Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 May 16 May >

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 keep. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom dictionary[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Idiom dictionary (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)

"Idiom dictionary" is a redundant concept and needs no explanation. While Cambridge for instance publishes a dictionary of idioms, there is little reason to devote an article to stating that an idiom dictionary is a dictionary containing idioms. Note that most of the article concerns itself with explaining what idiom is. Actually, note that most of the article consists of 'See also' links. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lack of references and per above.--TV Man 13 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Do note this 2007 revision posted in the previous AfD, which has superior wording, far less SeeAlso, and lists 1 actual example. The previous AfD also mentions the abundance of GoogleBooks references, which, at a very quick glance, seem to indicate that the topic of "Idiom dictionaries" might actually be important in fields related to cognitive linguistics. eg.1, eg.2. Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At best, I still think this could be merged into a more encompassing article.--TV Man 13 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the 2012 AfD, which found the concept notable, and per WP:NOTDIC. In particular, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written." The article is a stub. I have no strong objection to merging it somewhere, except that it would seem a somewhat uneasy fit at Idiom. Dictionary#Types might be OK. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Waste not, want not. Warden (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The article has been expanded and improved. It is now "on deck" at DYK where it will be reviewed. Further discussion here seems redundant. Warden (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkidiki Greek[edit]

Chalkidiki Greek (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)

DePRODed to bring here. This came up at ANI after a CSD was rejected, but there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialect, thus notable enough for an inclusion. Much of the content is dubious, according to those much smarter than I am, but I feel that taking a week to discuss and review is best, and if the topic is not notable as I suspect, then deletion would be the right course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete you are right, some of the information is very questionable.--TV Man 13 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sigh. Why did you de-prod it, when you don't actually want to keep it? Why do we have to "take a week to discuss" when nobody has so far indicated any interest in keeping it in the first place? This is a waste of my time; now I have to quite unnecessarily restate the whole thing all over again. So, once more: The article as it stood was not just full of amateurishly imprecise descriptions and obvious errors; there is also no sign the topic is a viable, linguistically significant dialectological unit to begin with. It makes sense to have a separate article on "dialect of X" only if X is linguistically separated from neighbouring dialects in a significant way, i.e. if there is a noteworthy linguistic boundary that coincides with the geographical boundaries of X. There is no indication at all that Xalkidiki is a unit in this sense. The only linguistic feature that the article tries to describe in some detail, the vowel reductions, is not characteristic of Xalkidiki as such, but is shared with almost the entirety of the northern and central Greek mainland, and as such it is appropriately treated in Varieties of Modern Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete t there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialect Really? Where is this dispute? Me, Taivo and FutPerf have all said it's not noteworthy. Nobody else expressed an opinion. — Lfdder (talk) 01:15, 16 Ma 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable pbp 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Dispute"? What are you talking about? That's a load of horse manure since not a single person was saying it was a dialect. There's no "dispute" whatsoever. All the actual linguists in the discussion were in perfect agreement--get rid of this turkey. --Taivo (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the expert opinions of several respected editors. There is nothing wrong with debating such matters here at AfD, and it is unfortunate when matters get so heated, when simple adherence to our normal procedures almost always yields the same result. I encourage both sides in this dispute to "chillax" as the kids say, laugh a bit, and move on to productive work improving the encyclopedia. It's a pretty damned good encyclopedia, after all. Let's make it better. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amateurishness in the writing or organization of the article should not in itself be relevant to deletion, if I understand the spirit of the policies, but there is no indication in the article (or, apparently, anywhere else) that the subject is notably distinguishable from the larger regional dialect, per PFS. Varieties of Modern Greek seems reasonably thorough, and doesn’t mention the peninsula at all. (I guess the local dialect would be included under Macedonian or Thracian, but IANAL.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the "dispute" is actually very simple - the person who created the article asserted that it was a dialect. Others (including language experts) dispute that. Entirely appropriate that it be raised at ANI, then de-prodded and raised here. The comprehensive consensus so far should ensure it never comes back. Everyone needs to calm down and some need to realise they are fighting an invisible enemy here. Beyond that, those expert opinions are obviously in agreement and that agreement seems to be that this should be deleted. So be it. Stalwart111 06:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now that the proper procedures have been followed, this article can, legitimately, go. That ANI thread went completely beserk, but the general consensus there was for deletion anyway. Also, people really need to get off the nominator's back, who should be commended for actually following the sensible route of doing what Lfdder should've done at the very beginning. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and PROD wasn't "proper"? We've got one admin on a power trip, another one swearing at anyone who dares disagree with him, and another one who might very well be suffering from tunnel vision; and they're all friends. It only makes sense that they don't wanna look like complete asses about the whole thing, and so we've got this AfD. Give me a break. — Lfdder (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because PROD is for non-controversial deletions. Given the furore around this whole event, this is not a non-controversial issue. Also, for all your complaining, this is likely to be closed as a snow delete, which would occur sooner than a PROD-based deletion. Someone needs to drop the stick, and stop abusing everyone who disagrees with you (or doesn't fully agree with you). The ANI thread was a farce; but remember who started it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The controversy wasn't about actually deleting the article; nobody said that it shouldn't be deleted. Stop being dishonest. Right, so I'm to blame for how other people acted 'cos "I started it"? How do you even come up with this rubbish? — Lfdder (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suggest that you start assuming good faith and stop calling people dishonest. Nobody is going to die if the article stays there one more day. It stayed several years, and nobody died yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure lots of people died in that time. — Lfdder (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop asserting that there was any controversy over whether or not this article should have been quickly deleted. There was not a single, solitary peep and this was, indeed, a non-controversial deletion. The only controversy was over how Lfdder initially tried to delete it, not over whether or not it should be deleted. The admins trying to justify why they changed the deletion process are trying to make this sound like something more than just them trying to prove to the rest of us "mere mortals" that they have the power to push Wikipedia around. Instead of being honest and saying, "We just want to have a full-blown deletion process because we want to prove to Lfdder that we are in charge", they keep jury rigging excuses such as "there is controversy over whether this is or is not a dialect" (there is none); "the original author thinks it's a dialect" (the original author posted this in 2008 and hasn't edited it since 2010); "there was furor about the deletion" (the only furor had nothing whatsoever to do with whether this should be deleted, but only how). I'm getting sick and tired of of the admins confusing content with process here. Their only argument is over process (and no non-admin cared about how Lfdder deleted the article originally) not over content (absolutely everyone agrees that this article should go). Be honest. The admins want a full-blown, time-consuming process just because they want to flex their muscle. It has zero to do with content or desire to delete the article. Indeed, even with the non-controversial process, there is a straightforward way to object--delete the deletion tag. If someone actually had a content beef, they could have done that. For Dennis Brown to move the deletion process here without any editor whatsoever expressing an objection to the deletion is obviously not a content issue. If you are an uninvolved admin reading this, I apologize for lumping you into the broad group I have an issue with here. But you must understand the frustration that many editors have with admins when something like this occurs. The article was improperly blanked and then speedy removal was requested. I get that. Then a non-controversial deletion tag was placed on the article. That was appropriate. But then when Dennis Brown removed that tag and placed it here because of some trumped-up, invented, nonexistent "content controversy", that was beyond the pale of power trips. And then I read other admins trying to support "their boy" by inventing further content-based comments.... My patience with these two or three power-mad policy-pushers is at the breaking point. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the policies to see whether I can SNOW close the nomination. Apparently, I can not. There is no criterion for speedy deletion applicable for this article (A7 is not applicable). This means PROD and AfD are the only two options (and they take the same time). Indeed, PROD does not create drama, but if we stop accusing each other in God knows what, AfD would not create drama either, and the article would quietly disappear after a week. I guess we all have more interesting things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing admins of being "power-mad policy-pushers", simply for following the policies we all set out, is absurd. The PROD could easily have been removed by some random IP half-way through the process, and then this AfD would've been started anyway. This AfD is almost generating as much drama as ANI... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been removed, but since not a single solitary editor has posted "keep" here, we won't know will we? Instead the quick "dramaless" fix was short-circuited for no reason whatsoever by Dennis Brown. The vast majority of admins are capable, serious, and judicious, but there are a couple of admins here who seem to be pushing an agenda to make a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with content or controversy. It is no longer about following Wikipedia policy, which could have been followed just as fastidiously with a PROD. Dennis Brown wanted drama and to make his point by removing the PROD for no content reason whatsoever. He got his wish. --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard such bullshit in all my life, especially about Dennis Brown, whom happens to be one of our better admins. Like I said, the fact it's here means deletion is guaranteed now in a week; anyone could've wandered in and de-prodded with no reason, and the process would've taken longer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So Dennis Brown brought it here just in case ya? Never mind he lied there was dispute. You're some piece of work. — Lfdder (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, guys, it's not worth getting upset about. It was certainly done in good faith, but still it's a fact that Dennis' deprodding was, if not a mis-use, at least a poor use of process. You don't de-prod an article on the mere assumption that somebody else perhaps might object to a deletion. You de-prod it if and when you object to a deletion. It's exactly the basic principle of the prod process that the proposal is left to stand until somebody actually wishes to challenge it. This kind of "just-in-case" de-prodding undermines the very principle of the process; it wastes everybody's time and as such is harmful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good, their clique are back to issuing "warnings". In good faith my arse. He's brought it here 'cos his friend said to take it to AfD originally, everybody else be damned. And his excuse is a lie. So take me to ANI, Ymblanter. Bunch of muppets they are. — Lfdder (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't get upset about it not being speedy deleted. Keep the circus going tho, you're doing good. — Lfdder (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:IAR and snow close delete already. This is causing too much drama when the outcome is inevitable and agreed upon. WTucker (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD withdrawn by nominator; only delete !vote came from a sockpuppet account that has been blocked. The Bushranger One ping only 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Violins Stopped Playing[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. I cannot find any sources on this movie. If anyone can find some good sources, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Transcendence (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator since notability has been established per below. I would close this, but there has been a delete vote. Transcendence (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only source given is Imdb, which can't count.--TV Man 13 23:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Notability was not established nor was it obvious. In response to "The article could benefit from editorial attention, but deleting notable topics for lacking a little actual attention does not improve the project.", 'as I stated already, I looked for sources and was unable to find any.
With regards to the sources you added, all of your English sources except for the first one are not reliable sources or are about the book and not the movie.
  • Source #2 "And the Violins Stopped Playing: A Story of the Gypsy Holocaust" This is the book itself. This is not about the movie, furthermore, it's not independent of the subject matter here since the movie is based on the book.
  • Source #3 "Holocaust books tell horrors of concentration camps". The Advocate. This is also about the book, not the movie.
  • Source #4 "And the Violins Stopped Playing details". The New York Times. I believe this falls under the following from WP:MOVIE, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database"
  • Source #5 "About the film, DVD". Allrovi. Same as source #4.
  • However all of this is moot since the Polish sources establish notability per WP:MOVIE, "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." With that, I'll be withdrawing my nomination. Transcendence (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do understand that any information in an article must be verifiable in a reliable sources (such as The New York Times or The Advocate) and that such verifibility need not itself be significant coverage? The terms are related but not interchangeable. Thankfully, the Polish language sources offer more than do the English language ones and I very much wish to thank you for the withdrawal. And no... I am not at all through with work on the article. Hint: Look at the English and Polish "Find sources" search results under "Google books" and "Google scholar". As I said below... more to do. Thank you for bringing to AFD... resulting it it finally getting some attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. You're talking about verifiability (which I don't know what that has to do with the notability of the article which is the focus of the AfD), whereas I'm talking about notability. Verifiable sources do not establish notability. As noted in WP:MOVIE, synopsis sources don't confer notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources do. Transcendence (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, I sense some sort of hostility or annoyance coming from you so, we should just leave it at that. Transcendence (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dares[edit]

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

A group that has apparently not gotten their first CD released yet. No references. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sources apart from the one in the infobox, which isn't good enough.--TV Man 13 23:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I've reverted the main body text to an older version from the article history as it was copied from their web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — Joaquin008 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Sierra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Victor Sierra (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 only can't I find any third-party sources to confirm notability, but even IMDb isn't showing anything for him. Wizardman 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage at all. Wit the understanding that TV.com is not a reliable source, the entry for Sierra indicates that his role in Ghostwriter was only for 4 episodes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bandung Derby[edit]

Bandung Derby (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)

Some context has been added since CSD nomination, and that was declined, but no notability is asserted nor verified. Nor is the sport clear. Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfectly acceptable. If I'd known what it was when I nominated it I'd have done that myself. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander's Choice[edit]

Alexander's Choice (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)

Apparently not notable. I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this notability outside of the one (gossip-ish) Daily Mail article. Author is otherwise unpublished (possibly a pseudonym). Publisher is the non-notable "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" (apparently vanity press). SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete If we could find more than Daily Mail, then maybe, but we'd need a bit more to establish this as notable.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From what I can find, the only place that has actually reported on this book is the Daily Mail, which is far from a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. Their tabloid nature on other things makes it unusable even for the other things such as book commentary. I don't particularly have anything against it being userfied, but the article slightly smacks of WP:PUFFERY when you consider that portions of it were/are written like it was WP:OR by the original editor and there is a faint promotional/sensationalistic tone to it. I removed the "themes" section outright because it read more like OR or an opinion piece than a real theme section and lacked sources to back up the claims of the themes. The thing about theme sections is that you have to have something to back it up and verify that these are actual themes and not just something that you personally read into it. It's not the worst I've read, but it's bad enough to where I'd recommend that if this is userfied, it would be a very good idea to have it looked over by another editor. Fair note for any coming in: I might end up cleaning the article up to remove the worst of the prose or I might leave the rest "as is", as I don't really think this has a snowball's chance of surviving unless the book gains a lot of coverage before the AfD's end.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage. 1292simon (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horton Gallery[edit]

Horton Gallery (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 business, only reference is in a non WP:RS blog. Wikipedia is not a place to make a reputation it is a place that records reputations already made. Notability is not inherited from a list of artists. CSD was declined, hence AfD now. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete we have New York Times references, but it's just not enough.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that references have increased in number, but are. at present, insufficient in quality. the NY Times one is a passing mention only, and the others fail WP:RS. That something exists is fine, but that does not of itself, make it notable. Some sort of notability must be asserted and verified. 11:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Fiddle Faddle
  • Delete as promotional. There are tons of galleries in New York. No reason to have an article on all of them. Ignatzmice•talk 13:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankstown Township Shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and NOTNEWS. News event without enduring coverage. MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete covered by multiple sources, but not many people were killed.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of definite historical interest Jewishprincess (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been no apparent coverage of this since the event broke. That doesn't suggest "definite historical interest". --MASEM (t) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete - The "coverage" was all on the day of the shooting or the day after. According to WP:PERSISTENCE, "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this will unlikely be significant history by the beginning of next year.--TV Man 13 23:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Banned sock[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article was !voted to be kept in a previous Afd a mere 5 months ago, but is renominated here to make a point, a violation, in my view, of WP:POINT per this exchange from the heated debate at the N.O. Mother's Day Parade shooting article deletion discussion and I consider the nomination disruptive, to say the least. Jusdafax 01:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The results of the first AFD (done 8 days after the event) have no relevance on this one as plenty of time for enduring coverage to have arisen has elapsed. And it's certainly not pointy to nominate other articles based on a current AFD when they fail established policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, you can just keep nominating articles for deletion over and over until you get the result you want? Jusdafax 01:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no? I've never seen this article before today, and it clearly fails notability guidelines, and there's no sources to justify it as an enduring topic months out from it. Ergo it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see any pointy behaviour. I think it's perfectly acceptable to nominate articles for deletion 5 months after a previous one closed. However, if the nominator does it only to prove a point, yes that is disruptive, but I do not think that the nominator has done anything wrong, and this discussion is for the good of the encyclopedia. Sadly, there are some pages that are nominated every 6 months, like Template:Cleanup. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main reason it was nominated was to prove a point, along with 2 other articles. The conversation started here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting USchick (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing up other examples of articles as a reason to keep, under the idea of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, means those examples will face scrutiny too. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see how the nomination might be considered pointy. I am unmoved, however, from my opinion on this subject. I think that the other AfD that you mentioned is irrelevant to this one; individual articles must stand up to meet notability criteria, consensuses, and precedents independently. You can set precedents, but you can't refer to another AfD as an argument for another one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability has been established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of which has not extended beyond a day or two of the day the shooting occurred. Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree[edit]

2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree (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 NOTNEWS and WP:N. News event without enduring coverage. MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Of historical interest. This incident is also currently part of the gun-control debate. Moreover, it is cited by both sides in this very charged issue. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing beyond the time of the shooting, and a gnews spot check is not showing it coming up in mention. We do not need to document every crime committed. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just this week the Seattle Times did a huge front page retrospective. Not saying that this makes it a national event but clearly a comprehensive news search wasn't made. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk)
        • This article doesn't come up in a google search yet. But a local paper covering a local event a year later is not a big surprise, nor a sign of enduring coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ITSUSEFUL, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This nomination is an example, in my view, of WP:POINT per this exchange from the heated debate at the N.O. Mother's Day Parade shooting article deletion discussion and I consider it disruptive, to say the least. Jusdafax 23:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question will this article be of historical significance? This does seem like an article that could be developed but only six people died and I'm not sure if this event will have a lasting impact.--TV Man 13 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability seems clear from press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Press coverage is not equal to significant coverage by secondary sources required for notability. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Export to wikinews. Lucy346 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I recall it getting onto AP and other national news at the time (just short of a year ago), and the metro newspaper in the Seattle area had the recent linked article looking back. I think that's enough, given that the ongoing gun control debate keeps bringing up this incident and other attacks. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A burst of national/international coverage at the time of the event is not considered enduring coverage, simply good third-party primary source to build up an article if the event merits one. A recall of the event a year later in a local paper (and nowhere else) is not a sign of significant coverage outside of the local area. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically speaking this discussion is about as even as possible but the keep arguments based on the sources provided in this discussion are convincing that this subject is more than standard news coverage. J04n(talk page) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 IHOP shooting[edit]

2011 IHOP shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

News event with no enduring coverage, failing WP:N and NOTNEWS MASEM (t) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have to agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Notability isn't about how hard a crime tugs our heartstrings or how many people die, it is about the lasting effect after the event. Sadly, people get shot and die every day in America and Wikipedia doesn't exist to catalog them all, only those that have notability via a lasting impact, which this lacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not likely to be significant in twenty, ten, or even five years time.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is a unique sort of CRYSTALBALL argument, is it not? The question is this: was the subject of the article covered substantially by multiple independently-published so-called "reliable" sources? Which this was, in spades. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people die everyday and news reports about it every day.--TV Man 13 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of badgering, I note that this is an OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Care to talk about the available sourcing? Carrite (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I totally agree with Prime Minister Brown that "notability isn't about how hard a crime tugs at our heartstrings." It is all about sources. When a shooting makes ABC World News Tonight, chances are it is an event of lasting significance rather than an isolated shooting incident in the abattoir of gun-crazy America. Days after the event, the Christian Science Monitor was still looking for meaning from the affair. Ditto CNN. One year later, the Reno Gazette-Journal was still covering the event as "85 seconds that changed Carson City" — that would seem to be "lasting impact," would it not? Multiple fatalities, this can't be dismissed as a typical "one-and-done" blasting by a looney tune... Oh, yeah, USA Today picked up the story as well. This was, in short, a national event, not a local crime, extensively covered in by fairly vast number of tip-top, first tier sources of the mainstream press. Notability is not temporary — this was notable then and it remains so now. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • These aren't secondary sources, though, specifically enduring coverage. This, save for the retrospective, was all at the time of the event. And the retrospective was from a local (not unreliable) source, again suggesting the event had no enduring coverage for a global encyclopedia. This is the type of story that should be in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Need a couple more sources: how about MSNBC? Huffington Post? New York Times??? New York Daily News??? Carrite (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be: national internet news, national cable news, national "newspaper of record," mass circulation tabloid on the other side of the country from the incident. This was a HUGE national story. And it was the subject of coverage for at least a year. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No question of national and international coverage on the day + some of the event, but no tail. I'm sure I could spend time and find several stories locally to Carson City a week or a month out from the event, but on an initial check of news sources it doesn't appear to have long-term coverage at a national level or better. This is exactly what NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT and WP:N caution against. This is, for all purposes, a routine crime, and not appropriate for WP. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had there been legislation due to this event, that would be an example of enduring effect. Had some societal change in attitude that was documentable occurred, keeping would be obvious. Had he been in a watchtower screaming "Allah Akbar", and the government decided to classify it as a work place incident, you can rest assured the media would have ensured the story had a lasting impact. What we have is a shooting, people died, this happens with alarming frequency in the United States. Sadly, "only" killing a few people without having a political motivation has become routine for our purposes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is clearly established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to sound like an asshole, but I really don't get how this is notable. Some guy went into an IHOP, shot some people, shot himself, they all died, the end. So what? What makes that so special in comparison to the hundreds of shootings that happen every day? --69.84.112.132 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shootings happen every day, yes, mass shootings by lone gunmen, on the other hand, not so much. And just because something happens frequently doesn't automatically mean it is not notable. (Thusz (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - There was considerable news coverage about the shooting worldwide at the time it occurred, some of it was pretty in-depth, and contrary to what User:Masem says there have been reports on a national and international level about the shooting several months later, see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and it is also mentioned here and here, so I do not see how WP:NOTNEWS, or WP:N apply here. Furthermore, looking at the List of rampage killers it seems it was the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman regarding the total number of victims in Nevada in the last 100 years. About the lack of secondary sources, well the shooting happened not even two years ago, which is not a lot of time for writing books and scientific articles about it, but it was mentioned in The Effect of Social and Physical Detachment on Information Need. (Thusz (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Those all are primary sources, not discussing the impact of the event on the world at large. Mere reporting is not sufficient for WP:N/WP:NEVENT/NOTNEWS. I can't read the ACM article but based on the abstract, the event similar appears to be an example, not a significant discussion of it, and thus again, fails secondary sourcing. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, since when does an event have to have an impact on the entire world to warrant an article? If that were the case, we shouldn't have an article about the Los Angeles Times bombing and many many other things, because they had little to no impact outside the United States, or whatever country they occurred in. Second, the articles given are not primary sources according to WP:PRIMARY, because they are "one step removed from an event" thanks to the journalists who wrote them. So we do have significant coverage by reliable and independent sources for a considerable time and therefore the event meets WP:N, which furthermore states:
"Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."
(Thusz (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
"World at large" doesn't mean global impact but has to be more than local. WP defines secondary sources as transformative meaning that they have had original thought applied to the topic using other sources to build on. In this case, nearly every newspaper article that is just recapping events, while "one step away", is considered primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. And no, not for a considerable time - we're looking more than just a few days from numerous sources, not just local (where an event like this will ring true for some time). Significant coverage is defined by a period of enduring notability. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I have to admit that I misinterpreted the term „world at large“ in this context, but I suppose it doesn’t really matter, since WP:EFFECT isn’t that specific in what constitutes a „lasting effect“, so it is probably debatable, if the discussion about mentally ill people having easy access to firearms and the introduction of Senate Bill 221 can be considered an impact on the world at large, or not.
Regarding the lack of secondary sources, I honestly don’t see a problem here, because, as I said, not even two years have passed since the shooting, and that is not that much time to write books and scientific articles about it. But even if you can’t find secondary sources, it does not mean there aren’t any. A quick Google search is certainly not enough to verify what and how much has been published on the subject.
Furthermore I find your interpretation of WP:PRIMARYNEWS questionable at best. By declaring all of these newspaper articles to be merely primary sources, and that without secondary sources notability is not established, you are basically stating that hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles on unquestionably notable events should be deleted, because they rely solely on newspaper articles published in their immediate aftermath. This is insofar highly problematic, since these newspaper articles are often the only available sources for historic events, or events occurring in countries nobody in the western world actually cares about. So, following this argumentation would drastically increase western bias and cut a giant hole into Wikipedias coverage of important events of the past.
Also you state that "one step away", is considered primary, but then I have to ask myself, why WP:SECONDARY states that [a] secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. (Let's conveniently ignore the fact that in the context of a newspaper "an author's own thinking based on primary sources" would basically be an editorial, which WP:NEWSORG then declares to be a "reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor or author". Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially since any source where an author mixes facts with opinion would automatically be a primary source for all of the opinion parts.)
Finally, what is your definition of "a considerable time"? You youself stated that:
I'm sure I could spend time and find several stories locally to Carson City a week or a month out from the event
This tells me you didn't search at all, because a ten second internet search gives you not only several, but a pretty great lot of articles published by the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun many months later. Also the articles I have linked to were published months after the shooting, so your statement that we're looking more than just a few days from numerous sources, not just local is moot, because I have already proven that coverage of the shooting spread over more than "just a few days". Therefore I suppose you must agree that there is some notability to the shooting, if newspapers all over the United States and a couple of other countries bothered to report about it after all that time. Furthermore, the shooting is still mentioned in the media every now and then. If that is not a considerable time, I don’t know.
Is the shooting notable? Harry Reid seems to be of that opinion, but anyway, WP:N/CA tells us that [a]rticles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions.
Ok, here we are, discussing. It further states:
As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.
I assume you don’t doubt that we have numerous reliable sources about the event, so let’s go straight to the coverage guidelines on that page. The first one says that [a]n event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. As I see it there has been a significant amount of coverage, and quite a bit of it I would regard as pretty in-depth. This article e.g. puts the shooting into a wider context and is even a secondary source.
Number two states that [n]otable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. A short news cycle for me would be one or two days, maybe a week, before the event is forgotten, never to resurface again. This is obviously not the case here, since there has been additional coverage, also by national and international media, even months later.
The third one says that [s]ignificant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. No doubt, there was significant coverage in the United States, while on an international scale you have The Guardian, The Daily Mail, El Mundo, Terra Networks, O Estado de S. Paulo, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Hamburger Abendblatt, Le Fiagro, El Mañana, and there are probably many more, so I would say this is also covered.
So I come to the conclusion that the shooting meets all criteria of WP:N/CA, and also WP:GNG, with the possible exception of the "Sources" part, but for the reasons stated above I find the classification of newspaper articles, similar to the ones presented here, as primary sources unsatisfactory and even highly disruptive regarding the creation of articles on Wikipedia. Even the respective Wikipedia article says that (...) the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make.
So, I'd be glad to know how you came to the conclusion the article fails WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NEVENT, because merely stating and repeating it isn't that helpful. (Thusz (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
First, I never said "all" newspaper articles are primary. PRIMARYNEWS says the bulk of routine news reporting is primary as they are simply recapping the events as told down from officials and other sources but without interpretation. All the international sources and extensive reporting on this event within the week of the event is pretty much of this ilk, thus we have - as typical of world media - an event that is sensational and momentarily covered in detail, but once you're outside that week or so, the coverage is gone, outside of local sources. That is the typical pattern of an event that does not have permanence for coverage in an encyclopedia. So while these are fine sources to use for describing the event, ultimately they count for naught towards notability.
What thus is left are secondary sources that describe the impact of the event but mostly at a local scale (the gun law changes). (And to note, when I said "given some time to search", I was talking a detailed extensive search. I saw a few local sources on the first few gnews hits, but I was looking for the time and global scale well past the event date) It certainly was that this case might have catalyzed the SB221 bill, but obviously that bill didn't go anywhere. What this basically is saying is that there is a notable discussion on gun laws and the mentally ill, of which this event is a sentence or two in that discussion, but in the case of this event, it doesn't make the event notable. Or, better put, without putting into the larger context of gun control and the mentally ill, it is basically a local crime and does not make for an encyclopedia.
As for time, events 99% of the time are either assuredly notable within a week of happening or not. Rarely, there may be an event that seems non-notable but turns out to be critical many years later, but that's rare. Thus, for notability, it makes no sense to let event articles remain if nothing's happened a week out from the event. If we have to recreate it later, that's fine, but given the rarity this is the case, it's not a concern from the standpoint of data retention. This is why we have Wikinews. Current events that are well-covered but of dubious notability should be filtered there instead of being created on WP. If they turn out to be notable, we can transwiki them into en.wiki. If not, we still have an interwiki link to use in some article about a larger context that the event would fit into. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and I never said that you said all newspaper articles are a primary source. To quote myself:
"By declaring all of these newspaper articles to be merely primary sources..."
With "all of these" I did not mean all newspaper articles per se, but those presented during this discussion. To challenge notability of an event on the ground of a lack of secondary sources, even though there are newspaper reports by the dozen from all over the world, and over an extended period of time, is a very questionable interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:N in my eyes, because as I said, there are in all probability hundreds of throusands of Wikipedia articles on events that are certainly notable, based entirely on media reports that are no different than the ones that have been linked here. To cast doubt on that notability, simply because nobody bothered to give a more detailed account and in-depth interpretation seems very wrong to me.
Also the only example given at WP:PRIMARYNEWS that might apply to the reports posted here is the third one, "Reports on events", but on a second look even that is not clear, because at least to me the impression is given that it may apply only to reports based on a single source who was present at the site of the event, which may be the journalist himself. It certainly is debatable, if a synthesis of various accounts of an event can be considered an interpretation, as the journalist, by weighing his sources, decides what kind of impression of the event to present to his audience.
Furthermore you repeat again that „once you're outside that week or so, the coverage is gone, outside of local sources“ and again I have to set it straight that the event did not vanish from the news after a week, or even a month. How many links to media reports outside that time frame do I have to present to you, before you accept this as a fact? Need a few more? Here you go:
I don’t know how you see this, but at least in my opinion a discussion at a state senate is way beyond „local scale“ and that the bill went nowhere doesn’t bother me at all, because the fact alone that the shooting incited a serious political discussion for stricter gun laws is enough for me to establish that it had a longer lasting impact. Also it apparently wasn’t just a side note in this regard, but was used as the featured example to support it. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I doubt that local crimes with no historical significance get a mention at the senate very often and spark debates about law reforms.
If you have performed a "detailed extensive search" on the subject and came up with merely "a few local sources" I have to say that your search apparently was not very efficient, because there are not only a few local sources, but a lot, (Reno Gazette-Journal, Las Vegas Sun, Kolo TV, Nevada Appeal) and for reports beyond the local level, well, look above. (Thusz (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
It is long established that newspaper sources that are simply reiterating details are primary sources even if it is published halfway across the world. This is akin to the concept that just because something exists doesn't make it notable - here we're talking about an event that clearly happened and is well documented, but its impact on the world at large is highly questionable. This is why we generally have to look beyond just how many news articles and when they were published, and look at what they are publishing, and of those sources, there's only a small fraction of them that go into more than just basic facts and attempt analysis of the event. Of several gnews papers I've seen, all of these are only published at the local level, because for all practical purposes, that was the extent of the "aftermath" of the event (eg the retrospective a year later). Laws didn't get changed, etc, despite there being initial efforts. That PDF from the nv.gov is literally a name-drop, and again can't be considered a secondary source. The ones you list above that are beyond local coverage are simply news tidbits and again are primary sources. So again, while there is some secondary coverage, it is highly local in nature, and that makes its inclusion in a global encyclopedia inappropriate. This is exactly why Wikinews exists because it can take these articles with no question, and with the potential to migrate them into en.wiki when the event actually is shown to be notable. You say that there probably thousands of event articles out there relying on primary sources - I actually don't doubt this (I've seen many happen like this because people want to rush to create an ITN story), but this is because editors do not remember NOTNEWS and it is impossible to patrol these all. Just because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that it is by consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Export to wikinews. Lucy346 (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine American shooting. WP:NOTNEWS, no evidence of lasting historical interest. Resolute 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot and Buckwild[edit]

Barefoot and Buckwild (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)

Won't allow me to move the article to Lauren Alaina so delete per WP:NSONG as unlikely ever to grow beyond stub and should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge would be better, it did debut on American Idol and is by a notable artist but agreed, it's unlikely to grow as an article.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It is by a famous/notable artist, though I don't see the chance of it turning into a proper article as there is not too much to say about it. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Song debuted in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart this week and has been the subject of multiple articles and reviews. Eric444 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The song has charted on a national chart thereby passing WP:NSONGS and has numerous sourced information including reviews thereby passings WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is properly padded with sources and it has already charted on a Billboard genre chart, and will chart on others in the near future as it has only just been released. I see no reason why it should be deleted. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus here is to delete but as noted there is some verifiable notable information on the page. Sean.hoyland's suggestion to move to a new title and merge with other pages to form a more complete and neutral article could be a solution. If someone wants to begin such a neutral page I would userfy this page to them. J04n(talk page) 11:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012[edit]

List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 (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 essence of the article is to promote the claim that certain actions violated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. This claim is usually not made even in the dubious sources cited. Thus the article is a classic violation of WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. One also finds additional serious problems of the kind that would be expected in an article such as this: bad sourcing (consisting almost entirely of newspaper articles from dictatorial countries lacking freedom of the press), POV-ish selection of information and wording, and a very low quality of writing (e.g., what ceasefire in which part of the world does the title refer to?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My views are the same as for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Israeli_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2013. If people want to properly document actions carried out by either belligerent in the same article so that Wikipedia content is balanced and complies with all policies, they can. If they only want to document actions carried out by one of the belligerents, they clearly don't belong here. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with the above editors. There is a consistent failure by editors to observe WP:NPOV. Active in writing about Palestinian violence, they scour the pages to eliminate any similar pages documenting Israeli violence. That this comes so quickly after the failure to cancel the other page looks distinctly odd. Never give up? Keep pushing? Never take note of the problem? Hand-the-delete-baton-to-the-next-guy if the first fumbles?Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Obviously, violent actions both against Israel and by Israel (and any other country) should be catalogued on Wikipedia, but this should be done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and common sense. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions by Israel is Israeli targeted killings. An example of a good article cataloguing violent actions against Israel is List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012. The article we are now discussing happens to be extremely bad, and the previous comments are all parade examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF, appeal to motive, and projection. Pretty depressing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page just needs improvement, formatting, further detail. The article is not 'bad' except in a 'moral sense'. The word you are looking for is 'underdeveloped'. I think these pages are necessary and should perhaps be merged. But deleting one side of an a survey of incidents while retaining the other violates WP:NPOV. The main editor should in any case, look at formatting on similar pages, give the author's name, title, news source and date, and if possible add contextual detail. That is useful advice. Moving to just scrap it is not.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between articles on topics like Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Israeli targeted killings on the one hand and lists of incidents in a given time period such as List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 and List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012. The question here, in my view, is why we should be documenting a list of infractions by one side, but deleting lists that cover infractions by the other party, or both parties. Dlv999 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We need a consistent policy and not this constant battling, which, depending on who shows up, could lead to something as absurd/silly as this article being deleted while List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 survived. Anyway to get a relevant WP:ARBPIA arbitration on systematic bias. (Of course, first we need a mention of it in the Wikipedia:Systemic bias article and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is entirely based on unreliable sources. For example, Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas), several unknown pro-Palestinian sites and PressTV (Iranian regime's propaganda), among others. There is not a single source from a relevant newspaper to support alleged "violations of the ceasefire".--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
entirely based on unreliable sources. That statement is entirely based on not doing elementary arithmetic on the source base. There are 29 sources, of which Press TV figures once, Al Qassam twice, Middle Eastern Monitor once,and the Palestinian Press Agency once. The remaining 24 sources, New York Times, Maan News Agency, NBC News, Daily Star, Reuters, Ynet, Jerusalem Post, International Middle East Media Center, are RS for these facts. Thus 18% of the article is composed of challengeable sources. Conclusion? You understand the word ‘entirely’ to refer to 18% of an article, and not to the 82% remainder. The four non-RS are easily replaced since the sparse data they provide can be cross-checked against better sources like this, namely the PCHR lists, or other mainstream outlets, once the data registered are, item for item, googled by date and event for wider press coverage. Please don't misrepresent facts in order to make an argument or a falsifiable generalization. This assumes Wikipedians don't check. Most of them do.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very encyclopedic. All of these events got coverage. I see the first reference is to the New York Times explaining what happened with one event, the second is from NBC News titled "Israeli forces kill Gaza man despite cease-fire". If there is a problem with any of the sources discuss it on the talk page. These events get coverage world wide. Dream Focus 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to mention every single time an Israeli kills an Arab, or vice versa. Please read WP:NOTNEWS pbp 22:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't link to something without actually reading it first. WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant here. We are listing how many violations of the ceasefire there are, and the details about it. It is quite encyclopedic to have this data here. People studying this in the future will be able to look over the history, and better understand the situation. Dream Focus 22:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The details themselves are irrelevant. The only salvageable content from this article is about one sentence that says "There were some number of violations of this treaty". Almost all the violations themselves are non-notable. Imagine what would happen if we reported every casualty of larger conflicts in the same way we reported this. Wikipedia would be an utter mess of long casualty lists and where they fell. Also consider WP:NOT, the part about long lists pbp 23:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always shake my head with disbelief when people say publicly that stuff like violating a truce or treaty are 'not news'. It's like saying the Gulf of Tonkin incident wasn't news. It's the whole basis of numerous wars. But then this war is WP:NOTNEWS, I guess (for those who don't like to read tis kind of news).Nishidani (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if Wikipedia described every single missile fired by Palestinian militants or the IDF. Editors scrupulously do the former but not the latter. Strange but true (see 2001, 2002–2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Try nominating those articles for deletion using the WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LAUNDRYLIST criteria and watch what happens. If Wikipedia is going to include details like this, and there is currently no way to prevent it, it should be done properly in a balanced way that complies with mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it goes a little deeper than simply saying "Editors scrupulously do the former but not the latter." If you look at the editors that have been active in creating the "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" lists, it's the editors who are actively trying to get the lists that document attacks by Israel on Gaza deleted.
I presume therefore that you would be willing to delete 2001, 2002–2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 which is supported by no 'independent reliable sources' and therefore, is largely, in your view, 'original research'? Could I remind deletes that per policy we are obliged to apply our interpretation of policy neutrally, not for POV advantage. That is what editing here is about.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, topics such as "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel", and "Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip", are widely discussed as a set by independent reliable sources. So far I did not see any independent reliable source attempting to document the "Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012" as a set. Do you? Notice that "Truce Violations" is a critical term, in contrast to the neutral "attacks" - independent reliable sources do not tend to catalog events that way. Marokwitz (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you evidently haven't troubled to read List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 which is not documented by any 'independent reliable source'. So, where's the principle of neutrality you believe you adhere to, in calling for the deletion of a Israeli attack article that has the same type of sourcing as the other article on Palestinian attacks which you apparently would not delete? By the way, the last article should not use the word 'Palestinians' (collective guilt) but identify the group (like the IDF in this article) that is thought responsible.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just checked what comes up if you google 'violations+ceasefire+Israel+Palestine+November+2012'. What you say is wholly misleading. It is very easy to thicken out this article with details from UPI, Xinhua, The Times of Israel etc. which mention the violations, provide details of victims names (Anwar Abdulhadi Qudaih, 21, not 20 as here, and 20 farmers are reported injured not 10, in some sources), give background to be used for a lead, interviews with Riyad Mansour, and Ziyad al-Thatha etc. We shouldn't be choking off an article before it has had a chance to mature.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to see where are the mainstream reliable sources (such as NYTimes) which talk about "violations of the ceasefire" as a concise and well defined set. Reliable sources talk about "attacks" or "incidents" but do not state as a fact that a specific incident is or is not a "ceasefire violation". At most, those sources say things such as "Palestinians Claim Israel has Violated Gaza Ceasefire", or "Riad al-Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, described Friday’s shooting as a clear violation of the agreement that was signed". Marokwitz (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. If a ceasefire was agreed to, it means what that word means. If following a ceasefire, either side shoots, it is a violation of the ceasefire. You may argue that it is WP:OR to say the ceasefire was 'violated', of course. In that case, rather than remove the information, whose content is not challenged as false, you, like the rest, should be respecting the numerous Israel-victim lists examples, by simply asking that either that each reference contain a mention of the ceasure, or that this be retitled as 'Israeli assaults on The Gaza Strip/PT and Palestinian attacks on Israel following the November 2012 ceasefire'/'Israeli/Palestinian incidents of violence following the November 2012 ceasefire', or something like that. Moves to erase the data are, given the numerous Israeli-victim lists, nothing but manoeuvers to tilt wiki towards a unilateral perspective. That stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If following a ceasefire, either side shoots, it is a violation of the ceasefire." - that is the source of your mistake. A "ceasefire agreement" does not necessarily equate to ending all hostilities. There are always terms and conditions in such agreements. It depends on the interpretation and wording of the agreement and in no way are we capable or allowed to judge which party violated the agreement based on international law. This causes the scope of the current article to be poorly defined. Yes, a new article could be written about hostile incidents in the Gaza strip since 21 November, 2012. I would not object to such article being created, given that it is balanced and well sourced. Marokwitz (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other editors have pointed out that most of the sources provided in the article do not refer to these incidents as "violations" and that their inclusion constitutes WP:NOT#OR. As a side note, I don't consider this article comparable to the lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, as they are all supported by reliable sources that describe the incidents as what they are - rocket attacks. --1ST7 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are all refusing to answer the noted contradiction. This is sourced exactly as the Israeli-victim pages, and therefore the objections are spurious, examples simply of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems poorly sourced, and so what if 'other stuff exists'? Soosim (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and merge - The article(s) can be re-titled to address concerns about the "Violations of the Ceasefire" aspect. It can be retitled as "List of <whatever is an appropriate description> since the ceasefire of 21 November" so that it becomes a timeline that records all pertinent events in the cycle of violence no matter which belligerent's "armed forces" carried them out. Rocket attacks since the ceasefire can be merged in and editors can very easily start building neutral articles that comply with policy right now rather than selectively focusing on one aspect of the cycle of violence/"ceasefire violation". Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvageable. I've reviewed the sources and content. Some references could be reused in other pages, but current list format is a recipe to create another virtual plaza for POV pushers' entertainment. Why do we want to provide an opportunity for them to say in neutral Wikipedia voice what is actually reported as an opinion by reliable sources? To the point of policy, the subject of this list fails notability, see WP:NOTESAL per Marokwitz explanation above. We might have an encyclopedic tree of knowledge describing "after 21 november" topic but it is definitely not going to grow from this seed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX; the only RS seem to be the New York Times and NBC News, which is insufficient for an article of this type. Miniapolis 15:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(a)WP:SOAPBOX should never have been cited by the proposer in the first place. It does not apply to a list, in neutral language of events, shorn of Advocacy, Propaganda, Recruitment, Opinion pieces, Scandal mongering, Self-promotion. (b) You are labouring under the impression that WP:RS refers to American news sources. It does not. Maan News Agency, for one, has long been regarded as RS for the I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and merge -Per SeanHoyland. Dlv999 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nestlé Waters. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaçam water[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no references, one external link = not enough.--TV Man 13 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vespas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Vespas (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)

Properly completing malformed nomination; rationale is as follows:

In agreement with the original nominator Martijn Hoekstra talk, two years hence I see very little reasons to keep this article alive. Not only has the band split up in the intervening period but what people have not registered is the blatant bias of the article. Two thirds of the live references are from the local newspaper Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser.
Anyone who reads regional tabloid newspapers will know that they often support local artists extensively, this does not unequivocally render them notable on Wiki. There is no coverage from mainstream media such as The Guardian, The Times, NME etc. Even more striking is the absence of any coverage from Scottish media publications such as The Skinny or The List which could have probably got them out of jail. Furthermore a Google news archive search yeilds precious little substance, except another Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser link, see here. The band were never signed to a record label nor did they ever release any charted albums or singles on the mainstream UK charts; and they were only active for three years. The article looks more like an advert or means of promotion, exhibiting poor manual of style, puffery and some OR throughout. Moreover 4 of the 10 references are dead links, therefore we have an article with 6 live citations, 4 of which are from the same local newspaper.
Here's some perspective, i recently nominated an article for a speedy deletion for this erstwhile band - The Ronelles. They were deleted shortly thereafter, however even they had recorded output on Amazon.com here. If one searches Amazon for The Vespas, there is sadly no evidence of any recorded output. Therefore I think that this, and every aforementioned supporting argument embodies a reasonable case to give it another try. Bluidsports (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the article, I thought it was their second nomination and not the third.Bluidsports (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Coverage exists but is primarily from a local paper, with little beyond that. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only coverage is from Airdrie & Coatbridge advertiser. Also the previous afd did not really reach broad consensus as User:Craigster92 whose edits were mostly on this article, was highly involved in the discussion; therefore not really impartial.212.219.249.5 (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30th parallel (phenomenon)[edit]

30th parallel (phenomenon) (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)

Fringe theory / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:FRINGE and WP:POV, no objectivity in the discussion of the theory. Sources are of questionable or poor reliability (Facebook for example). Mostly the article is just a list of places, with a few mentions of dolphins thrown in for good measure. Bazonka (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be deleted because:
  • it describes the real phenomenon of the 30th Parallel - please, check all the geo-coordinates of the unique manmade landmarks and natural sites, located on this latitude

+to RHaworth: "Fringe theory" - 1. but so far nobody has offered the best, although the phenomenon is obvious even to a child : ) 2. like all the theories it has to be examine, so, an expedition doing it, among others

  • it describes the real, perfectly known places, which are really located inside the belt of the 30th parallel N (Pyramyds, mount. Kailash, Lhasa, Shanghai, Jerusalem, Houston, etc.)
  • it also describes non-profit, non-govermental, humanitarian expedition, going by this "belt", including the program of this expedition - without any promotion of smth. (I just put the link to the documentary, which is filming during the expedition, to show how serious it is and to refer to the reliable and proven source (Cinando.com).
  • provided information is backed up by independent sources, including articles in the independent magazines and monographs in English

+ to Bazonka:

  • 1. "no objectivity in the discussion of the theory" - it's not the discussion of the theory - Wiki is not the blog, aren't it?, it's the describing of the theory. What do you see as the lack of objectivity in the description of this theory?
  • 2. "Sources are of questionable or poor reliability (Facebook for example)" - untruth: all the sources are independent, objective and reliable (including books with all the ISBN details). I put the link to facebook, because there you can find a translated version of the articles. The original versions are here: a) [1] b) [2]
  • 3. "Mostly the article is just a list of places..." - visually it's so, because of the spaces between locations (for better readability), but mosty this article consist of the explaining and describing text.
  • 4. "...with a few mentions of dolphins thrown in for good measure"" - untruth: the 30th parallel belt is going through all the major habitats of dolphins and whales - please, take your time to check it.

let's count together:

a) Canary islands (pilot whales, finvales and others as residents) and Bahamas (spotted dolphins, bottlenose, etc. as residents) - ""one and two"
b) Hawaii (humpback whales, etc. as residents) -"three"
с) Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Califorina (half of all cetaceans of the planet) - "four and five"
d) Japanese islands (have you seen "the Cave" documentary?) - "six"
e) Karnali river in Nepal (unique river! dolphins) - "seven"
f) gulf of Suez, Eilat (red sea) and the gulf of Sidra (bottlenoses, spotted, etc.) - "eight, nine and ten"

It's not enough?! It's nearly all the main aquatoriums! and ("what a coincedence") - and all these places are swarm with dolphins (and, sometimes, - whales) Sorry, I didn't find dolphins in China or Jordan, but it's impossible, as you perfectly understand.

--Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is quite an embarrassment. I'm sorry the dolphins have got snarled up in it (there are a lot near where I live at 57°N[3]). I've tried hard looking and the best keyword seems to be "30th parallel project" but the press aren't writing about it and it is too soon for books. It is WP:OR. Congratulations on the expedition, by the way. Best to keep clear of the Bermuda Triangle. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there are a lot near where I live at 57°N" - I like your irony, actually dolphins and whales are spreading in the whole world ocean )) But here we are talking about unique "coincedencies": for example, the Pacific Ocean is great, but once a year thousands of humpback whales are meeting at the north of Hawaii (30th parallel : ) and so on.
"I've tried hard looking and the best keyword seems to be "30th parallel project" - as I understand, one of the main reasons for deleting is too much information about Project, so ok, i will reduce it to the minimum
"but the press aren't writing about it" - because it's non-commercial project! I guess, you perfectly know the rates for the articles in the modern glossy magazines. I collect all the links, which the project have for now; actually, there are some short documentary but, unfortunately, Wiki is blocking youtube... Here the important one (collect it, throwing out @ and spaces): http:// y @ ou @ tu. @ be/9qR7tz3C_04 (A word to the World by EmbassyDolphin)
"Congratulations on the expedition, by the way. Best to keep clear of the Bermuda Triangle". - Thanks a lot! Join us via facebook )))

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether it's commercial or non-commercial, profitable or not, is irrelevant. What you need are reliable and neutral sources to back up your claims. Also, address the issues of WP:FRINGE by showing an objective view, i.e. the fact that the phenomenon is not accepted by everyone. Bazonka (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"address the issues of WP:FRINGE by showing an objective view, i.e. the fact that the phenomenon is not accepted by everyone" - thank you for this advice, but the phenomenon was discovered recently and I didn't find reviews for this account in the scientific literature yet. The expedition is also sharing the information about the phenomena and collecting the opinions on this matter.
"What you need are reliable and neutral sources to back up your claims" - I did my best in source-finding, but it's all, what I have for now ))

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think people might be surprised at my scepticism, but might I suggest perhaps that the reason the 30th parallel phenomenon hasn't apparently been featured in publications might possibly be because no such real phenomenon exists? Controversial, but this sounds a bit like ley lines. Could it be that things line up by accident, when you have a lot of things, and a lot of possible lines to thread through space? Also, dolphins are intelligent animals. Might it be that sometimes some humans aren't so clever? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you can be 200% skeptic, but you can't deny the obvious facts - please, take your time and check once more the list of the "key objects" - they are all with the geo-coordinates, found in the GoogleEarth.
"Could it be that things line up by accident, when you have a lot of things, and a lot of possible lines to thread through space?" - surely it could be, but the number of artifacts is too large for regular coincidence, that's the topic!
"Also, dolphins are intelligent animals. Might it be that sometimes some humans aren't so clever?" - in the top ten! : )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I realise the controversy over what I'm suggesting: some scientists and historians are beginning to question what other people assertions. I mean, they say things like "correlation does not imply causation", and expect people to actually believe this?!?!?! Whoa, these radicals!!!! I mean, a pretty elementary understanding of probability and statistics might prove not only that "200% scepticism" is an impossible position, but could also point out that coincidences occur with strong probability, whether dolphins are involved or not. The intelligence of some humans is clearly lacking. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete First two parts are Original research, third, apparently unconnected part is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • to everyone Just transform "The expedition" section into the last paragraph in the "Hypothesis" section and deleted the link to the expedition's web.

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not verifiable. WP:FRINGE requires fringe science topics to have coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow Wikipedia to cover them in a neutral and in-depth way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Not verifiable." - are you joking?! Take the world map and check all the locations (coordinates are in the article) - the number of artifacts is too large for regular coincidence.
"[WP:FRINGE]] requires fringe science topics to have coverage in reliable secondary sources to allow Wikipedia to cover them in a neutral and in-depth way." - you are right, but the phenomenon was discovered recently and it's a young hypothesis too. There is no reviews for this account in the scientific literature yet. The expedition is also sharing the information about the phenomena and collecting the opinions on this matter.

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think (s)he is joking. Yes, all of those artifacts are near the 30th parallel, but calling some of these "artifacts" is a bit tenuous - dolphins near Hawaii for example. Of course, there are plenty of historical sites (and dolphins) that aren't near to the parallel. How do you explain those then?
And you admit that there is nothing in scientific literature about this "phenomenon". The fact it is new is not a valid argument. There are plenty of notable new things that are documented and have Wikipedia articles. Without necessary sources (whether new or not), then this struggles to meet WP:N. Maybe one day, if there is sufficient coverage, then the article can be recreated, but we're not there yet. Bazonka (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to Bazonka

"...but calling some of these "artifacts" is a bit tenuous - dolphins near Hawaii for example." — it's good that you mention the Hawaii, cause once a year thousands of humpback whales are meeting there - this person (one of the prime experts in the world in the field of communication with whales) is more than 20 years is exploring this. Is it still tenuous? : )
"Of course, there are plenty of historical sites (and dolphins) that aren't near to the parallel. How do you explain those then? " — name me of at least one the same latitude or longitude, which was located along a similar cluster (OK - twice less : ) of such kind of objects. The secret is that they are no more.
Without taking too close a look, Porto, Madrid, Naples, Thessalonica, Istanbul, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, Tashkent, Beijing, and New York City are pretty much all on the same line, a line that also goes through the Northwest Pacific coast (dolphins), Redwood National Park (tallest trees in the world), Great Salt Lake, Salt Lake City (center of a religion), Dinosaur National Park (fossil beds that revolutionized our view of dinosaurs), Rocky Mountain National Park (10,000 + year old pathways over mountain passes), Platte River (several hundred thousand sandhill cranes stopover there on their annual migration), Mississippi River, Hopewell culture mounds in Indiana and Ohio, Meadowcroft Village (one of the oldest archaeological sites in the Americas), and in Eurasia it probably intersects the Great Wall, (throw out a few if they aren't close enough, and you still have a whole lot) this is not looking like all that unique of a situation. There is another line that goes through Cardiff, St Albans, Cologne, Denisova Cave, Lake Baikal, the Aleutians, Calgary, Hudson Bay, L'Anse aux Meadows, etc. The real take-home message is that human activity across the ages is thick on the ground in a wide belt - any line is going to intersect a lot. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Without necessary sources (whether new or not), then this struggles to meet WP:N. The fact it is new is not a valid argument." — I agree, but the fact that even a kid can take the world map and see how all this unique cluster of ancient objects (and dolphins / whales locations, etc.) are aligned - it's the main and real argument! Rules are not working without exceptions and here I see exactly this case - to check this phenomenon you don't need to read a dozen of historical monographs and scientific publications, just take the map, have a look on it and you will see it by yourself. And after try to find something similar - and you will see, that it's unique! : )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soderjanie, you appear to be operating under two misconceptions. First, regarding verifiability/notability, the question is not whether the individual sites are notable, or whether they are on the 30th parallel. Yes, anyone can look at a map and see where places are located. The issue is whether the phenomenon is notable/verifiable. Telling us to 'look at a map' is not the proper response. We as Wikipedia editors don't get to look at a map and draw our own conclusions - that would be Original Research, and is forbidden. Rather we need to have sources that have done this analysis and published it. Is there a body of literature that talks about the 30th parallel phenomenon? If not, then it is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, no matter how true the geographic location of each individual site may be. Second, this is not a discussion between you and everyone else. You need not, and you probably should not, be responding to every comment. The more you respond to each and every editor, the more it makes this look like this is your page. Make your best, well-reasoned argument, and let that stand. Any further clarifications should be short, to the point, and made sparingly. You are doing yourself no favors by responding to every comment. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : )

It seems, that only I see this belt on the world map. So, finally, anyone, Delete this long-suffering page, please. Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about whether any other editor can see this belt. It is about Original Research - Wikipedia is not a repository for phenomena that its editors notice. It is a repository for things that have drawn the attention of academics and reliable media. We don't observe, we summarize what others have observed. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR. And also untrue, there is no evidence of a large number of unicorns along the belt. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to History2007 (talk)

  • Aha, I was thinking about it too... Unfortunately, they are much higher - I'll create the article about the phenomenon of 70th parallel a little bit later : P

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The assertion that this “concentration” of sites is “unmatched” and “cannot be explained by mere coincidence“ is completely unsupported, but is a key premise of the entire “phenomenon“. Reliable sources are needed reporting evidence for this claim, with objective criteria for inclusion of sites and a statistical analysis of their distribution. Nothing of the kind has been brought forward here, not even as OR (which might be replicated elsewhere), just hand-waving. The “Hypothesis“ is a fringey fairy-story, and “The Expedition Project“ adds a promotional tone to the global-vibrations gobbledegook. Oh, and per nom. and Agricolae.—Odysseus1479 03:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A good half-dozen of the places listed are not even situated within the stated latitude range.–Odysseus1479 05:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
name me, please, these "A good half-dozen of the places" )

Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latitudes given in the article, which I haven’t cross-checked elsewhere: Alexandria, Marrakesh, Essaouira, Gulf of Sidra, Jerusalem, Qumran, Multan, Amritsar, and Shanghai are all north of 31°5'. No latitude is given there for the Bahamas, but the northernmost island in the country, Grand Bahama, is at 26°39', well south of 28°5'. Although Midway and Kure Atolls, just within the zone at 28°12' and 28°25' respectively, are part of the Hawaii–Emperor chain, calling them Hawaiian islands is a bit of a stretch; Hawaii proper is south of the Tropic of Cancer.—Odysseus1479 09:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is based on a theory from some guy explained in an essentially self-published book. It's all the result of cognitive bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - not just WP:FRINGE, but obscure and unnotable fringery, without even the usual predatory promoters who make nut-bar theories like indigo children notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie E. Clark[edit]

Annie E. Clark (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)

After removing the overwhelmingly primary-source (including publications by associates) and self-publication laden portions of this BLP, I've concluded the subject is not the actual subject of substantial coverage by unrelated reliable sources. Note, she's a HuffPo blogger, so HuffPo pieces about this living person should be considered associated and/or primary. She does get mention, but it's mostly her acting as a spokesperson within coverage of her group, coverage of a WP:1E (cf. WP:BLP1E), or coverage of sexual harassment and assaults on school campuses. She's in coverage, but it's just not coverage of Annie. JFHJr (㊟) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't ever tell if you are a woman-hater or not. Of course this woman is covered mostly in relation to the other people she is involved with -- she's a joint filer of a precedent-setting civil rights complaint. That doesn't mean she's an less notable than individuals who were, for example, involved in joint efforts to coordinate the Freedom Rides. And just because she was eventually hired by the Huffington Post as a blogger (because she is a talented writer) doesn't mean coverage prior to her hiring, penned by one of the news agency's editors, is dismissible. I don't think Wikipedia expected it would end up being censored into uselessness by people who follow guidelines as strictly as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissTempeste (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep the discussion free of personal attacks. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's hard to predict what will be of historical importance. Some people here say we should always wait, but i think that's not a proper concept for a modern internet encyclopedia, and we should make a reasonable guess based on the sources. I see the NYT sources, and two for MSNBC have been added since the nomination. . I agree with the sensible part of Miss Tempeste's statement, that this is going to be significant, and that she is a significant spokesperson. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a CNN source that described Clark as the "lead complainant" in the filings and the article talks about her. Because of that and other sources now cited in the article, it passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep although HuffPo sources are worrisome. Shii (tock) 04:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yinlu Foods[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, maybe if good references are provided it would be okay, but at the moment, there is none. A google search has a few hits showing promise, but it may be possible to give it a section in it's parent company's article.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage in news articles among multiple different language news sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure how big a company needs to be to be notable, but I think Yinlu should reach the standard - I just added a source from Bloomberg saying it had >10,000 employees and revenues of >$800 million USD in 2010. The company has expanded since then and Baidupedia says they have 15,000 employees and revenues of 10 billion RMB = 1.6 billion USD. 114.252.103.184 (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with 114.252.103.184 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Size isn't a formal standard, in part because it will vary with different fields of endeavor. But this large a company will be notable, and athe multiple sources in the GNews search linked to in the AfD listing show it. I wonder if the nom looked at them? DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, but they all looked to be talking about Nestle's acquisition of a 60% stake. I could not read the foreign language ones but will defer you you on their coverage. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Mulić[edit]

Nail Mulić (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 young player, fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one source appears to be a promotional website.--TV Man 13 23:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle (school bullying)[edit]

Shuttle (school bullying) (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)

Poor english, unconstructive and short. Fails WP:GNG as well.Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not sufficient for its own article anyway. If sources can be found, maybe it can be breifly mentioned in a more encompassing article.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrible grammar, but I get the point of what the editor was saying (a term for a bully forcing someone to do their homework or run errands). Still though, I wouldn't know what this term would be outside of South Korea, so I will have to ask for deletion unless we can come up with that term in a sourced manner. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe a suitable page for urban dictionary, but not for wikipedia. This page is about a translation, or a word term. It is not about and action thing, person, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or move to wiktionary if English references can be found. 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. But only if English references can be found. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In South Korea it is nouned also as 빵셔틀(bread shuttle) There are more than one thousand news refer 빵셔틀[4] --과학 (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Sagal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chloe Sagal (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)

Just some Internet drama regarding an unnotable individual. Niemti (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw (citing this article, and Sagal's claims): "Some years later, she showed signs of metal poisoning from shrapnel which had been left in her body after surgery, and she was informed that if left untreated it could become fatal within months." Metal poisoning ("from shrapnel" or not) has no Wikipedia article, because such medical condition doesn't exist (and obviously one can't "show signs" of it too). And yes, it was scam (which is why it was pulled down by Indiegogo and all money returned). --Niemti (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Difficult to call, but this does appear to be a article about someone of little notability, but a particular eagerness for stirring up publicity and/or attention. Being a developer of a game doesn't make her notable. Particularly when the game itself doesn't appear that notable. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note I posted a lot of tags and indicated how most of everything there is Sagal's own claims. --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 15 May 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) 00:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - This article is clearly a pseudobiography within the meaning intended by WP:SINGLEEVENT. The game dev herself does not appear notable and the only actual coverage of her alone (the 1st paragraph in the biography section) uses questionable sources. But the event itself seems to meet WP:GNG due to the presence of multiple reliable sources. Eurogamer is an RS that is cited within the article, and there is also coverage of the event (not the developer) at several other RSes listed at WP:VG/RS like IndieGames.com (here), HardcoreGamer.com (here), and Destructoid (here). There isn't an overwhelming amount of coverage, though, so the GNG is only satisfied at a low level and I'd entertain arguments that the article might be a net negative (e.g. by serving as a vandalism magnet, etc.). -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "event"? A failed scam (with no fraud prosecution and even no victims as nobody lost any money) and an alleged (no proof for that) failed suicide? We can help by not giving any attention (just like all the media ignore the alleged suicide attempt and it's only a small Internet drama on twitter and tumblr). Also all kinds of "facts" there are so sketchy that even "Chloe" is apparently not a real name. Nothing to see here, move along. --Niemti (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion on this issue, but even (allegedly) failed scams that are significantly covered by multiple reliable sources meet the GNG and can have a place in Wikipedia. There are plenty of silly things that are notable despite their silliness. It's not Wikipedia's place to provide public service by censoring nonsense that's covered in the RSes. I do see McGeddon's point about the degree of coverage though. There's no question in my mind that this is/was a minor event. And if you're right that all reliable media have ignored things like the suicide attempt then of course they shouldn't appear in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This coverage was more like: "hey, you, YES YOU, a dying developer needs your money or will die off due to metal poisoning from shrapnel! update: oh well whatever" (and now even the Destructoid guy followed with it now only on his twitter and didn't write a new article) Not even video game tabloids write about it. But if you really must, you can briefly mention the scam (and the resulting antics) somewhere in the Indiegogo page, but I think it's kind of stuff that belongs more on places like Encyclopedia Dramatica (where ironically there's nothing about it). --Niemti (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Indiegogo would be ok too. -Thibbs (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or to Destructoid. I don't know if you heard about their Transgate, which is possibly bigger than the initial scam, but also unreported in the mass media. (Even if as if now entirely leaked.) --Niemti (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is much more a WP:SINGLEEVENT than a biography, but from the sources I was looking at yesterday when cleaning it up, I don't think it yet meets WP:EVENT. Press coverage is currently shallow (just repeating forum posts rather than any investigative journalism) and seems niche, and it's not yet clear whether there will be any ongoing coverage or "lasting effect". --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Nestlé brands. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Nestlé brands[edit]

List of former Nestlé brands (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)

Waste of space basically. Fails WP:GNG as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, at worst it could be a sublist of the above mentioned page.--TV Man 13 23:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season[edit]

2012–13 Wycombe Boys AFC season (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)

Do Wikipedia editors think that a particular season played by the youth team of a 4th tier side, is encyclopedic, or not? WP:SALT. Please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The team your on about is Wycombe Wanderers F.C are playing in League Two were as Wycombe Boys AFC play in the youth premier league and have down since the 2007-8 after winning at Wemberly against Bristol City Girls in the play-offs.Weareunited878 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Weareunited878 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. Wycombe Boys playing against Bristol City Girls? John Terry scoring own goals in games against a youth team? Complete rubbish. Note also that the article's creator removed the deletion template from the article. Keresaspa

(talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a very good point that the football pyramid expands where beyond the semi-Pro leagues and the youth premier league/division is the top league in the league I play in... I know Wycombe Boys arent as big as Manchester United or Chelsea but considing Nigel has kept them in the league since the 2007/08 season and got them into europe the following season.Weareunited878 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources at all in article, and there are no reliable sources in (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). In reply to Weareunited, not all teams that exist qualify for an article in Wikipedia—only those that are notable by the standards of WP:ORG. —teb728 t c 07:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if there is a team with a name "Wycombe Boys AFC", the season article is definitely not notable. There is occassionally a discussion wether semi-pro teams should have separate season-articles on Wikipedia, but we can safely say that season-articles on amateur and youth-teams are not notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wycombe Boys AFC arent just any team since the calapse of Wycombe Town in 2001 and formation of the wycombe boys they have climbed up the league before gaining promotion the 2006/07 seasonWeareunited878 (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That suggests that Weareunited878 may be another sock of indefblocked LegandofThor2. —teb728 t c 04:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Save - The youth premier league isn't covered by any newspaper or sports channels like skysports or santanna sports but it is an offical league that has been running since 1800 In regards to the sockpuppet I AM NOT A FREAKIN SockpuppetWeareunited878 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't covered by any sources then by definition it is not notable, you have just made a perfect case for the deletion of your article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, "running since 1800"? When association football was not invented until 1863 and the first league in thw world not founded until 1888? Erm, yeah right........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the notion that a sports league allegedly attracting crowds of up to 75,000 and more would attract no media coverage at all. At least try to make your hoaxes believable..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. – PeeJay 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per PeeJay. Clear hoax. Nonsense article. Fenix down (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - total made-up nonsense. Shame we waste time on such stuff. Egghead06 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Valid Point- True note all football leagues are notable but remember not all leagues are telvised.... non-league and lower aren't and that includes local leagues including the youth/Athletic leagues I play in and we some do get mentions in local newspapers.Weareunited878 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop deleting other people's comments on this page as it is considered vandalism! Keresaspa (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody said anything about a league having to be televised to have an article on Wikipedia. However, I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. The league described in this article clearly doesn't exist. I am sure you do play in a local youth league, but I can guarantee it doesn't involve games against Manchester United in front of 75000+ fans at Old Trafford. Can we just close this AfD and delete this blatantly transparent hoax from WP......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted and forgotten about....as for the match against United it wasnt against the champions it was against their youth team that allows players from 15 upto 28Weareunited878 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's just not true.......like everything else in the article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. Reason enough. Mdann52 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine bleedy delete it...... I will just recreate in more better23:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbed to Death (band)[edit]

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

Found zilch on the internet for this article, most definitely fails WP:MUS. It seems likely that the man himself created the article back in 2006. No one has made any significant edits hitherto. There is only one citation which is an unreliable band website. Bluidsports (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HOAX, WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Honores[edit]

Bruno Honores (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 not a blatant hoax, not a single fact in this article can be verified by any search I have been able to perform. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing found to verify this article (on Google, Highbeam, Questia). In addition, even if the text was verifiable, it is unlikely that the subject would be notable. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable and not notable. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. As the nominator states, not a single fact in the article can be verified. Some extraordinary claims with zero proof. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless some sources, even non-English sources, come forward I will change my position but at the moment it lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. Mkdwtalk 01:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverifiable content. No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Blaxter[edit]

Kenneth Blaxter (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)

Disambiguation page with only red links a red link; isn't that against policy? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red X I withdraw my nomination QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing flamingo[edit]

Dancing flamingo (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; may be a hoax, certainly lacks WP:N for a full article QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Don McBrearty. LFaraone 00:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Sex and the Single Mom[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE. I nominated it for CSD, that was contested and the tag removed. I nominated it for PROD with "Reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE." as the rationale and the person that removed the CSD tag added {{Prod2}}. The article creator then removed the PROD and PROD2 tags. That is the history, the article is still exactly the same as when I marked it for CSD, it still reads as a theatre poster advertisement and it still does not pass notability requirements. Technical 13 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in the article shows the notability of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this brand new article to either the director Don McBrearty or List of programs broadcast by Lifetime. While we do not expect a made-for-TV film to have the coverage of a theatrical blockbuster, this verifiable sequel to Sex and the Single Mom does not have even the coverage of its predecessor. To serve Wikipedia readers we can at redirect and then include in the potential target article(s) whatever is reasonable to include therein. And we can thank its author for trying, and send him to WP:SIGCOV. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the director Don McBrearty I will add a few sentences starting his biography about the film. Dohertyben (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyewacket (band)[edit]

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

This article about a band fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music (WP:MUSIC) as well as general notability guidelines (WP:N) due to a lack of sources. dissolvetalk 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing found to indicate any sort of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Mississippi Shark[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT; specifically WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDEPTH. Mkdwtalk 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest article be redirected to Bull Shark--Theda 23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think a redirect will be helpful in this case? I imagined that anyone searching that specific title will be looking for the news story and not really about the species. Mkdwtalk 00:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a suggestion as previously stated. The Bull shark can tolerate freshwater and travel quite a distance up rivers. I did google it [5].--Theda 02:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seems to fail the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; with comment re: Suggestion: If news ever comes, of which article still has no inklings of references; this could be neatly redirected. Thus far, where is the news? Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School VLE[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. Two references are from local newspapers (one of which is a freesheet), third ref is a one-line mention on a long list from a government education department, with the disclaimer "The inclusion of a link does not mean that Ofsted is endorsing a particular resource or product or even confirming that a resource will work; some have been included on the recommendation of users visited, some by simple web research – use at your own risk." No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous editor. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There appear to be hundreds of sites using this, but it's not clear to me that they are using this software, compared to any other of the many VLE's out there, like Frontier. I can't find any 3rd party mention at all. I'd support a mention in the VLE article, but for now that's all we have. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BlackBerry OS. LFaraone 00:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlackBerry OS version history[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Plus, there is not enough of a version history here to even justify its own page. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it would do better to be merged with BlackBerry OS MThinkCpp (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Lowe[edit]

Brenda Lowe (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)

As of date of nom, there are 9 references. Two are YouTubes. One is a self-published source--her own website. One is the CBS website, promoting its own show. One is an interview in a newspaper (Sun-Sentinel) about her fitness routine. One is an interview in TV Guide. Two are interviews in an online blog, zap2it. The ninth is an article in Entertainment Weekly, where she is mentioned only briefly. I don't think any of these establish notability as in-depth independent reliable sources per WP:BASIC. There is also a claim that she won a beauty pageant--what pageant? Did that receive any media coverage? There is also a claim that she was a cheerleader--did her performance as a cheerleader receive any media coverage? This is a clear fail of WP:BASIC and it also fails WP:ENTERTAINER. With that said, maybe someone can find better sources—I looked and could not. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep first, this interview in Sun-Sentinel which the nomination is trying to dismiss as if it's only about her fitness routine in fact mentions that she is in fact a Miami Dolphins Cheerleaders, it's even in the title, so how can you say that there is no third-party verification that she has been a known cheerleader for an obviously notable sports team? It's also third-party reliable verification that she's appeared in twice in Maxim (magazine), an international magazine. You're right that the cameo appearances link to YouTube, which alone isn't enough, but the music video link does imply that she has in fact appeared in a music videos, and it is in fact from the official Vevo channel for the band as opposed to average Joe's channel with the video uploaded. Needless to say the song, the music video is associated with, reached number one in the UK Singles Chart if that's worth anything. As for the commerical, the channel is the official channel for Nature's Path, not average Joe's channel. I even found this which may be just another YouTube link, but who's to say that didn't air on television or a similar form of media? Granted, I can't prove that this Miami Dolphins video did in fact appear on television, but it's material that does suggest significant ties to the Miami Dolphins even years after she retired from cheerleading for them. Zap2it is also more than just average Joe blog, so again, why does it seem like it's getting belittled as a source? Are we going to belittle TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly as reliable sources too? Also, don't say that they are merely interviews that don't verify anything in the Wikipedia article because as I explained with the Sun-Sentinel source, these interviews are reliable source coverage that the Wikipedia article claims are in fact true. Then there's Survivor where she appeared in not one but two seasons Survivor: Nicaragua and Survivor: Caramoan and went pretty far in both seasons.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Just to clarify, WP:BASIC says that to establish notability, sources should be independent of the subject. It's fine with me to cite the four interviews, but they do not establish notability because they are mostly the subject's own words, and hence are not independent of the subject. The question here at this AfD is whether the subject is notable, not whether the facts in the article are verifiable--that's a totally different question. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but Sun-Sentinel even put Miami Dolphins and Survivor in the title of their article, so at least in that case, it's their words, not hers.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DrumstickJuggler. Nominator even admits that some of these sources are solid forms of verification and DrumstickJuggler is right that the Sun-Sentinel source is using their own words instead of just Brenda's, and thus independant of the subject.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks for commenting, but I think you have misunderstood this discussion and its purpose. I did not say that some of the sources are solid forms of verification. What I said is that this discussion is about notability, not verifiability. None of your comments say anything about notability. You are right that the Sun-Sentinel source does include some words that are not the subject's (a couple hundred, in fact) but you do not explain how this is relevant to any policy on Wikipedia related to this discussion for deletion. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with DrumstickJuggler because, as you said, independence of the subject is related to Wikipedia policy on notability, and you've admitted yourself the Sun-Sentinel source does indeed do that. As for the "solid forms of verification" comment, you didn't directly say that but you implied that when you said "fine with me to cite the four interviews".--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hi, I said just the opposite about the Sun-Sentinel source--it does not establish notability because it is non-independent. It is mostly the subject's own words. Yes, there are some words that are not the subject's words. That's what happens in interviews. Looking at the whole source, it does not cross the threshold of WP:BASIC, which also refers to substantial depth. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The interview part may be her own words, but the introduction is written in third-person, and therefore that part is not in her own words, but the words of the source itself..--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The discussion is of notability, since there is an agreement about verification. That said, only the interview part of the Sun-Sentinel source is first and second person, the introduction like Beachsand2004 said, is in third person. I'm also sure that we have other forms of third-person narratives amongst available sources. Therefore, I think the notability part is established too.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not all these sources are fully dependant on the subject as the nominator seems to claim. For example, the Sun Sentinel source is only dependant in the interview portion of the source, not in the opening paragraph.--TV Man 13 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Actually, I said just the opposite--the Sun-Sentinel source does include words that are not the subject's. But there is not enough depth of coverage there to establish notability per WP:BASIC. Unfortunately your comments do not make any connection to WP policies. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depth? You say a "couple hundred in fact" above in reference to words of the independant text, and what about the other sources? I think the comments by the above users already explain how it links to policy.--TV Man 13 00:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How odd that all three of the respondents on this page mispelled the word "independent" as "independant." [6] [7] [8] That's a pretty rare misspelling. Maybe they are not independent of each other. This is also interesting. [9] Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So more than one person in the world edits articles about a show watched by millions of people around the world. What's your point?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that his point is the combination of shared edits and the uncommon misspelling shared by all three editors could easily be construed as meaning they're the same person. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, Google search returns 250 million results for "independant" vs. 500 million for "independent", so it's a very common misspelling and the odds of 3 different people making the same mistake are not low. With the possible sidenote that this word is spelled "indépendant" in French, and "dependant" is an acceptable spelling of "dependent" in English. Not that I have an opinion on the AFD matter itself, just a statistical note.Geregen2 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I get 949 million hits for "independent" [10] and 23 million for "independant" [11], a lot different than what you are saying. And the 23 million includes a lot of non-English results. I really doubt that in English this word is misspelled 1/3 of the time as you are suggesting. Maybe you are using the French google? Anyway, that was not the only similarity among the three accounts. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/comment Crikey. Okay, I don't know what to make of this. Looking at the template for Survivor contestants, I see quite a lot of former Survivor contestants with articles of their own, though having a look at the list shows that a LOT don't, so there isn't a precedent for articles for contestants. Apparently the beauty pageant was Señorita República Deportiva (as per "examiner.com/article/survivor-nicaragua-brenda-lowe-paddle-sports-new-pin-up-girl" which was caught by the spam filter]) but that doesn't have an article of its own (not even as Miss Republic Pageant, so she is not notable as a beauty pageant winner. Okay, she obviously passes WP:HOTTIE, but joking aside, I don't really see anything to show me that she is notable enough to retain an article on her. Mabalu (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My major reason is WP:BLP1E. Outside of Survivor, nothing else is substantial enough for notability. She's at best a D level celebrity who could one day gain more credentials for an article, but right now she, along with most other contestants, does not warrant one. RoadView (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Preschool Curriculum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
International Preschool Curriculum (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 The organization appears to be commercial, rather than the international association it purports to be. There are no citations provided to anything outside of the company website. A Google scholar search of the name yields a single minor reference in a book chapter. hgilbert (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. They almost take the words right out of my mouth.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No citations provided to anything outside of the official website of the company. I worry about the accuracy of the information.Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Faruqui[edit]

Farhan Faruqui (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 anything in this article that makes him notable. I can't find enough achievements to meet WP:ENTERTAINER Gbawden (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. — Richard BB 07:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Alavi Fard[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. According to the source provided in the article, he was nominated for a prize called "Book of the Season" which is a non-notable award. After a search in Persian, I couldn't find RS to establish notability. Farhikht (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also previous discussion. Farhikht (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stentor[edit]

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

No indication of how this meets notability guidelines, relies entirely on primary sources - unable to find sufficient secondary coverage Freikorp (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although there are no Google news hits, this is a college newspaper, which makes it somewhat important. In addition, since bound volumes are available at Amazon.com, I give this the benefit of the doubt although policy may not support such an opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lake Forest College. Student magazine of a small and not very well known private liberal arts college. Article has no external references, and a Google search gives no evidence of notability. Already mentioned in the college's main article. Despite what TonyTheTiger said, being sold on Amazon counts for very little: almost anyone can sell almost anything on Amazon, which is full of non-notable eBooks and print-on-demand publications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep or Redirect to Lake Forest College.  Publications with online archives are of particular interest to researchers including Wikipedia editors.  In the general case, a topic that fails wp:notability but has WP:RS primary sources and is already covered in the encyclopedia is not appropriate for AfD.  So this nomination appears to be a case of WP:SOFIXIT, making the correct closure a speedy keep.  This is confirmed by the fact that either the nominator knew that all of the links in the article were dead links and declined to mark them as dead links, or made no attempt to study this topic before bringing the topic to AfD.  Nonetheless, I feel that the current article has severe content problems beyond wp:notability that bring it close to a situation that calls for deletion.  I have marked the dead links, removed a bogus complaint that the topic failed to meet the Geography notability guideline, and removed a list of WP:BLP violations.  I have also found online primary sources and upgraded the topic at Lake Forest College.  Careful study of the list of archived newspapers for 2011/2012 shows that the claim in the current article that this "paper...still produces issues every Thursday" is not verifiable.  Likewise, the current article IMO is filled with unsourced and unverifiable assertions that are likely to be insider WP:OR.  I don't see that there is anything to merge, but I think the edit history is worth keeping as a reference.  If this AfD is closed as a speedy keep, I expect to redirect the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed the references, which were bare urls at the time, were dead when I checked them, but I considered that the website might just be temporarily down for a hour or so so I formatted them anyway with cite web to improve the look of the article, specifically leaving the "accessdate" field blank as I did not access them (I was directed to this article from the 'clean up bare urls' backlog). I was planning on coming back to check them the next day to see if they were in fact dead (in which case I would have removed them), but I forgot about it. Considering the article had no secondary sources, and after a quick search found me none that I could add to the article, I figured nominating the article for deletion was the right course of action. Freikorp (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cássio Raposo do Amaral[edit]

Cássio Raposo do Amaral (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:BIO and WP:PROF. A mere 4 gnews hits which includes brazilian coverage. No article in Portuguese LibStar (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zairi Bibliography[edit]

Mohamed Zairi Bibliography (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)

Extensive unsourced list of largely non-notable publications. Whilst I have no objection to including a list of Prof. Zairi's notable works in the article on him, this stand-alone list is unsuitable per WP:Source list. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Mohamed Zairi. There may be justification to prune this list, but when Zairi's main article is so short, there's no need for a separate bibliography. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I placed it on a separate article on suggestion in Editor Assistance discussion here, mostly as a temporary solution while cleaning up the article. But I do agree that it looks really ugly and is not in line with policy. Off-topic: Is Mohamed Zairi really notable enough to have his own article? There are almost no reliable sources on him. Amlaera (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: content is already part of the source article history, so there's nothing to merge. Also, there's no attribution back to Mohamed Zairi. If there's a redirect, it should be after deletion to avoid the attribution chain problem. But I don't think there should be a redirect. While none of the WP:RFD#DELETE criteria plainly apply, it's clear that none of the WP:RFD#KEEP criteria apply either... and really, this title isn't a useful alternative search term for Mohamed Zairi (since the title already contains "Mohamed Zairi"), and there's just no logic to keeping a redirect. If Amlaera wanted the material handier than looking at the article history would have made it, then Amlaera should have copied and pasted it to Talk:Mohamed Zairi. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the other article is short enough to hold all of this, then it should do so. Is there any proof that the guy is notable at all though? I'm not seeing that in his article right now. Multiple editors have reverted one single purpose account who keeps trying to add things there. Dream Focus 00:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have proposed Mohamed Zairi's article for deletion. Can't see any evidence of notability.Amlaera (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous list of publications. We do this kind of lists for people like Darwin or Einstein, which Zairi obviously is not. If the bio is kept, the three most notable publications can be listed, but we don't need this partial CV to do that. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? Yunshui 雲‍水 07:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy. Sent to User:Nudero66/Amour V (2012 short film)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amour V (2012 short film)[edit]

Amour V (2012 short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable film. Does not meet notability guidelines and fails WP:GNG. No assertion of notability, no third-party citations. Appears to merely be a student's college project. — Richard BB 07:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/userfy. A search doesn't bring up much, only that the film showed at a recent film festival and won a few awards. That it accomplished this does help with notability, but the awards aren't so notable that they would merit a keep on that basis alone. I don't particularly mind it being userfied in the hopes that it might show at more festivals and perhaps get more notability in the future, but right now? It just doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Tokyogirl. The article author seems interested in trying to improve the article, and I think this article should have gone through AfC anyway. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy - I think Tokyogirl79 puts it nicely. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to its author. Allow back if and when WP:NF is met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Obverse_Books#Faction_Paradox.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Romance in Twelve Parts[edit]

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

Delete, notability is not apparent. Does not appear to have won awards, or received significant coverage in Reliable Sources. There are a few discussions right now over Obverse books. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The big issue is that of the sources given in the previous version, all but one would be seen as primary. Philip Purser-Hallard wrote a story for the collection, so his blog would be seen as a primary source. The last source, the magazine for DWIN, looks like it might be potentially usable as a reliable source. Maybe. I'd have to run it through the RS noticeboard. The magazine claims to have won some awards, but I'd have to verify what they are and whether or not they're anything that would contribute towards the claims for notability. But even if that is considered to be reliable, that's not enough to show notability for the book. The only time 1-2 links are enough for notability purposes is when they assert something so overwhelmingly notable that they'd merit a keep on that basis alone. The norm for book related articles is far higher, being about 4-6 depending on what the sources are. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just a word to the wise: if you want to say that it's weird that some things have articles and others don't, listing the specific articles just heightens the chance of them getting redirected or deleted because you're bringing a potential lack of notability to light. Assuming they don't pass notability guidelines, that is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that wasn't a very helpful comment! I am currently feeling somewhat worn out by the frequent low-level incivility and skirting of rules on Wikipedia. What time I am putting into Wikipedia, I am putting elsewhere. However, I would have thought that Wikipedia policy would support the deletion of tens of Dr Who spin-off articles, including all the ones I listed. That, however, is a tangential point. This article needs to be considered on its merits. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the person who initially did the redirect - support the redirect to publisher as a vaguely likely search term for an item that fails to meet the WP:42 standard criteria for stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think there's any consensus to delete anything here, if the articles are to be merged or redirected as per to of the comments then that is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Greece, Ottawa[edit]

Embassy of Greece, Ottawa (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:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable as shown in recent AfDs. those wanting to keep must show evidence of coverage. these are merely directory listings. also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist separately Given the widely varying importance of these countries , and the importance of their relation to Canada, the notability is likely to be quite different. They should not have been bundled. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
separate AfDs are not required, they are all stubs and all relate to relations to Canada, any keep or delete !votes can be grouped here. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SumZero[edit]

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

This is a WP:Advert. FusionLord (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve: yes it's definitely written in a promotional tone at the moment, but that can be fixed. The site is notable, with a good deal of WP:Secondary coverage online, so I'll try to tone down the worst of the promo now. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but perhaps further improvement can be made. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 May 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) 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 15. Snotbot  t • c »  06:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has it been revised? Please point out any remaining instances of WP:AfD. - 64.134.46.169 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a not so notable company formed by notable people. Thus, indirectly it is notable. The article may be improved, but definitely cant be deleted. DebashisMTalk 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Divya Narendra#SumZero. I don't agree with the WP:INHERIT argument since only one of them currently meets WP:BIO. Most of the sources given are either press releases or not independent, meaning it does not meet WP:WEB. A mention in the notable founder's article should suffice. Funny Pika! 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Keegan under WP:CSD#A7. (Non-admin closure) BryanG (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McKay-Clarke[edit]

Jordan McKay-Clarke (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)

12 year old rugby player. No indication of notability, no references. Egghead06 (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Systems Electronics MCS70[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Audio Systems Electronics MCS70 (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 music synthesizer; Virtually no reliable sources available. Ctempire (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion under CSD G3, A1 - Vianello (Talk) 14:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milinocus Incident in Kansas[edit]

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

Fails WP: GNG. No hits on Google. Possible hoax article. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Schnoebelen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
William Schnoebelen (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 bottom line is that we have little to no trustworthy information about this character. We only have information about what he "claims" to have done prior to his "born again" phase, and as with Alberto Rivera, Mike Warnke, and John Todd his life story is almost certainly a forgery. Pure speculation and unverifiable autobiographical claims like these are an awfully thin reed upon which to hang any article, especially a BLP. He may be "popular" among certain fundamentalist circles, but that doesn't equal notability, especially because mainstream (i. e., non-fundy) media haven't written much about him from an objective standpoint. So, I say delete. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:11, 8 May 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) 03:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I reviewed the references, but none of them really establish notability for the subject. I would say it fails WP:ANYBIO in that regard. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 12:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that there is not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who? History2007 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Perhaps with regret) delete -- He seems to be a campaigner against certain unorthodox religions, but there seems to be little evidence but his own statements of his biography. I suspect that the statemetns of the degree of penetration of organisations is exaggerated. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanthi Devi Balaguru[edit]

Jayanthi Devi Balaguru (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)

Could possibly fail WP:NOTABILITY Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:23, 8 May 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) 03:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject's legal career does not appear notable, simply a person with a job; the article describes her as a politician too, but there is no evidence that she fulfils a position in terms of WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taryam Omran Taryam[edit]

Taryam Omran Taryam (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:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. a long time unreferenced stub. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RtlCreateUserProcess[edit]

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

Delete per reasons listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZwTerminateProcess and other nominations in this series: lack of individual notability. Also per what Wikipedia is not: specifically, it is not a Windows API manual nor a comprehensive list of system calls. Keφr 13:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating (for the same reasons):

LdrLoadDll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NtTerminateProcess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NtOpenProcess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NtCreateProcess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RtlSetProcessIsCritical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone has voiced their opinion, I will also add:

GetTickCount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CreateThread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CreateRemoteThread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keφr 17:00, 8 May 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) 03:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not an API reference manual. JIP | Talk 03:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I've commented on a few of these, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines seem clear. Wikipedia is not a directory or a reference manual. There's no attempt to demonstrate these are special APIs beyond thousands of other API calls. If Wikipedia covers every element of a large group of "cookie-cutter" items, whether they're video games, cellphones, road junctions, pop songs, electronic components, people who've held minor office, there must be something beyond the routine "X is a Y". You need some history, third-party evaluation, critical comment, etc (WP:SNOWFLAKE). These articles merely give syntax and usage information and sometimes examples (and WP:NOTHOWTO may additionally apply here.) There are specific notability rules for certain things like geographical features and biological species that are more generous, but there's no specific rule for API calls. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as with Colapeninsula, I've commented on a few of the recent API cal AfDs. And as Colapeninsula nicely argues, there appears nothing notable about these particular API calls and we need more than routine mentions in API references to satisfy general notability guidelines. --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All These do not appear to be notable on their own. Jncraton (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All not how to. W Nowicki (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luxo L-1[edit]

Luxo L-1 (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)

We already have an article Luxo that mentions the notability of the Luxo lamp in Luxo Jr.. I am One of Many (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a content fork from Luxo, which instead should be expanded and referenced. The separate article on the Pixar film is, of course, acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note the nominator's withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to Swim (band)[edit]

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

At first glance this article appears to be well written and seems legit, however a Google search of this band does not find many results, mainly Myspace, Facebook, Twitter etc. There is not much media coverage of this band, not even a section at Allmusic.com. The editors of the article have not made much attempt to cite information. There is merely one citation which is from independent Edinburgh magazine The List. The band have been together since 2000 yet have very little discography to their name, certainly nothing that has charted anyway. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. It is best to get opinions from other users just to be safe. Maybe I've missed something.Bluidsports (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I say media coverage, I am generally referring to mainstream exposure of the band. Which is why I pointed out the absence of an entry at Allmusic.com. Of course there are articles on smaller media organisations i.e The Skinny, The List and The Scotsman's sister blog site Radar; there is nothing to be found in 'first order' media, The Guardian, The Times, NME etc. Although one can forgive them in today's music industry for not having any charted songs, they have also strikingly never had an album chart anywhere. Ironically, the editors of the article have unwittingly shot themselves in the foot for including a discography table with vacant and likely non-existent chart stats; just n/a across the board.Bluidsports (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable coverage, per Michig. Its not relevant (and not surprising) that a Glasgow band isn't covered in the London newspapers.--Vclaw (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the original nominator I am happy to concede and let this article stay. Since making this nomination, I have found some considerably more shocking band articles that deserve my deletion time. The contributors to the article have not cited it very well but Michig has found plenty of legit press coverage. Bluidsports (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L. M. Heroux[edit]

L. M. Heroux (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 wasn't sure at first if this article was a hoax. At any rate, it seems that substantial coverage of this individual is absent. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of notability. Some of the refs are dead Gbawden (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's claim to notability is that the subject has been quoted thousands of times. Even if he has been quoted many times, I can't find the supposed thousands of times he's been quoted. Furthermore, at least two of the sources are Scientology-based fiction and furthermore, seem to mis-quote him, whoever this was. I can't find any significant coverage about him. 17:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under the A9 criteria. Michael Greiner 05:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath the Veiled Embrace[edit]

Beneath the Veiled Embrace (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 an album by a non-notable band, Pythia. It does not have significant coverage by any reliable source. It also fails WP:NALBUM. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. I've tagged this as an A9 since we no longer have an article for the band and I can't find anything to show that this album is so overwhelmingly notable that it merits an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Blushi[edit]

Jennifer Blushi (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 notability criteria for WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. 2 movies roles as an extra and then work as a make-up artist. A search found no mentions in any independent reliable sources, let alone any significant coverage. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Chiranjeev[edit]

Avinash Chiranjeev (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 subject fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and lacks citations, achievements, or positions that would indicate notability as a WP:PROFESSOR. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Over promotional article. Not a notable person. I did not find any secondary reference on any reliabiable weblink. the article should be deleted speedly. Jussychoulex (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 4 cites on GS for his work. Not enough. No sign of passing any of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. Markus Funk[edit]

T. Markus Funk (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 does not sufficiently assert the notability of the subject. Most of the sources provided are either dead links, only mention Funk in passing and therefore do not qualify as significant coverage, or are affiliated with the subject and not independent, so it appears that this person fails WP:GNG. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Subject may have a weak claim to notability under WP:AUTHOR for his books (the one on the ICC received a full length review in French [20]), but I wasn't able to find any further reviews. His citations are too low to pass WP:PROF as a legal scholar (unsurprisingly, since while his scholarly work is extremely impressive for a practitioner, his main job is as a practicing lawyer, not a law professor). I do not find sufficient coverage of the subject himself to justify WP:BIO. The delete !vote is weak because his notability is borderline, between all his activities, but is not quite there yet, IMO. Furthermore, the article in its current form is so strongly boosterish and promotional that WP:TNT may apply. RayTalk 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty clear consensus to delete, but I agree with Whpq that this might be a notable subject and am willing to userfy it. There is also the matter of the AfC article raised by Kelapstick. The AfC article is significantly better sourced but could get declined since the prior existence of an article in mainspace is reason for speedy decline at AfC. On the other hand, this article has no referencing at all so it would be better to delete this article and leave the matter for AfC to deal with. SpinningSpark 16:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Fox (Lion & Fox Recording Studios)[edit]

Jim Fox (Lion & Fox Recording Studios) (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:BIO and WP:GNG Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I cannot find any significant coverage, but a lot of the stuff I could find in reliable sources hints at notability and being very well regarded as a reggae recording engineer and producer. This article describes him as a top engineer; this article is in Spanish, but appears to describe him as important; this article has significant material about him but is primarily quoting SOJA about Fox's importance; this article in Spanish I think is similar in the band stating Fox's importance based on machine translation; also mentioned in this Billboard article. I understand that almost none of this qualifies as significant coverage, but given the article was only created yesterday, and cursory search indicates notability, it would be best to keep the article and tag it for referencing and improvement. You can count this as an ignore all rules weak keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 1 May 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) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is an article at AfC on the same subject, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Fox, should that have an impact on the closing admin's decision. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI hope I'm allowed to post here. I don't really understand the reasoning for not keeping this article. It is a well-sourced article about a record producer is responsible for hundreds of albums, many Grammy-nominated. It is not promotion at all. Everything is fact-based. His discography alone should be considered as a primary source and reason for keeping the article. The Black Uhuru Brutal Dub album, which he co-produced and mixed (the most crucial element of a dub album) actually won the Grammy but was rescinded because the Academy did not have a category for dub, which is all instrumental, experimental, with no vocal. I hope you reconsider. Can you give guidance on what needs changing? That is not a problem for me.--User:midnightraverblog —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAs for the PROMOTION thing. I am NOT Jim Fox. This is text I wrote for a blog post that Fox submitted for approval here. It is MY original work. I am however submitting it for re-consideration.--User:midnightraverblog —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First off, midnightraverblog, you're certainly allowed to post here - but other editors do take into account your position as the original editor of the article. So, that's a thing. To your other comment.... So you wrote this up, and then it was submitted by Mr. Fox himself? The history says that you were the one who actually posted it at this article title. Or did Fox submit it at AFC? Either way, I think there are two questions - is Mr. Fox notable enough under our policies to justify an article? And, if so, is this that article? The answers show us the difference between not ever having an article and just not having one yet. I'm inclined to think that Fox is notable, but that this article is heavy in promotional text and very light in reliable sourcing. That might be a case to Userfy rather than to delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION; article's subject does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Recently-created, totally-unsourced BLP should have been prodded. Miniapolis 15:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Landeryou[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Landeryou (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:NOTE FlatOut 13:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I accept the argument by Cullen328 that the most notorious are notable. FlatOut 03:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The subject is not notable. Vexnews may be, but the subject is not. There is little prospect for expanding the article due to lack of independent reliable sources. FlatOut 13:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources already in the article are from prominent Australian media outlets, and show that the subject is notable. There is no basis for presuming that the article can't be improved, and it is an acceptable short article now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly notorious, is that the same as notable? FlatOut 05:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The terms "notable" as Wikipedia defines it, and "notorious" as used more broadly, are by no means mutually exclusive. It is safe to say that most truly notorious people are notable and therefore worthy of Wikipedia articles. We don't limit our biographical coverage to upstanding citizens with unblemished reputations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salisbury, Maryland#Mayors_of_Salisbury. There's not a huge amount of consensus here, but given that the amount of coverage may result in the name being searched, a redirect to the city is unexceptional. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ireton[edit]

Jim Ireton (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:POLITICIAN. Doesn't really meet notability standards. He is a local politician. Citations are nearly all local. City is small. It should keep us busy if we are going to allow bios on every mayor that ever has been elected, anywhere in the world. The situation will be worse than with athletes or musicians. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OUTCOMES, a historic first, such as a city's first-ever woman, African American or LGBT mayor, can qualify for an article on those grounds regardless of whether or not the city's mayors would otherwise qualify on a "size of the city" criterion. And even the "size of the city" is intentionally not defined as a specific population cutoff (given that Wikipedia specifically deprecates arbitrary size cutoffs), but as the more general qualification that the city merely needs to have "regional prominence" — a criterion which, at least to me, certainly includes the anchor city of a metropolitan statistical area with a population of over 100,000, whose article describes it as the largest city and the commercial hub of a well-defined and notable geographic region. You're free to have a different opinion on that latter argument, certainly, but given that the guy was a historic first he passes on that criterion regardless of what anybody thinks about whether the city is "regionally prominent" enough to permit articles about the mayors who preceded him. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat.--В и к и T 14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat and WP:OUTCOMES. David (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources to pass WP:BIO although I see lots of incidental news coverage. The difference between "historic first" and "that's nice, a novelty" is a matter of how much attention people pay to the matter. I personally think it's a good thing about America that a town's first openly gay mayor attracts more of the second variety of attention than the first, but that's neither here nor there. Since he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN either, I don't think we'd lose anything by maintaining standards and deleting this article. RayTalk 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Redirect to Salisbury, Maryland. The subject of this AfD has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, however it can be argued whether or not those multiple mentions would add up to significant in-depth coverage of the individual himself, and thus WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO notability is debatable. Most of the mentions could be argued to be routine coverage of the sources local to the city which the subject is mayor of in the course of his duties in elected office. As the city is not a major city the subject is not automatically notable as stated at POLOUTCOMES:

    Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office).

    However, there is WP:POLOUTCOMES which states:

    Politicians who (a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a municipal government, ...

    Therefore, per POLOUTCOMES I cannot support deletion due to the historic first. That being said the subject may only be locally notable, and thus WP:LOCAL should be considered, and as such an alternative to having a standalone article, as the first quote of POLOUTCOMES advises against, which is contradicted by the second quote, is to redirect the the article to Salisbury, Maryland#Government. The verified information of the locally notable first can be added to this section, and if the subject received in-depth coverage the article can be recreated.
The above statement maybe misleading. Salisbury has a population of 30,343 as of the 2010 U.S. Census. The subject of this AfD is not elected over the MSA which is stated above, but only the city itself. For instance, the city of San Marcos, California is one of the anchor cities of its MSA (San Diego, and Carlsbad being the other two) however it is not in the top 50 of the largest cities in California (#88) and is not as regionally significant as other larger cities within its county. Therefore having its name in a U.S. Census Bureau designated region does not make the city, and its mayor, automatically notable IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we can look forward to "First Catholic Mayor," "First Lutheran Mayor," "First U-U Mayor," "First convicted felon," "First mayor to be convicted while in office," "First mayor to admit to inhaling while smoking marijuana," "First mayor to approve of dancing (assuming the city goes back to the 19th century," "First mayor to advocate prohibition," "First mayor to advocate repeal of Prohibition," "First mayor to approve/disapprove of secession/uniting with the Union during the Civil War," "First mayor to help with/try to stop the Underground Railway," (There was also a reverse organization!)? In short a rather infinity of articles, all heavily dependent on then-current cultural trends, but (like Prohibition), somewhat limited in interest now? Student7 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Look up the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum if you think that most of those would ever qualify as "historic firsts" that would ever get a person past WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that this is, at best a WP:BLP1E article. The mayor did not run, nor is intending to implement a program that would advance the cause of the LGBT community. He is essentially, WP:LOWPROFILE, since he does not address LGBT issues on a continuing basis. He is mayor of all the people, which is good government, but bad for notability! Suggest merging to Salisbury article. Student7 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not one LGBT politician in history has ever focused exclusively on LGBT issues to the detriment of actually representing all the people, in precisely the same way as a woman mayor does not somehow fail to be the mayor of the men in her city just because she's a woman. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we should not create articles for the "first x" unless we can show that this gained wide notability. If he was the "first x" in all of Maryland maybe, but if he is just the "first x" for a small local that is not notable enoug.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mayor of a city of 30,000 people that most people have never heard of is not notable, gay or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Student7 and John Pack Lambert. Every mayor is a "first" for some reason or another. The subject should receive significant coverage of the historic or societal barrier they break. See Stu Rasmussen, the Mayor of Silverton, Oregon as a good example of a significant "first." Enos733 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Salisbury, Maryland, where it could be briefly mentioned he was the first gay major of the city. Cavarrone (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ireton's election was not an event of international, national, regional, or even statewide significance. This is one instance where WP:OUTCOMES should not trump the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Know One[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - manages to glide above A7 for assertions of notability, but this fails WP:NMUSIC by miles, and just fails WP:NOTMYSPACE. GHits not helpful as they refer to compltely unrelated subjects. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking under "MC Know One", there doesn't appear to be any in-depth secondary coverage. Not quite sure where the indication of notability is for this hip-hop artist (maybe the McDonalds commercial? [21]) but it doesn't currently meet WP:NMUSIC. Funny Pika! 05:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Ahmed Khan[edit]

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

No references and or citations Ghorpaapi (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this account as this is an account of very famous Indian Classical vocalist of Dilli Gharana, India. for reference check his website www.dilligharana.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran4lov (talk • contribs) 7 May 2013

I think it's more likely that it's a different person with the same name. --wintonian talk 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if sources don't show up by the end of this AfD. The name is sufficiently common that Googling is not helpful, and as currently written the article fails WP:V, a core policy. If we can get some good sources, it would pass WP:POLITICIAN. RayTalk 19:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much to add to the above comments really, just that the article certainly does assert notability per WP:POLITICIAN, but there seem to be no sources (in English at least) that support this and whilst the name seems to be fairly common I think we would need a good source that makes clear that the subject is this same person and not just their namesake with similar characteristics. I think this is going to be one of those articles that would be primarily supported by foreign language sources if it is retained and any can be found, until then I don't think it should remain. --wintonian talk 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The comment above by Imran4lov is confusing as this article appears to refer to a different person. As a politician, this person clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN except so far as no citations are given. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Kay Alexander[edit]

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

No supportable evidence of notability. Searches only return pages created by her husband (Charles Alexander). Searches for her TV ministry also return only primary sources. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom — Frankie (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't seem to find any news articles or interviews in reliable sources. Am I looking in the right places? Bearian (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Incubate. . As stated, it is difficult to determine notability from online sources. It may be better, therefore, to take the article out of articlespace for a while for offline sources to be uncovered. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugei Ryūha Daijiten[edit]

Bugei Ryūha Daijiten (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 lacks independent sources and my search didn't find any significant independent coverage. After several weeks at WT:WPMA no one has posted any support for the article so I thought I'd bring it to AfD. I have no knowledge of either this book or Japanese, so I'm hoping someone can show why this book is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book is cited as a source for a large number of articles on Japanese koryu. Not sure how that fits into notability requirements.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is still the most comprehensive reference for traditional Japanese styles. Google books gives many examples of it being cited (https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Bugei+Ry%C5%ABha+Daijiten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Bugei+Ry%C5%ABha+Daijiten&safe=off&client=ubuntu&hs=Ezq&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=40yOUfvJF4SyrAfA-YCAAw&ved=0CA8Q_AUoAg&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46340616,d.bmk&fp=a433b057c66a0392&biw=1600&bih=859) and there are many more in Japanese. Here is it being discussed (in passing, but several times) as a well known reference (http://acmebugei.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/the-curse-of-being-a-generalist-a-review-of-%E2%80%9Cclassical-swordsmanship-of-japan-a-comprehensive-guide-to-kenjutsu-and-iaijutsu%E2%80%9D-by-serge-mol/). I thus think it fulfils the notability criteria given for academic books (WP:BK) in that it is widely cited by other academic publications and is considered influential in its speciality area. Francis Bond (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The external links appear to largely go to blogs and other non-reliable sources. The references cited in the article are 40 years old and exist, presumably, only in hard-copy form. I recognize that this alone doesn't suggest that the subject of history is not notable. However, I am unable to find an current references or any current mentions of the subject in a historical context. This suggest that the subject matter fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I own a lot of similar books that detail various forms of martial arts and none of those have a wiki page. Nor do they deserve one. This book does not qiualify as an academic book. I have studied various Japanese schools, and none of them reference this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartialArtsLEO (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an encyclopedia - I would not expect the entries to refer to it. It is a well known reference but I reserve comment on notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, my comment was directed to claim that "has become the standard academic reference for anyone doing research into the field." MartialArtsLEO (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found this book listed in several bibliographies, but it was listed among dozens of others so I still am not seeing the coverage I'd like and I don't know if it really qualifies as an academic book, but it might.Mdtemp (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate. My search on Google Books makes me suspect that this is in fact notable, but that it is only sourcable by offline references in Japanese. For example, I found this reference in snippet view which describes the volume, the order that the various schools are listed in, and the general organization of the entries. I suspect there are more, but I don't think you could really do this article justice without spending a day or so in a dusty Japanese library. So I am inclined to recommend incubation, as it there is a chance that notability can be proved here, but it needs to be done by someone who speaks good Japanese and also wants to salvage the article by putting in some library time. (I could make a claim to the first point here, but not the second.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)−[reply]
  • Delete - After due consideration, I don't believe this actually meets WP:BK. The authors are not notable in their own right, and the volume, while no doubt authoritative, is a text I don't believe qualifies on its own merit. It is too historically recent to be on par with a treatise such as Codex Wallerstein, and rather than being instructional, it is encyclopedic in nature. This is essentially a book of lists which hasn't influenced the development of martial arts in and of itself. I suppose I could purchase and read this, but this is essentially an anthology. I believe such effort would be futile. Jun Kayama 14:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even as an exception, because of the apparent importance in the field. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is clear after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consula[edit]

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

A small and newly founded consultancy with sub-2 million euros in revenue seems unlikely to be notable. There do not seem to be strong secondary sources available. TheGrappler (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a financial criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many many other examples of entries which appear to meet the requirements but which are also fairly new micro-businesses. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a financial criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. The secondary sources include mainstream media as well as matters of note relating to the cutting edge nature of the firm. I was not aware that mainstream media was not a sufficient secondary source. There are many many examples of entries which have fewer, less mainstream sources for entries. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a requirement for a specific number of sources and that those sources have to contain a specific density of graded media, that this is made more clear in the guidance. I don't personally see this as being an issue. The entry meets the guidance criteria for objectivity, the entry relates to a business which has achieved notoriety in the UK as referenced, so it seems to me that the issue is less of guidance and more of subjective interpretation and taste. I was under the impression Wikipedia was open to everyone, not restricted to a specified class of pre-approved entries, as appears to be the logical conclusion given the reasons cited for deletion. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a pre-requisite discriminatory criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. Alternatively, if adding additional sources would be welcomed, please confirm and I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincallan (talk • contribs)

There isn't a financial criterion, but it is unusual for very small companies to be notable unless there is something very distinctive about them. (An essay on this subject is at WP:MILL.) From WP:CORP: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Note that this excludes press releases (even if reprinted in independent media) and articles in which "the company ... talks about itself". The required depth of coverage is extremely difficult for a minor company to meet. TheGrappler (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps to put the reason I included the company size more clearly: if the company had $100 million in revenue, it would be more likely the required depth of coverage exists. If an enterprise had billions in revenue, adequate coverage would almost certainly exist. Around the $1 million mark, then the apparent lack of depth of coverage in the article citations, or when I had a search for alternative references, is more suggestive that such coverage does not exist rather than it just hasn't been included yet. TheGrappler (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:CORP says looks completely meaningless to me. How local? How limited? The Vatican City is a Sovereign State, and coverage confined to that State would be "national", despite the fact that it has a population of a thousand. To give another example, the Republic of San Marino is smaller than some towns. These sort of criteria are not objective. James500 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC) The questions that I would ask are: (1) Are the sources reliable? (2) Do they have something meaningful to say about the subject? Provided that they were reliable, I would not be particularly interested in their circulation, unless it was asserted that low circulation is evidence of unreliability. James500 (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It would not hurt if objecting editor Martincallan were to admit that he is a, if not the only, principal of the subject firm. (He is the only person that shows under the oddly named "team" on the "solution"'s (sic) website. In other terms, this is pure WP:PROMO in violation of WP:COI. As for the article, I read it as promo too. The one external article in the references is at a dead link, but searching further it was an ad-ish fluff piece in a local outlet. Likewise the other external link. There is nothing under G, GN, GS. Simply a massive fail of WP:ORG, would warrant speed delete.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Young[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Candace 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)

I deleted this by speedy G4, but the contributor urges me that there is more content than previously. I don't think there's nearly enough for notability, but since it is slightly better referenced, l'm sending it for another community decision. For the discussion, see their talk p. here, and the request they made on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable individual. References are lists, lacking substance or articles written by subject. reddogsix (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything here to change my opinion that she doesn't pass WP:PROF from the previous AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for reasons I have argued in the referenced pages - her work has been cited by major public university systems and she is referenced in treatises on the subject of assessment. Adamc714 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she sufficiently satisfies the fourth criteria.Jcs7708 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)— Jcs7708 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Adamc714. [reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, certainly not WP:Prof#4. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass the bar for any of the WP:PROF criteria. RayTalk 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: This is nothing but puffery for a relatively unknown academic failing WP:GNG, WP:BIO and all 9 criteria of WP:PROF. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — She's still distant from passing WP:PROFESSOR. No significant change, and criterion 4 is nowhere near. Expertise has not been recognized in any third party publication. In fact, WP:GNG is pretty distant as well because of the lack of reliable coverage by unrelated parties. JFHJr (㊟) 21:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As suggested by Toddst1, salting may be appropriate, too. Does not seem to have improved noticeably since the previous AfD (I have no access to the deleted version, so this is judging from the comments made during that discussion). Some drummed-up stuff, nothing substantial enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Salting is inappropriate here. The original article did not attempt to meet Criterion #4, which was the aim of the second version of the article. The failed notability votes are based on entirely different claims of notability, not merely an attempt to resurrect a previously decided issue. Adamc714 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: The salting would be to prevent Adamc714 from continuing to recreate this article which looks like it will be deleted a second time for the same problem(s). Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's a bit ridiculous. Look at the amount of time between the first article and the second. This isn't some pointless undertaking - this was clearly a good faith effort to establish notability. I even asked an admin before recreating the article. There is no need to limit me if, in the future, I can find sources to win on the issue of notability. Adamc714 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has been indefinitely blocked after numerous sockpuppets were been identified. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per refs from first AfD, but do not Salt. It's been three years since the last AfD, and it appears that while the article was voted for deletion, it was not actually deleted in the 2010 AfD and the main writer (Adamc714) is clearly a productive contributor whose articles add to WP. I wish we could protect against recreation for a fixed amount of time (Peppering?), say 3 or 4 years after which time it may be appropriate to reevaluate the subject's qualifications. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, salting doesn't mean that an article cannot ever be re-created. Ot just means that it cannot be re-created without admin intervention. All an editor needs to do is convince an admin that enough has changed since the last AfD to warrant article creation. Meaning a much lower probability of finding ourselves at yet another AfD just because some trivial sources popped up, the improvement would need to be significant to convince an admin to remove the salt. --Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I believe that the bar to getting an admin to remove a SALT decision is pretty high and I'm not sure that the number of recreations on this article warrants such close scrutiny. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SALT, Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should contact an administrator (look for one who was previously involved) or use the deletion review process. No big deal. Toddst1 (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much unsourced assertion and claims seem to be not much more than typical academic fodder. Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paul Magrs. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninnies[edit]

The Ninnies (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 believe this article should be deleted, or at the very most merged with the parents article. The only source that is provided is one that says it will make a great Christmas gift. No awards have been won and does not appear to have significant coverage in secondary sources. Shortly after I became involved an Anon Ip came in which has only been involved in this series or one book publisher [[22]]. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry at worst or meat puppetry at best. I do not think that the encyclopedia losses anything with deletion in this case, however I know merge has been presented as an option previously by TrPoD, but they disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to author no evidence of significant coverage in reliable third party sources to support a stand alone article. There is a remote enough chance of its use as a search term and so the page as a redirect is not a completely absurd idea. (although given the history of recreation without sources, locking it down would be advised) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paul_Magrs#Bibliography. There isn't really much that can be merged here that is backed up by a reliable source. The big issue here is that there is a lack of reliable sources out there to establish notability. The sole source on the article is a brief list of books that the IT recommends as Christmas purchases. It doesn't actually back up the claims of being one of the best books of 2012. This is a purchase list, not a list of the best of 2012. Most lists of these natures tend to pick whatever released most recently when it comes to suggesting purchases to parents and family members. It doesn't even remotely suggest that any of the books are the "best of the year". Even if it did, that's not entirely enough to show it passes notability guidelines. Very few awards or recognitions are and the type that would show notability enough to keep a book on that guideline alone would be something along the lines of a Pulitzer or a Newberry Medal. Now even if the British Fantasy Society were considered by everyone to be a reliable source, we'd need more than one news article and a review to show notability. While there are instances where 1-2 sources can show notability, those are in the instances where the notability those sources are establishing are so overwhelmingly notable (ie, that Pulitzer I was mentioning) that they'd keep on that basis alone. In any case, the problem with the BFS is that we can't really verify its editorial process. Just because something publishes a print magazine doesn't automatically mean that it's a RS. This just isn't notable. Now given the struggle RPOD and others have had with people trying to un-redirect this in the past, I would probably recommend protecting this redirect now or end up protecting it later after a few more weeks of troubles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete/past caring - following the bullying, rudeness, canvassing, improper warnings and other unpleasantness I had to put up with yesterday on this site from Hell in a Bucket, EternalReaper and RedPenofDoom, I am past caring what you do with this book. When editors are handing out 'warnings' for 3rr/edit wars having oh so conveniently popped up just in time to revert my edit and so make sure their mate doesn't revert three times only two; when an admin issues a formal warning, without thought or consultation, for logging out and back in to win an edit war, in spite of the very simple facts showing that no such thing occured [23]; and where nobody replies to polite requests for clarifcation on their talk pages esxcept with childish rudeness, this is a deeply unpleasant place to be. Wikipedia has become a haven for bullies, it seems. StuartDouglas (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart, I believe that the ip was somebody else. But editors do screw up (as do orang utans fall from trees) and we must give them the benefit of doubt that they mis-saw you as the ip. If you really must vent your frustrations, I recommend you visit here. Cheers and take care, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You'll forgive me for being less than impressed by the fact that good faith apparenlty need only be shown by me to these three editors and not vice-versa (e.g being accused of sock puppetry in this nomination when I demonstrated conclusively yesterday - before the AFD was raised - that this was not in fact the case). I did consider visiting the admin board to complain about the fairly obvious canvassing which took place and the incompetence of at least one admin, but I now have absolutely no faith whatsoever in Wikipedia as a site or process. As a quick example of such bias/incomeptence - Tokyogirl79, RedPenofDoom and others have repeatedly claimed variations on the suggestion that the Irish Times article 'doesn't even remotely suggest that any of the books are the "best of the year".' - this in an article which is clearly and unequivicably subtitled in large bold text 'CHILDREN'S BOOKS OF THE YEAR'). Frankly, the only assumption an intelligent person can make is bias or incompetence (or, in fact, both). However, thanks for one of the few courteous or useful replies I've had on Wikipedia in the past few days. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it would be even better if both sides assumed good faith towards one another. At first I thought you were a newcomer, but I did a very quick scanning through your contribs and I realised you're not. And in fact, you've been around longer than me. So hence, I'm sure you are aware of our notability policies and all that. Yes, Irish Times IS reliable a source. At first glance, this would seem to pass by a slight margin.mHowever, the troubling thing is that The Ninnies is only mentioned very briefly. I looked at the source, and you have to forgive me, I can't find a blatant "CHILDREN'S BOOKS OF THE YEAR" subtitle anywhere. When faced with situations like these, the best option is to merge to the author's respective article -- until the book garners more attention and gains undisputed notability. If you wish, you might also request a userfication and who knows, after hours of searching, a full-fleshed RS is found. My apologies, but I don't think this article as it is now will survive. Add a bit more sources, and watering of the crops here and there, and things may chance. Good luck Stuart ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonkers, it's the second line down on the page: [[24]] And as you say it'd be lovely if everyone showed Good Faith but - not to put too fine a point on it - the only one has done so at any point is me, and yet I see no warnings given to anyone else, nor explanation or apology. Again, though, thanks for being both helpful and courteous,- it's both unexpected and a refreshing contrast. StuartDouglas (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so I see... Silly me, I was scrolling up and down furiously... Not realising I had not seen the first page, but instead was viewing the second... Given that, the "notability" of this article has increased by a slight margin (30 best). Let me search for more sources and I shall ponder over whether or not I would change my !vote. You're welcome; I hate having know-it-alls biting me. Cheers, --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonkers is giving you good advice. I've tried telling you that and to an extent so has TRPoD, I know you think that he has some vendetta but a redirect is your best hope here and your best alternative in this case. I believe in deletion but this at least get's people to the Author if searched. I said that the IP was likely a sock/meatpuppet because the ONLY edits they have made was yesterday and was only related to this publisher and when they did post it was a mirror to what you were claiming. What is more they have not commented since there is a clear difference when you look at my contribs, TPROD or even yours there is a much more diverse and lengthy edit history. It is not a stretch and in fact it happens often that we have these behaviors, the only reason I didn't file the SPI is because checkuser will not comment on IP's. This was a case of a duck, it looks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, therefore it's probably a duck. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it may also be a rabbit in disguise... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hell In A Bucket, since I showed conclusively that they were completely different IPs yesterday - before you raised this AFD - might I suggest you don't make accusations you cannot back up and which clearly do not show good faith (or any sort of effort for that matter) in future? I'm sorry that you find someone disagreeing with you to be a sign of sockpuppetry (you never did answer my question about the strange co-incidence that you just happened to be on the presumably rarely visited Ninnies History page just in time to stop RPOD from reverting 3 times - a suspicious person who ignored AGF would have a stronger case for claiming you'd been canvassed by him than any case against me for sockpuppetry, but that's not how this place works, evidently.) StuartDouglas (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the same mistake as Bonkers, but even so it doesn't really disguise the fact that this is really more of a recommendation for Christmas purchases than a list along the lines of say, the New York Time's 10 Best Books of 2012. This isn't really an official thing as much as it's someone saying "hey, when you go out to buy stuff this holiday, here are the books I think are awesome". I'm not saying this out of spite, just that if it came down to whether or not this should be a trivial source or a reliable one, it could very easily be argued that this is pretty much one of dozens of recommended shopping lists that newspapers put out. It's far from being anything that would keep an article. When lists like this are compiled it's very hard to show notability unless it's something that is considered to be more official, such as the NYT list or say, YALSA's list of top titles. You have to show that it's not just a list for shoppers and considering that this is titled as such in the header, this is the type of source that most would consider to be trivial at best. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly me for assuming that a list in a anewspaper article headed 'Top 30 Children's Books of 2012' is the same as a list of what that newspaper considers the top 30 Children's Books of 2012. Hard to believe I could have been so foolish. And for not realising that if one paper chosen by you prints a list of what they consider a top 10 list chosen by some of their staff then that's 'official' but if another that you possibly know less about does that's trivial (surely nobody is suggesting that the Irish Times is not notable or reliable are they? Though I wouldn't be surprised in the sightest if someone did). Thanks for clearing that up for me - but like I said I've no real interest in keeping this book alive on Wikipedia any longer; the misplaced pomposity and blinkered view of the world of some editors on here though is, frankly, laughable. 80.238.1.135 (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to sign that last comment (just to be clear, incidentally, I don't think you are acting out of spite, I just think that the policy on Wikipedia to boldly change things - even when you really don't much about them - can often work to the detriment of this site as a genuine, informed encyclopedia). StuartDouglas (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard to understand at all, I regularly am at AFD so is TRPOD. More often then not he disagrees with me and likes to merge things but I won't hold that against him. SO mmy settings are set to automatically watchlist any page I visit/ So post once I can see what's going on. I was talkpage stalking and there is by far a clear difference of in what and how we operate. And you have not proved anything, you showed a link on Reaper Eternal s page nothing more. We have no conclusive proof that you are that IP and that is easily manipulated by using a separate mobile device, either way that's not important at this point. Look at what TRPOD and Myself as well as two other people are explaining to you about the issue with this. Unless you're saying that everyone at this AFD are here cause we are all picking on you try and understand what is being said about the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everyone. As you appear to have no understanding how DNS and IP address allocation works, might I quite genuinely suggest you don't flaunt that fact quite so openly and avoid unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry in future? Clearly you think good faith applies only to other people, given how quickly you ran off to an admin when someone other than I disagreed with you. Incidentally, you might want try typing more slowly too - I have no idea at all what 'I was talkpage stalking and there is by far a clear difference of in what and how we operate' is supposed to mean. I do the same sort of thing myself all the time, when typing too quickly.

For the avoidance of doubt, I fully understand your issue with the book and always have (hence the fact I have not continued to revert or edit any of Obverse others books, once it became clear that the consensus - rather than one destructive editor - was that they were definitely not notable enough)- I simply disagree with you in this case (for instance, if the British Fantasy Society and their publications are not RS then I don't know what is), which for some reason you find very difficult to accept. In passing, I also disagree with you that 'that [canvassing, unfair accusations of sock-puppetery etc are] not important at this point' - the fate of this book on Wikipedia is actually of less general importance than highlighting the way in which some editors throw their weight about from behind their keyboards and discourage people from contributing at all. There are several editors on this very page who would serve as an excellent example of how to conduct yourself on this site, imo. In any case, there's no further gain to be made by either of us in discussing this topic, so I'll leave it, with thanks to Rankersbo,Bondegezou and Bonkers The Clown for their courtesy and advice. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have no view on the merits of deleting or not deleting this article. However, I would like to remind all editors of the fundamental Wikipedia policy of assume good faith. There does seem to have been something of a drift into incivility in discussions around this article. I also note that the claim of sockpuppetry in the nomination is denied and unproven. I would also point those following this discussion towards related discussions on other books by this publisher: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Romance in Twelve Parts and the change to a re-direct of Against Nature (Obverse Books). Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment supported Rankersbo (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paul Magrs. It is a good Christmas present... For the person you hate the most... Since I read it and I didn't find it captivating enough. (My opinion only) That aside, if it is kept, I believe there is plenty of room for reasonable clean up. However that possibility is low, as the only sources I could find online were ones related to the publisher and merchant sites such as Goodreads. Hence, merging is the best option here. Cheers, --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings[edit]

2013–14 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings (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:CRYSTAL, 2013-14 season hasn't even been started Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As much as I hate the existence of these as a college basketball fan, people do come out with preseason rankings well before the season starts: a 30-second Google search came up with two from CBS Sports and ESPN, and I'm sure there's more out there. Therefore it's likely possible to create a referenced table of preseason polls a la 2012–13 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings#Preseason polls (of course someone would need to incorporate these into the article first). BryanG (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The AP poll that actually determines the rankings won't be out for quite some time. Even so, when it does, I'm sure it'll go into a season article and not its own for just the rankings. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 12:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now but allow re-creation closer to the season when rankings are more prevalent. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Allow it to be recreated when the rankings come out in 4 or 5 months. No need for it til then.--Rockchalk717 01:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While articles like 2012–13 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings have been created before, a reliable poll needs to come out first. This is premature.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. May I suggest as well that we look at when, generally, the last few season's rankings pages have been created and maybe protect this title until then? It's obviously a notable topic, when it starts existing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_15&oldid=1142631231"