Copy paste was done by one or more ip editors. this version do have right information without duplication of content from wikitravel. Unregistered users will keep on doing such vandalism, can we remove articles because of that?--GDibyendu (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Love of Money[edit]

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

Article has no apparent focus, and seems to solely exist to support the article Thomas L. Tang. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 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 withdrawn by nominator. I had already nominated the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, apparently when this AfD nomination was being created. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 03:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan ranch[edit]

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

Place with no notability whatsoever. Fails WP:N. –TCN7JM 03:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing nomination – Article was found to be a copyvio. –TCN7JM 03:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the 9[edit]

Henry the 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see any sort of notability. To me, this just looks like an unimportant indie film. –TCN7JM 03:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't understand how this film, which according to this article has had only a single screening, even qualifies for listing in the Internet Movie Database, much less in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possible redirect to either Seumas Next or Stephan Kern. While IMDB simply requires that a film has been shown somewhere, WP:NF requires it receive some sort of note in reliable sources... which this one has not. We can at least send readers to where it can be mentioned even if not meriting a separate article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about redirecting to either of those articles. They're both being PROD'd at the moment. –TCN7JM 03:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had seen that... others created by the now-blocked User:MrBiggXX...but there is no doubt that THIS article fails. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself claims that it has only ever been shown once, at a hotel. No reliable sources. Far from being notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:38, 9 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Tang[edit]

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

In this plethora of words I find no indication of notability, whether it be via the GNG or some index. That this is a narrative resume written by the subject is obvious; that it needs to go is clear as well. Note also The Love of Money and its history. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find a GS h-index of 7 at best. Not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 or support this vast construction. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to steer the author into a more careful and collaborative direction, but he seems more interested in the promotional possibilities of Wikipedia than the encyclopedic focus. Have now AfD'd The Love of Money. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give us a link to its AfD debate and put it in the appropriate discussion groups. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
You found it, obviously, but for future reference (once the article is deleted or the AfD link is gone from it) the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love of Money. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Club good. Non-admin close on behalf of nominator who has withdrawn nomination in lieu of a redirect. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Club theory[edit]

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

Material from here is now in Club good. (An increase of 4kb to 6.0 kb now.) The added material serves (nicely) to expand that article, making it more useful. (And I reassessed it as start class.) Deletion of this article with a redirect to Club good will work well. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By OP – I posted this as an AfD because I expected resistance from the creator of this article. The AfD would allow other editors to opine. (I had been accused of harassing the creator.) In between the time that I was doing my C&P to club good and my posting of this XfD, the originator of club theory received an indefinite block. With this in mind, I'm guessing that Shinmawa's advice to redirect can be accomplished without objection. Sorry, though, I'm not sure how to do this. Would you please accomplish it? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense and you probably did the right thing, all things considered. If you want to BLAR the page, just replace the entire content of the page with "#REDIRECT [[Club goods]]" (without the quotes) or you can just let this AfD run its course.  :) -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now what do we do with this page? – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi)[edit]

Curry House (Fort Adams, Mississippi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; the only way this building can be considered notable is if we ascribe automatic notability to all subjects photographed in the Historic American Buildings Survey, which seems wrongheaded. Though superficially the topic appears to have extensive coverage (curry house fort adams -wikipedia), filtering out Wikipedia and Library of Congress mirrors ("curry house" "fort adams" -wikipedia -photo) suggests minimal notability well below WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I don't particularly care. I created this article in April 2010‎ when I created and developed Curry House (disambiguation) page. This is a reconstruction of why I chose to create it. There are various proper noun places named Curry House or variations such as "Nathaniel Curry House", distinct from the common meaning of Curry house as an Indian/Bangladeshi restaurant in the U.K. or elsewhere, and it seems useful to have a disambiguation page to help readers find their way to them. In 2010 it seemed useful to create this stub article as an example of a place named exactly "Curry House", partly to protect the disambiguation page from contention about whether there are proper noun places of exactly this name. It has worked fine. I think the short stub article is accurate and is fine to keep in Wikipedia, though I grant it is only marginally notable. Since little/no additional information has arrived to the article since then, I am guessing that the Curry House itself was destroyed (or else it likely would have become NRHP-listed and otherwise recognized). Again, it is marginally notable, having been recorded in the Historic American Buildings Survey. It is no big deal if it is deleted or kept, but I would prefer it be kept, as it is then more likely that the Wikipedia article will collect documentation to be added by local historians, photographers, etc. --doncram 00:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a nice photo, but that's not enough to base an article on. Unfortunately, the HABS photograph was not accompanied by any meaningful information about the house. Additionally, I find no indication that any such information is available anywhere else. HABS does say the house was in "fair" condition at the time of the photo (1936). Its condition in 1936, together with the fact that this area has not exactly prospered in the intervening years, makes it very improbable that it survives today. I found an interesting report on the cultural resources in some part of the Fort Adams area. I used that source to add some content to the Fort Adams article, but my reading of the report left me thinking that it's very unlikely that this building survives -- or that anyone remembers much about its history. If I'm wrong the article could be recreated. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I concur with Orlady's interpretation of the scant resources available. It would appear that this house may have served as the only main house for Clarksville Plantation and Riverside Plantation. These plantations, plus one other further to the south, adjoined one another along the Mississippi River and were all combined into one property by the early 20th century. The property was purchased by a Curry family during the early 1930s. The only online info, compiled in 1989, seems to indicate that the only significant historic remnants on the property at that time were a house site (the house burned down during the late 1960s) and two cemeteries. The Riverside Cemetery was about 500 feet south of the house site and seems to hold the remains of the antebellum plantation families. The house site was deemed to be not worthy of further investigation in the 1989 report, with only some bricks and household debris remaining. It seems unlikely that anyone will be able find enough info on this house to meet the notability standards, but I could be wrong. Altairisfar (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we even sure that's the same "Curry House" described in this article? I mean, it's a logical assumption given the name and the location, but it's still a guess. Choess (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we aren't. Its only speculation. But it is the only info that could be found for a Curry House in the Fort Adams area. Altairisfar (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Altairisfar and I are talking about the same report. The report identifies someone named Curry as the last private owner of two plantation properties at Fort Adams; it describes historical information about a house that once belonged to Abraham Swan, that is on the 1965 topographic map, and that reportedly burned down in the late 1960s; and it describes the bricks and household debris remaining from that house; but it doesn't ever refer to the house as "Curry House". There isn't much of any basis for identifying the house as Curry House -- nor for identifying it as "Not Curry House". It's all speculation. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was referencing the report that Orlady found. Sorry for not being clear. My own search found nothing else online concerning a Curry house in that area. Altairisfar (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the HABS page, sources which are derived from HABS listings, and the report Orlady found, I can't find any sources discussing the Curry House. The article also appears to have major issues with verifiability; the report doesn't even say that the plantation house it discusses was called the Curry House or is even the same house, and it appears to be unclear if this house even still exists. Maybe there are offline local sources discussing the house, but we shouldn't keep a vague and currently unexpandable article based on unconfirmed sources. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ronhjones under criteria G11 and G12. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Projectionism[edit]

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

Unremarkable arts terminology. Also, the article itself fails to comply with WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:DICTIONARY in which Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rythem discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter & Sweet (song)[edit]

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

Article was tagged for notability more than two years ago with no substantive change in the intervening period Nolabob (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean Rythem? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
Yes. Apologies for the typo. --DAJF (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Socrates Project[edit]

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

Not notable - seems like a conspiracy theory or fringe belief, and is based on one website. In any case, the article presents the subject from only one side. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 22:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. References aren't few. They are non-existent. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A conspiracy theory or work of fiction with a fancy website that has received no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (G3, G11) This isn't even a conspiracy theory or fringe. This article and the website are attempts at viral advertising for a non-notable novel [11]. The website was made by Nautilus Media, the publisher of the novel. The article was written by the novel's author. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-after the intervention above I read again carefully the article. No sources have been added. No w-links. I change my keep vote.--Soroboro (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Problem Solverz#History. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Knome[edit]

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

While this article has been up for a couple of years, it contains virtually nothing but trivia, grammatical and spelling errors, and is made up almost entirely of original research and personal interpretation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Greg Plitt. The history will be maintained in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MFT28[edit]

MFT28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bodybuilding/fitness program by Greg Plitt, only sourced to an article by himself on bodybuilding.com. Fails to establish notability; Google search for MFT28 has found nothing but the program itself and its promotion. Delete or redirect to Greg Plitt. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Redirecting this page to Greg Plitt completely eliminates all the information here, as it is not present on Plitts page. I added a reference or two to this page from Greg Plitt, but I don't think the article should be deleted. Domcarlo (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Greg Plitt, I couldn't find any significant coverage of this exercise program. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Looking_for_Alaska#Characters. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Young[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character from the notable (and personal favorite) novel, Looking for Alaska, which fails to meet the general notability guideline and also violates what Wikipedia is not. Presently, the article is a plot summary and contains only in-universe details through primary and unreliable sources. My attempts to look for independent discussion of the character turned up these, articles, and this book which do not devote substantial coverage to the character. Scholarly commentary provided analysis of some general themes and controversy surrounding the novel (e.g. [12]), but not much commentary of the character.

I am open to reconsidering if reliable, independent sources are found that discuss the character in-depth, but otherwise, I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Looking_for_Alaska#Characters. I performed a search but wasn't able to find anything that discussed the character in the way that would show that she has notability outside of the novel in the way a character such as Harry Potter or Katniss Everdeen. There might be some argument for a list of the characters, but that's somewhat pushing it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above: this is just plot summary of a non-notable character. If someone wants to try a selective merge of the most important information, that would be fine, but there's a lack of sourcing and too much plot so we certainly don't want to merge the whole thing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 4 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. KTC (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Verma[edit]

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

Subject is not a notable person. atnair (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentA quick google search brings up quite a bit of material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrolord (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNot a notable person. Page should be deleted Jussychoulex (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BroadMap[edit]

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

Advert on non-notable org CorporateM (Talk) 01:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per nominator withdrawal and no other delete votes SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gunfighters of the Northwest[edit]

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

I found this listed online in plenty of film directories, but I don't think it has any significant coverage in reliable sources. Nominating for failing applicable notability guidelines. samrolken (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Great work finding some more sources by the participants here. I've changed my mind and they have my thanks. I hope these can be added to the article soon. I withdraw this nomination and ask that someone promptly close this as speedy-keep. samrolken (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article creator. As a black & white 1953 (non-science fiction) film serial, I doubt there will be much coverage on the internet. However, Google Books is showing some hits and I expect there will be more in specialist media not currently archive by Google. I believe sufficient sources will exist for this as it was a widely distributed film released by a major studio—albeit in a variant (northern) of a genre (western) that was popular at the time but less so now—with famous lead actors. Deletion will also leave a gap in the coverage of film serials on Wikipedia (this was one of the very last serials ever made). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like that content hosted at the nytimes.com is actually from All Media Guide, a movie directory. The same content can be found syndicated at hundreds of sites on the Internet. samrolken (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting WP:NF as a piece of American film history that has made it into the enduring and permanent record, being found in a great number of books covering Western films of that period.[13] Per WP:NTEMP, we do not demand nor expect that a film released in 1953 would have headlines today. While AMG (now Allrovi) does list films, it is not only a movie directory, and the review attributed to them by The New York Times is one by Hans J. Wollstein (needs his own article)... an expert in his field,[14] who is accepted and used as a citation elsewhere within Wikipedia.[15] Information is in enough sources to show it was notable then,sources which makes it still notable today. We protect such articles on film history for the future of Wikipedia. We do not demand immediate attention nor seek deletion for improvable topics. Instead, we accept that even if not superb today, they might benefit from the attention of those with access to hard-copy sources unavailable online. WP:IMPERFECT WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:NODEADLINE Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baldini & Castoldi[edit]

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

This is quite the messy one. The article creator wrote a dozen or so new articles, most were speedy deleted, and the editor was blocked for disruptive editing. I am nominating this article for XfD because it does not meets WP:CORP. While superficially it appears to have sources, most of them appear to either be directly related to the company or blogs. Here is my breakdown below:

  1. http://www.bcdeditore.it/ - Official blog of Baldini Castoldi Dalai.
  2. http://www.bcdeditore.it/pagina-di-esempio/ - Same as #1.
  3. http://www.san.beniculturali.it/web/san/dettaglio-soggetto-produttore?id=66116 - Business listing (user edited content).
  4. http://emmelle.over-blog.it/article-baldini-castoldi-editore--informazioni-storia-85862204.html - A blog about the company.
  5. http://www.cinquantamila.it/storyTellerThread.php?threadId=DALAI+Alessandro - A reliable source but only trivially mentions Baldini & Castoldi, among a few other publishers too.
  6. http://www.repubblica.it/2003/i/sezioni/spettacoli_e_cultura/delbuono/delbuono/delbuono.html - News article about the death of Oreste Del Buono, trivial mention of Baldini & Castoldi in one sentence, also a few other publishers mentioned.
  7. http://www.sololibri.net/+-Baldini-Castoldi-Dalai-+.html - A blog with a page about the company.
  8. http://www.booksblog.it/post/7219/curiosita-la-baldinicastoldi-dalai-cambia-nome-almeno-sul-sito - A blog about the company.
  9. http://www.libriebit.com/interviste-libri-bit-enrico-brizzi/ - A blog interview with Enrico Brizzi with a trivial mention about Baldini & Castoldi.
  10. http://www.centopagine.it/node/91 - Biography of Giorgio Faletti. Possibly a company profile page that trivially mentioned Baldini & Castoldi.

Mkdwtalk 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A collection of blogs, user generated/altered coverage, and trivial non-item specific mentions. Does not meet WP:CORP or general guidelines for notability via WP:GNG. Barada wha? 00:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: bad nom, WP:BEFORE failure. We don't consider a topic as non notable just because it is poorly sourced, but only if reliable sources does not exist. Article still needs a bit of cleanup (and probably copyedit), but I can assume the nominator's concerns about the lack of notability of this 120 years old publishing house were addressed, so a withdrawal is suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to assume good faith. I always conduct WP:BEFORE. Old does not mean notable. The burden is always on the creators/editors of the article. I certainly appreciate you adding sources, but none of the La Stampa pages load for me to verify. BooksBlog and Sololibri as stated above are blogs. I found the book Potresti anche dirmi grazie: Gli scrittori raccontati dagli editori and it does talk about Baldini & Castoldi on several pages. The Repubblica story is a reliable source too but does this put the company with in WP:CORPDEPTH? Mkdwtalk 07:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The La Stampa articles are perfectly accessible from my computer (maybe it depends from the location of the PC?) however verification does not require ease of access. And yes, the book Potresti anche dirmi grazie supports every single thing the original creator wrote. I have also added 2 more books and one journal sources, you are ignoring in your above "review". Google Books offer even more, but I think it is enough. Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a respectable publisher and User:Cavarrone seems to be doing good work improving the article — bravo! Our editing policy is to develop such articles, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in Italian) Gianola, Rinaldo (April 12, 1997). "Va a majority of the Dalai Baldini & Castoldi". La Repubblica. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
  • (in Italian) "Scrittori: Baldini Castoldi ricorrera' in Appello per brera". IGN. February 4, 2004. Retrieved March 9, 2013.
  • (in Italian) Simone Mosca (5 February 2013). "Un quadro e cento libri per ricordare Baldini". La Repubblica. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 01:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears to have extensive revision. Deferring prior vote in preference of others notations. Barada wha? 02:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Cork[edit]

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

I don't think this has any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so I'm nominating for deletion for failing notability guidelines. samrolken (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Please note that I wish to withdraw this nomination since it looks like some good sources have been found. (Thanks!) I hope they will be added to the article and I ask that someone close this as speedy-keep. samrolken (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Big in its day. Ran for five years, peak hour viewing (9pm) on the channel (ITV) with the highest viewing figures at that time, the subject of at least two spin-off books. Not forgotten, since it has been issued on DVD, but in any case notability is not temporary. --AJHingston (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AJHingston. A series that ran on ITV for 5 years is not the sort of thing we should be deleting. It's not surprising that something of that vintage might not yield extensive GNews results, but here for example is a 1969 review from Melbourne's The Age, and here is a 1995 mention in The Independent crediting this show as first to bring the "Victorian policeman" cop show concept to TV. -Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kunjwan[edit]

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

I've brought this to Afd because I don't think this Jainist temple is covered under WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. I had initially tried to speedy this because it seemed like the author had attempted to create several different subjects on one page. Disregarding the poorly composed history section and infobox, this stub only contains references to Facebook pages. I can't seem to find any reliable English sources. If someone fluent in Hindi or Marathi could help with the sourcing, I'll withdraw this. Funny Pika! 22:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as the article isn't in English. If someone writes an English article we can take this up again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've applied the appropriate template and noted this at WP:Pages needing translation into English. We don't speedy delete things just because they are not in English, only if they also exist on the other-language Wikipedia (or in English here). I have no way of judging the notability of the temple but have removed the English-language material on the village and inserted it into the article on the village, which was one line long. I may remove the infobox too, since most of it seems to be about the village. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FTP Voyager[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable software. Article consists mostly of a feature list in a pretty promotional language. The history section lists an award that the program won, but the cited domain is now taken over by spammers. Google searches don't show notability supported by reliable sources.  — daranz [ t ] 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — daranz [ t ] 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry in advance about the formatting, but here's some rebuttal:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- While I don't expect there to be a lot of secondary sources on FTP software, which tends to be somewhat of a niche, there were less than I expected. Once Rhino's own primary sources are removed, the remaining secondary sources are passing references and a few knowledge base tutorials. There were a few small reviews, which tended to be one to two paragraphs in length and usually part of a comparison piece. The award isn't notable either (as its now defunct status shows). -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comparison of FTP client software has a lot of articles with similar levels of sourcing. a13ean (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Because of low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rawz al-jinan ve ruh al-jinan[edit]

Rawz al-jinan ve ruh al-jinan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an English page, but I was unable to identify if it met CSD:A2 due to the language barrier (I could not tell if another page existed in a different language on the same topic). If someone with knowledge of the Arabic language could please determine this and give input, I would greatly appreciate it. Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI the author has an article in Brill Encyclopedia of Islam dedicated to him, saying: "Abū l-Futūḥ al-Rāzī (fl. sixth/twelfth century) was a Shīʿī author and preacher, most famous for his Persian commentary on the Qurʾān, entitled Rawḍ al-jinān wa-rawḥ (or rūḥ) al-janān" Hope that suffices for the notability of his book. Kazemita1 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator has misunderstood WP:CSD#A2 - a non-English title for an article is perfectly OK, provided that the article itself is in English and the title is the name by which the subject is generally referred to when discussed in English. The real difficulty is finding sources - I get the impression that the transliteration from Arabic is not standard, so this may be the reason. If someone can come up with a better transliteration (and preferably a few sources to go with it), that would belp. PWilkinson (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The source provided above grants notability to the author, but I don't think it really provides notability to the book, especially if it's the only source available. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Apparently, there are two articles in Brill Encyclopedia of Islam about the author. The longer one[16] that I had NOT listed above has a full section -out of a total of two- dedicated to this specific book. I am adding material and references to the wiki page.Kazemita1 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MSR Flug-Charter[edit]

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

This small, non-scheduled corporate charter airline clearly fails WP:CORP. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There is nothing to be said about it other than it existed. Obviously, MSR Flug-Charter had not any significant impact on the aviation industry. FoxyOrange (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not German and don't speak German so I won't be able to help much but a search at Google News at Google News and Google Books did provide results but nothing substantial about this company. Unfortunately, searches at German English newspapers The Munich Eye and Spiegel International did not provide anything either. To the article's additional dismay, it seems the German article doesn't provide much info either aside from the bankruptcy. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources. —Theopolisme (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Types of snow. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne powder[edit]

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

Proposed merge for nearly 2 years, the name for a type of snow which happens to be trademarked, otherwise unimportant. ViridaeDON'T PANIC 03:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Couldn't find an actual dictionary hit on the term itself on an extensive Google search, but found this definition at About.com. Also, found multiple .com hits (these are just a few) at: 1, a legal controvery from a questionable .com source 2 (something tells me you can't TM the snow name, particularly since "Champagne" is already copyrighted and the "snow type" exists wherever it falls as described above at the About.com link). Everything is tourist/promo/.com oriented with the exception of the legal aspect that seems improbable to worry over, and the one semi-reliable definition at About.com. Considering the lack of item-specific, reliable non-.com sourcing, & the lack of a separate, universally accepted context for singular usage, it should probably reside with the other "snow types" without regard for an individual listing in article space. Barada wha? 01:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article in Der Spiegel says only that it's a catch-phrase, and while the term should probably mentioned somewhere, it doesn't appear to merit it's own article. a13ean (talk) 18:35, 4 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 Withdrawn by nominator, there being no other editors recommending that the article be deleted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russell R. Winterbotham[edit]

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

Fails all applicable notability guidelines samrolken (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been working on this article and I've found some possible references, but they are rather weak and self-published/tertiary. I'll continue my efforts! samrolken (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: In light of the (reasonable) comments here and the sources I added to the article, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. I think it's a really close borderline case, but I am optimistic that this article can be improved with some solid sourcing. I'd like to ask that someone please close this as speedy-keep. samrolken (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete *sigh* another ether zone entry, I was able to find this referencing itself back to Wikipedia, then it links externally on WorldCat here to an entirely different book and authors...so thats a no-go. I checked the only other active link in the references here and it lands on the "manybooks" site where it demonstrates a total of 787 downloads in 5 1/2 years. Without schlogging through every non-linked item, I gotta say that the first link is a worthless reference as it lands on the wrong material entirely. I'm not hoping up and down excited about the 2nd link as 6 copies on WorldCat is basically pathetic, and I can't verify who supposedly downloaded the title 787 times - that few hits isn't impressive for any audience. I found this rather poignant quote on the 2nd linksite concerning the book; "Reading the story did not harm me in any way." If someone can pull some extra info on the other non-linking titles I'm open to rethinking this thing. Barada wha? 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as the verifiable author of more than a dozen novels from major publishers. The age of his work means online sources will be few and far between, especially given the coverage of science fiction by the mainstream press during his lifetime. There are reliable sources but digging out in-depth ones will require some effort. - Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will defer original stance to Dravecky's research. Follows logical attestations. Barada wha? 23:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Please note that this Afd was initiated by samrolken. samrolken has indicated marked hostility towards me; a user reported this Afd which appeared to be a retaliation against me for objecting to another of samrolken's Afd's (Steve Cottle article).

I was the last person to substantively update this article.

I did so because I have expertise in science fiction and SF comic strips, because I am personally familiar with this author, had previously read this article, own several of his books, and read two other articles about him.

I also downloaded the novelette, The Whispering Spheres (Comet, July 1941), using the link in the article.

I know of these articles and BOOKs and online source.

I own both books.

- Article "Winterbotham, Russell Robert" p. 1335 The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (John Clute and Peter Nicholls, 1993)

- Article "Winterbotham, Russell (1904-1971)" pp.703-704 The World Encyclopedia of Comics (Maurice Horn, ed., 1976)

R. R. Winterbotham - Summary Bibliography http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?1197

I edited the article to make it more useful to READERS.

I did not spend time trying to add footnotes, which I personally don't much read.

He is a very well known SF writer with a lot of published pieces, many shorter than novel length. Any fairly avid SF reader of that time period, mid 1930s through mid 1960s (thirty years) knows who he is and of his substantial work. 

  Shortfiction
    * The Star That Would Not Behave (1935)
    * The Psycho Power Conquest (1936)
    * The Train That Vanished (1936)
    * The Fourth Dynasty (1936)
    * The Saga of the "Smokepot" (1936)
    * Linked Worlds (1937)
    * Clouds over Uranus (1937)
    * Spore Trappers (1937)
    * Einleill (1937)
    * Specialization (1937)
    * The Secret of the Rocks (1937)
    * Procession of Suns (1938)
    * Interplanetary Graveyard (1939)
    * The Second Moon (1939)
    * Madness on Luna (1939)
    * Disappearing Sam (1939)
    * The Geist of the Jungle (1939)
    * Captives of the Void (1940)
    * The Element of Logic (1940)
    * Cepheid Planet (1940)
    * Equation for Time (1940)
    * Message from Venus (1941)
    * The Monster That Threatened the Universe (1941)
    * Status Quo (1941)
    * Genesis! (1941)
    * Jitterbug (1941)
    * The Whispering Spheres (1941)
    * Dead Man's Planet (1941)
    * The Time Maker (1941)
    * Invent or Die! (1941)
    * The Thought-Feeders (1941)
    * Old Man Mars (1942)
    * The Thought-Men of Mercury (1942)
    * Oridin's Formula (1943)
    * The Winning of Wooha (1952)
    * The Minus Woman (1953) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Lorelei of Chaos (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Three Spacemen Left to Die! (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Ten Minutes to Daylight (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Lonesome Hearts (1954) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Problem Planet (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * A Matter of Ethics (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Perfect Discipline (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Gladsome Planet (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * The Scientific Approach (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Just for Tonight (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * The Oldest Man in the World (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Time's a Gorilla (1955) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * The Man Who Left Paradise (1956) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * A Little Knowledge (1956) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Once Within a Time (1956) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * The Individualist (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * An Experiment in Gumdrops (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * East Is East . . . (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Extra Space Perception (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * The Return from Troy (1957) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * Report on a Backward Planet (1958) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]
    * The Variable Constant (1958) [only as by Russ Winterbotham ]

Anyone who knows SF would know about the ISFDB, and apparently none of you do.

Are any of you people knowledgeable of SF?

It doesn't sound like it to me.

This Afd should never have been initiated in the first place and was done on a bad faith basis.

In any case, decisions about SF authors should be done by consulting editors with sufficient expertise.


-- Drhankh (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Dravecky above. — Ched :  ?  09:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline Keep Not a writer that appears on my shelves (my SF collection runs to about 1000 books with authors from H.G. Wells onwards represented). Can't even say I've even heard of him or his noms de plume. Being knowledgeable about a subject is not a requirement here. Having a knowledge of our policies on notability counts for more. A writer may have written the best book ever and self published it - and thereby achieved a cult following of about thirty people. The quality doesn't matter - it's the coverage. This author has been regularly published and has achieved an entry in SFE. A comparatively short entry (compared with, say, his contemporary 'Eando Binder' (present in my collection), and somewhat unenthusiastic, but an entry in a respectable encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dup vote, and much too long
  • Keep: Hi Peridon, my personal library exceeds 8,000 books, and my SF section is much larger than yours.

Both articles in the books are substantial. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction is best reference work on SF authors anywhere.

When I got the first version of the book in 1978, I used to spend a lot of time just reading the articles.

As someone who appears to have the most expertise here, I think you aren't cognizant of the fact that for many SF authors active in the golden age (30s to 40s), most of their stories were novelette length, which were published in the SF magazines rather than books. In SFE, the authors who get longer entries are those who have a lot of books published. There's simply too much shorter fiction that's been published to include writeups pertaining to much of the shorter length (shorter than novels) stories. This is covered in SFE's introductory material.

The article in The World Encyclopedia of Comics is quite a bit longer.

I have read at least some of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

If your primary exposure to SF is books, then you may not understand who he was. He was quite prolific and well-known.

I know that Wikipedia covers historical figures, and you just shouldn't even be thinking about deleting the biography page of a well-known SF author based on presumed readership today.

The public wants to be able to read about SF authors, and it's not helping anyone for be trying to purge this article, which was only initiated because a certain person doesn't like me, and I last worked on it.

"If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online."

With all due respect, you can tell me all you want about "knowledge of our policies on notability" but I can read them, and from what I see, you people are very good at ignoring those written policies.

Winterbotham is an author in a specialized field, which is SF magazine authors in the golden age. This is an important field, and from what I've read, none of you has the least expertise in this area and should have sought it out.

If any of you have had to resort to searching 'online' sources, then you simply don't know the field. I haven't had to search anything. It's in my head. I know this field, and you people do not. I have demonstrable expertise.

If you wish to challenge me, then let's bring in real experts, like John Clute.

You people seem to me to be acting very amateurish.

I'm not saying that some of you aren't trying to figure things out, but there's a right way to do things.

"Insufficient sources 

  "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:
      "Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look
      for sources."

samrolken knew I had edited this article. Did he come to me as the previous editor, to ask for my advice on where to look for sources? I knew them right of the top of my head.

No. In fact, the only reason he initiated this Afd was due to his anger towards me.

I'm sorry, but as far as this task goes, you're all just rank amateurs. Knowing something about your alleged procedures is insufficient.

I'm am sorry to be so blunt, but I certainly researched the notability criteria long before I ever posted anything, and I was nearly incredulous to observe how it's routinely ignored and apparently not properly understood.

Now please don't misunderstand me here, I think most of you, including Peridon, whose comments here got me started, are completely sincere, but I still feel the above points are accurate. Peridon, BTW, actually just wrote a nice little and helpful section over here, and I hadn't quite put the names (the same name) together. :-) Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict_of_Interest.2C_Harassment_and_Vandalism

Anyhow, I hope you don't take too much offense, a lot's been going on, but I did earlier read the material I've quoted, and I got very annoyed that specialists weren't sought out, as that article suggests, not just here, but at the Steven Cottle article Afd. The people working on that one had no business doing so. That article needs specialists in newspaper comics and preservation of that material, and I know samrolken, who also initiated that Afd, has no expertise.

samrolken wrote this:

"Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sangorshop) has been canvassed to this discussion."

samrolken probably has no idea he even posted a message, using his real name, to a group that included Sangorshop, as a prominent and well-respected member.

And I'm sure samrolken has no idea what Sangorshop means, because he knows nothing of signficance about comics.

Yet he has the gall to submit an Afd about an article who's only nexus is that it's about his close personal friend.

Anybody who knows comics knows about the Sangor Shop!

See this article for coverage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_W._Sangor

And samrolken's accusation about Sangorshop is totally baseless, with zero evidence, and I know for a fact it's false. Sangorshop decided to post his comments on his own initiative and didn't tell anyone he was going to do so, or that he'd done it. I only discovered it when I went to the Afd. And let me tell you, Sangorshop's expertise is peerless compared to anybody considering the Afd for the Steve Cottle article.

As is Steve Cottle, which I could tell from interviewing him for several hours.

Look when I bought the first Science Fiction Encyclopedia, I researched it, and got it because it was a true encyclopedia written by experts.

Likewise, when I've bought real encyclopedias, I've wanted them to be written by experts.

I haven't been writing articles from scratch here, but if I was considering doing so, I wouldn't want to tackle a subject unless I felt I had sufficient expertise. I've never written articles unless I understood the subject matter. So I can't see trying to dicker around with deletion of articles when the editors lack sufficient expertise.

I'm certainly not trying to single anyone out, but there's a big difference between golden age SF and books; if you aren't much exposed to golden age SF, just SF books, then you simply aren't exposed to that subfield. Most golden age SF was only published in SF magazines, and a lot of stories weren't reprinted. But tons of people read them, and it's an essential part of our culteral heritage, and true SF afficianados know all about this. :)

Anyhow, I sort of got off on a tangent. To be perfectly honest, I was so annoyed with what samrolken's been up to, that I hadn't planned to intervene here. I said to myself, 'Why should I? Why should it be up to me?' In fact, I had pretty much made up my mind to let samrolken have his way and let him just delete as much as he wanted and let Wikipedia suffer for its sins of ommission.

But I guess the efforts of the previous editors, especially Dravecky, got me thinking about changing my mind, and then a few good folk over at the other thread, including Ched, BWilkins, and finally Peridon, had me start to change my mind.

Anyhow, I hope these comments are truly helpful from the perspective of someone who is looking at this part of Wikipedia for the first time.

I really liked your comments over at the other thread, Peridon, and when I'd done here, I plan to read them again in detail. Thanks again!

And Auric, many thanks for your comments! -- Drhankh (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This wasn't meant as a 'duplicate vote' but rather as another comment as part of my Keep recommendation; this was only my 2nd Afd. Perhaps another editor can move my comments to combine them or tell me how to do it? The main thing is they are readable. Drhankh (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhankh (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, appears notable. Sufficient sourcing in article, probably more in offline sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - MrX 12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E (surname)[edit]

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

Speculative, unsourced article about a non-notable surname. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 14:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator - Additional sources have been located to verify this subject's notability. - MrX 12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not too familiar with Chinese, but I added several blue-linked people with the surname E. It should remain as a basic set index at the very least. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not familiar, since they were given names. Even so, it should be a set index and moved to E (name) assuming it's kept. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:53, 2 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miwa Shoda[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable WP:BLP Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After finding nothing on English sites other than database entries or non-significant coverage, I checked Japanese sites using both 生田美和 and 生田美話, and all I could find beyond blog and database entries were these two articles at Famitsu.com: [17] and [18]. Both are just introductions to new games or novels, and don't really constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to indicate a level of notability sufficient to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiyuki Itahana[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:BLP with no references to reliable, third party sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability or justify a biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails the WP:GNG due to lack of coverage, this isn't a Final Fantasy Wikia or a video game developer database; every employee doesn't get an article if there's no coverage beyond their job title on projects... Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_3&oldid=1142631333"