Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Violet

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

The subject of this article appears to fail WP:BIO. The nearly blank IMDB page, a mention in a Forbes article, and a bit on Attack of the show seem to be the best sources available. In my opinion these do not meet the "significant coverage" portion of the guideline, and the remaining sources are not reliable and/or independent of the subject. I did not see anything better than what is already referenced in the article available online. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, the article does lack sourcing, but I think that there is enough uncited coverage to warrant an article. I can't find the Forbes article you mentioned, but in the article itself there is the New York Post article and the Attack of the Show feature. I would consider two different news features significant. Both news articles also noted the popularity of her channel, which supports No. 2 of WP:BIO's criteria for entertainers - "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I'm not sure how notable the coverage by Ology.com is, but the content for that source is by the editorial staff, not a user. I did not realize initially that the Breathecast article comes from a PR Firm, so that makes that one more questionable. Outside of those articles, here is what I found: A mention of her "Wizard Love" video with Heyhihello in CantonRep.com, another mention of same video on Screencrave.com, a short mention of her work with Family Force 5 in Cross Rhythms, and an announcement of a tour she took part in on MLive.com. There's also a reference to her in by the opinion editor for a reliable student newspaper, Gateway. I'm actually surprised that she has not garnered more news coverage considering the popularity of her channel and the quantity of her work.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nominator. A bunch of youtube videos does not confer notability or a large following. Plenty of people are on imdb with empty pages and has youtube videos with more views and are not notable. In the "sources" cited above, does the also mentioned random local band heyhihello has a wikipedia page? Nope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.33.28 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Whether heyhihello has a wiki article is irrelevant. One, just because they don't have an article does not mean they aren't notable. Two, notability is not conferred simply through association, but through reliable coverage of that association. Whether heyhihello is notable or not, the coverage of their collab with Violet is. Whether that source when combined with the others listed is enough to give an entire article on Violet notability, that is the issue at hand.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of sourcing and secondary source coverage in references. — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Having multiple YouTube videos does not mean that you are an notable person. 141.218.228.19 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yes a bunch of youtube videos does not mean you are notable. (Also the presence or absense of youtube videos does not mean you are not.) BUT millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes and subscribers does mean notability IMHO. (Some TV shows had only a few million view ratings has huge cult following them (Firefly anyone?).) How do you define notability, and how much people do you want to piss off by deleting this or any other article? I think people who want to delete pages should post their home address so they can measure notability by the hate mail:) Deleting a page is really easy and destructive (when it's not offending anyone). Collecting all these information takes time and effort. It probably will improve with time if you let it. She is also not dead yet, so she can become more notable. There is already a large collection of information posted it would be such a waste to throw it out ( and later try to collect them back again). OK, I understand that we do not want to have 7 billion articles about living people. Still I do think she is notable enough. Based on wikipedia's guidelines: "person has created" "well-known work, or collective body of work": Define well-known, but her video's views suggest a lot of people know her work. "Has a large fan base": what is large? A million subscribers is large enough? I think it should be. --Szir (talk) 23:24, 29 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, Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Szir - "How do you define notability...?" By the external criteria at WP:BIO: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Which sources have you identified as significant in their coverage, reliable, and intellectually independent? VQuakr (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree that some content of the article needs either sourcing or should be removed if not sourced, but in general it's a better sourced and structured article than most of wikipedia's smaller articles are. Also, big youtube personalities (and if you like her/know her or not, she is one for a long time now) are part of our modern culture now and for that reason have to be included into an encyclopedia. Just because the IMDb page is "nearly blank" doesn't mean anything since IMDb doesn't cover much of youtube. There are also articles from Geekology, New York Post, PR Newswire and The Christian Post (again, like it or not, that doesn't matter). -- ColdCase (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's about time Wikipedia starts giving recognition to web sites and web personnalities. Right now, if you have recorded an album on a big label that only 100 persons bought qualifies you as notable, while being known by millions just like her doesn't, simply because the notability factor isn't from traditional sources. The simple fact that most people on the web prefer consulting Wikipedia over any other media for information about anything should be reason enough to broaden the spectre of inclusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.218.38 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cthulhu Mythos deities. There is a consensus that these don't belong in article space as stand-alone articles, but that doesn't mean they don't belong somewhere. For the time being I have closed this as merge to the article that links most to each article (I note that the two bibliographies only have 9 and 2 incoming article links, so that's not going to cause a problem). Whether, as DGG suggests, these should be in projectspace is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography

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

These aren't articles; instead, they are simply lists of references (mostly primary sources) linked to from a handful of articles of which all but one are 100% in-universe fancruft. There's no practical way to turn these into articles or otherwise make use of their contents, and it is unnecessary to hive off the few sources presented therein from the parent articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bibliography and so is acceptable content per WP:BIBLIO. A bibliography is especially useful in this case because the mythos is based on the work of many authors. See A Cthulhu Mythos Bibliography & Concordance for a good independent bibliography which establishes the notability of the topic per WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIBLIO does nothing to establish its standing in the project. I'd never seen it before, it has only ~60 inbound links, and it includes a mere handful of articles (all of which denote subjects of far more obvious notability than the fictional content in the nominated pages, the vast majority of which are primary sources in any case). I'm not inclined to believe that WP:BIBLIO has any particular authority as a community resource. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That list page is utterly incomplete. See Category:Bibliographies by subject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies for a better representation of the scope/standing. –Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for this list, it seems to be a mixture of WP:SPLITLIST (Split off due to size constraints, and to prevent having to repeat it in each relevant article) as well as a bibliography of all the books relevant to the Cthulhu mythos. So tentative keep both for both those reasons.
However, I don't understand why there are 2 lists. Could someone clarify that, and how/why they differ, in the introductions to both these lists? Why is Reference#Burleson different from Alphanumeric#Burleson ? Could they be merged? –Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know — the scheme just seems over-elaborate. We should just merge the bibliographies into a more conventional format. I plan to edit the related articles to remove the need for the codes. Warden (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly absurd in article space; this is a work page, and should be kept in WP space, I do not see that we have a Cthulhu Wikiproject or workgroup, and if we do not, that someone is willing to go to all this work and others are apparently interested is good reason to start one DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously not a work page or draft. It is used as a common set of references for other pages such as Books in the Cthulhu Mythos and Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. The nomination doesn't explain that separate attempts have been made to delete those pages by WP:PROD. The primary authors of those pages don't seem to have been notified. Tsk.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recap As this has been relisted, new joiners should note that the notability of the topic is established by substantial sources including:

A Cthulhu Mythos Bibliography & Concordance
The Cthulhu Mythos Encyclopedia
Lovecraft: A Look Behind the Cthulhu Mythos
H.P. Lovecraft in Popular Culture: The Works And Their Adaptations in Film, Television, Comics, Music And Games
An H.P.Lovecraft Encyclopedia
Reader's Guide to the Cthulhu Mythos
The Lovecraft Necronomicon Primer: A Guide to the Cthulhu Mythos
H. P. Lovecraft and Lovecraft Criticism: An Annotated Bibliography
The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana: A Guide to Lovecraftian Horror
The Complete H.P. Lovecraft Filmography
H. P. Lovecraft, four decades of criticism
The Dream Quest of H. P. Lovecraft

Warden (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list of references does not seem standard for the types of articles we have as an encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, we have lots of bibliographies on Wikipedia. The format of this one is non-standard but that will be addressed by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion is inline with Warden's. There is a place here for a bibliography of this widespread mythos per WP:BIBLIO BUT the two pages should be combined and the format more standardized. J04n(talk page) 11:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING; this fictional minutiae is outside the scope of WP:BIBLIO. Miniapolis 13:43, 29 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, Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The list of tables looks good, but are irrelevant without the needed information. I think it should be merged with Cthulhu Mythos deities, Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos, Cthulhu Mythos arcane literature, Cthulhu Mythos biographies, and Cthulhu Mythos celestial bodies. Citrusbowler (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. These seem to just be decidedly non-standard reference lists for other Wikipedia articles. I don't see any good reason for not using a standard referencing style, so merge into the other relevant articles. —me_and 17:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Me and: and @Citrusbowler: As mentioned above, the list(s) are separate because of size, and to prevent redundancy/duplication. It is comparable to List of Shakespeare plays in quarto or Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, where different aspects are concentrated upon, and can be pointed to from other articles rather than re-iterating duplicate material. (Also slightly comparable to Harold Pinter bibliography/Works of Harold Pinter). So merge isn't really an ideal option. (The 2 lists could be merged into 1 list, as I suggested; but it would be difficult and possibly unhelpful to merge them into 5 distinct articles.) I'd gently suggest you reconsider. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Smiles

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

She appears to fail WP:PORNBIO as she was never nominated for an individual award. She fails WP:GNG with no reliable sourcing about her (in my searches, just a bunch of false positives). Deprodded with some improvements but, as far as I can see, still no sign of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FYI, I'm the primary user that recently improved this article. This former adult actress passes PORNBIO, since she starred in Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle - a mixed hardcore pornography and hip-hop music video presented by & featuring the music of rapper Snoop Dogg, which started "a trend in pornography" and was a "groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". This movie was the first hardcore video ever listed on the Billboard music video sales chart, and, because of its huge success (it was the AVN Award Top Selling Tape of 2001), it started a trend where rappers were put into the mainstream of the porn industry by hosting X-rated movies. Many films of this new pornographic genre followed this film, starring Necro, Mystikal, Too Short, Ice-T and Yukmouth. ~~The movie also apparently allowed Hustler to expand its boundaries by launching new subsidiaries for their recently formed fashion line and CD label.~~ This actress is also one of only three members of the Category:American pornographic film actors of Korean descent. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the film Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle started a (minor) trend in pornography and that it was a groundbreaking work, but I don't see how it is related to her. At best, these merits should be shared between director Michael Martin, producer Larry Flynt and title star Snoop Dogg, and I don't see how she has a significant role in this. Are you arguing that the whole cast of this film passes PORNBIO including virtually unknown actresses like "Bronze", "Baby Doll", "Suave", "Kaire" and "Farrah" on the sole ground of having appeared in this film? Cavarrone (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't come up with the current wording of PORNBIO, which says: ~~"Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography;~~ starred in an iconic, ~~groundbreaking~~ or blockbuster feature". I'm just trying to live by it. As for the "virtually unknown actresses like 'Bronze', ~~'Baby Doll', 'Suave'~~, 'Kaire' and 'Farrah'", for whatever reason, none of those actors currently have Wikipedia articles, and I personally have no interest in creating articles for any of them. Also, PORNBIO appears to me to specifically apply only to "Pornographic actors and models", not necessarily to directors or producers of adult films. Snoop's already highly notable, even though I can't say that I personally like his music much. Guy1890 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that she has not made any "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre". She has not a key role in that film, nor she is the one that began the "hip-pop porn" trend in pornography. PORNBIO#2 refers to people that have a key role in history of pornography, and she hasn't. Cavarrone (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately relied on some bad infomation that was apparently posted a few years ago in the Snoop Dogg's Doggystyle article...sorry about that. Mia Smiles was not in that first Snoop Dogg video, she was in the second one (Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp) which was released the next year. I apologize for the confusion and have made what I think are the necessary edits to all three of the above articles to make them accurate now.

I have a feeling that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Cavarrone. The fact remains that that Mia Smiles has "starred in an iconic or blockbuster feature" (the 2004 AVN Award top selling video), which IMHO satisfies PORNBIO. Who started the "trend in pornography" where rappers started moving adult films more into the mainstream by hosting X-rated movies is certainly debatable, but it's not relevant to this conversation here anymore. Guy1890 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cavarrone's analysis is sound and accurate, but unnecessary; she's not even in the "groundbreaking" video. The cited source is in essence a VOD advertising site, both unreliable for use in a BLP and generally untrustworthy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe she has made unique contributions to pornography. This criteria is meant to be construed strictly with support from reliable sources (not just the usual puffing press releases) that acknowledge the contributions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this actress starred in the "top-selling tape of 2003", as noted by the NY Times ([1]) & the relevant AVN Award ([2]). That's what satisfies PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be very clear, Smiles is one of thirty-six performers who participate in this video, and is seen in only one of its eight scenes.[3] That falls well short of having "starred in" the video, the PORNBIO requirement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the movie in question is around 100 minutes long, with eight scenes in total. No one, besides apparently Nikki Fairchild & Shyla Stylez, is in more than one scene in that movie. Mia Smiles is one of the stars of the movie, period. Guy1890 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the NY Times article makes no mention of Mia Smile's role in that movie and that is what I need to determine whether she "starred" in it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, you're being stubborn for really no reason. The fact that Ms. Smiles was in the movie in question is not debatable at all. The NY Times article (and when was the last time you saw an adult film series mentioned in the NY Times?) establishes the nature of the movie in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is still unsourced and debatable is if she had a significant role in that film. There is still zero evidence that her role in the film represents an "unique contribution to pornography" as required by the criterium. Not all the 36 performers that have appeared in that film have made unique contributions to pornography, in my view just Snoop Dogg did and the NYT article appears to support my view. An exceptional claim like "she made unique contributions to pornography" needs very strong evidences that I fail to see here. Cavarrone (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO is very clear on these issues. The relevant portion of it states: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." Mia Smiles was very clearly in "an iconic or blockbuster feature". There are, again according to PORNBIO, several ways to make a "unique contribution to pornography" and being in a feature that sells a lot of copies or crosses over into the mainstream, like the movie in question clearly did, is one of those ways. One can also satisfy PORNBIO by making "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", "beginning a trend in pornography", "starring in groundbreaking feature" or becoming "a member of an industry Hall of Fame", but these other portions of PORNBIO clearly aren't relevant here. Guy1890 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely PORNBIO is very clear, and in fact three editors are telling you that your interpretation of PORNBIO is wrong. The requirement of PORNBIO#3 is that an actor has made "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", it could even happen starring in a feature (eg. Bambi Woods in Debbie Does Dallas or Georgina Spelvin in The Devil in Miss Jones) but it needs to be documented. Here all the available sources give this credit to Snoop Dogg. Your argument that all the 36 performers credited in this film made unique contributions to a pornographic genre and that all them are accordingly notable IMHO goes not only against PORNBIO but also against common sense. Cavarrone (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beating these issues to death really isn't going to change anything, and I can't think of anything more "common sense" than just reading & applying the relevant portions of PORNBIO as they are simply written (as I have already done above & will not repeat again). I personally don't really care what Mr. Wolfowitz says on this or really any other issue related to the Pornography Project, since it's obvious to me what his intentions for the project have been for quite a while...to whittle it away over time. Also, he's the one that originally PRODed this article back on May 17th, as a part of his routine, weekly, handful or more of PRODs and/or AfDs related to pretty much exclusively the Pornography Project alone. Obviously, you're the one that originally submitted this AfD Cavarrone, so it's no surprise to me that you continue to subbornly oppose me here. We obviously have a different reading of the PORNBIO standard...so be it. As for whether "all the 36 performers credited in this film" pass PORNBIO, that doesn't bother me one bit in the least, since I'm not here to generate an endless listing of new adult actors & actresses to Wikipedia, and I generally don't have deletionist tendencies in this or any other project that I'm currently involved in on Wikipedia. Again, I had absolutely zero input into the current wording of PORNBIO, I'm just trying to live up to it here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject is considered notable as an AVN Award recipient per WP:PORNBIO; as a notability guideline it was created with consensus of those editors involved in its creation discussion at that time. If we don't like PORNBIO, start an RfC and get it changed. Until then I have to look at the essays, guidelines, and policies that we're suppose to be there that define notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was an RFC and extended discussion running for more than six months from late 2011 well into 2012, and it eliminated the language in PORNBIO that said all AVN award recipients were notable. The guideline now says that scene awards don't count toward notability. The consensus on that point was particularly strong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:28, 27 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, Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:PORNBIO; no AVN nominations have been for individual categories, and criteria 2 or 3 are not met either. Miniapolis 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Russell Ivie

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

Sourced almost entirely to primary sources, self-published sources. No indication of substantial coverage independent of the subject, outside discussions on various forums and genealogy sites. L Faraone 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- My problem is not that the subject is laergely based only on WP:self-published sources, but that he is so utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable; no independent sources. Miniapolis 15:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Communications

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

The article contains almost exclusively promotion and self-citation. Were I to trim the unacceptable elements, I would cut the entire article, which is what I suggest we do. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2013* (UTC)
Delete It looks like advertising. In fact, I think it should be marked for speedy deletion under G11. Citrusbowler (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be G11'd. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:CORP. The company has trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. References in the article are mostly primary sources. The only independent reference yields only passing mentions. My search mainly got dozens of press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene. It's not pure spam, but the sources appear to be primarily primary, and in the other cases spare mentions. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bearian is right; not pure spam, but pretty bloody close. Stalwart111 02:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Rage 20

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

The article contains very little in the way of well-sourced prose as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. There appears to be little coverage of the event(s) outside of WP:ROUTINE fight announcements, results, and fight videos. TreyGeek (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These articles contain little prose (articles consist mainly of fight results) and give no indication of why they're significant sporting events. A fight card that has a championship bout for a second tier organization does not show notability (even winning such a championship does not show notability). Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All There's no indication that any of these events pass WP:SPORTSEVENT or that any of them have coverage other than WP:ROUTINE sports reporting. CaSJer (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all on the basis of WP:SPORTSEVENT. LlamaAl (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of type designers

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

This article strikes me as kind of a backward way of just having a category. This should be deleted and whatever notable people remain can be put into a category. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - See WP:CLN, we often have lists/categories that overlap. Redlinks are impossible to contain in categories. Some cleanup and additional referencing would be good though, to emphasise that even redlinks ought to be potentially notable, to prevent it turning into a simple directory of professionals (or interested amateurs) worldwide. –Quiddity (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the relevant policies and guidelines regarding lists of this kind. Any non-notable entries can simply be removed through normal editing, or the articles written to justify notability Per WP:CLN, the mere fact that a category exists does not diminish the usefulness of other forms of organizing the same information. Categories and lists are complementary, because a list can include contextual information which a category cannot. In fact, in practice we seem to have a consistent pattern of AfD decisions that amount to a decision that in the absence of some special reason otherwise, having a category for a profession is reason for a list. It's not a backwards way of having a category--the one we have is Typographers, but a supplemental way. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 30 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. L Faraone 01:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rickwood

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

Lack of independent, third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 23:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 23:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 23:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I came across this article a couple of months ago and could not find any reliable secondary sources. I was tempted to nominate for deletion, but wasn't sure whether some of the awards were notable. However I still can't find reliable secondary sources that discuss Rickwood himself, and that convinces me that he is not notable. If the awards warranted coverage in reliable sources, then he would be mentioned, and therefore I'd like to see some. If people can find multiple (more than one) secondary sources that discusses Rickwood himself (and more than a passing mention) – then I'd be happy to change to keep. - Shudde ^talk 10:52, 30 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Nalle

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

I am not seeing notability here and I suspect the primary author of this page is the subject himself as user contributions only seem to be pages on subjects Dave Nalle is affiliated with. Nonetheless, he ran for office and lost once in 2002. Has a non-notable business and lots of odd pieces of information that do not add up to a sum total of notability. Looks more like a long-winded autobiography than an encyclopedic entry. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [5]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 23:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although the subject has written many reliable source articles, the subject himself has not received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject of this AfD fails GNG and ANYBIO. Furthermore, as a failed candidate subject is not notable as defined in POLITICIANS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. —me_and 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RightCowLeftCoast; subject does not meet WP:BIO. Miniapolis 15:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sea protest

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

This article does not provide any sources, and I cannot find any sources that would provide more that a basic dictionary-like definition. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Fixing page creation and listing Dricherby (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, literally thousands of results in books. — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a couple of references, but cannot find any news sources. It seems notable enough for an article.Martin451 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now adequately referenced and when you find one of these you need to know why the master is complaining to a solicitor about the weather - useful. Not sure about the title though, would "Protest (marine)" be better Peterrivington (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources call it a "sea protest" so the current title seems correct. Dricherby (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sources and the article's second paragraph goes beyond dicdef. Dricherby (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NTI Tension Suppression System

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

This device is already discussed in greater depth on both the bruxism article and the temporomandibular joint dysfunction article. Furthermore, this stub is referenced and inaccurate in its representation of both the risks and the evidence of this kind of treatment. I also had to remove a commercial external link to a page where the product could be purchased. Lesion (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to go with "keep" on this. There's this systematic review, and that review alone identifies 17 review articles covering NTI. The device receives nontrivial coverage in this and this, both legit-looking textbooks. There's enough independent reliable secondary source coverage to write an article, WP:42 is satisfied. Yes the existing article has problems and Tepi you started to fix them, which is appreciated, but generally, the fact that there are some problems with the existing article (which article doesn't?) isn't a reason to delete. Zad68 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe I am being a bit deletion-happy here, but I am finding a lot of bullsh*t surrounding the topic of temporomandibular joint dysfunction, e.g. biofeedback headband, neuromuscular dentistry, and (my personal favorite page so far) Alex Mehrnaz Naini. I added a few mainstream references which logically describe the possible effects of partial coverage splints (I had previously added to the main TMD page) so I feel a bit better about his page now, but I still think this whole topic could be better presented on occlusal splint. I just hope that people will visit the pages for these conditions that this device is claimed to treat and hopefully seeing such therapy presented with due weight and evidence, instead of taking this page at face value. Lesion (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the lead on the AFD for Alex Mehrnaz Naini, just !voted. Oh I'm right with you, I hate when attempts are made to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes! Spam, spam, spam... this is just a "make sure not to throw the baby out with the bath water" situation. Zad68 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding more systematic reviews that include RCTs of this device, among other occlusal splints. Notable, and deletion is inappropriate-- rash decision on my part. But the article needs work, currently it poorly presents the available evidence, and is in isolation of the bigger picture-- in particular the efficacy of other treatments for TMD and bruxism, etc. Arguably the page should be moved to Nociceptive Trigeminal Inhibition Tension Suppression System too, possibly in sentence case, or all caps not sure what the policy is. FYI I've read of one of the textbooks you refer to above, the Dawson "smile design" one (most of it, the non cosmetic/esthetic parts about TMD anyway), and this is not a mainstream view of TMD. There is a 2 page dedication to God, family and his patients at the start of the book and it's all downhill from there. Lesion (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unsourced article without indications of notability as established in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagioku

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

Basically a neologism naming a show put on by two entertainers. No indication this has become common parlance, or that the show itself is particularly notable. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a textbook neologism. Per the article, it is a term coined in 2012 by two (apparently non-notable) entertainers to describe their new venture. I can find no news coverage or other reliable sources, only some YouTube and similar web content that may well have been created by the same individuals. Cnilep (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 22:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joiners Arms

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

Unsourced article that looks more like an advertisement. Such a minor venue does not need such an excessive long list of bands. The Banner talk 19:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's not CBGB or Eric's, but the Joiners' Arms has been a regionally important venue for indie bands for the length of the pop era. I fail to understand why a long list of bands playing there means that it's non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand you fail to understand the remark about the list, as you read something in it what I don't say or intended to say. What I do say is that not every gig of a band needs to be stated in an article about a minor concert venue. The venue should be notable and even an excessive long list of bands does not make the venue notable, as a concert venue is supposed to have concerts. The Banner talk 08:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We do not allow categories for venues, but I see no objection to having an article. There may be a quesiton of verifying to the list of bands, but subject to that it seems OK. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Certainly the article needs a bit of work, most importantly on the referencing front, but there's nothing in the nominator's rationale that justifies deletion as opposed to improvement. WaggersTALK 07:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In today's NME there is a two-page feature on this venue, which has been named 'Britain's Best Small Venue' in a NME/Jack Daniels poll. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Andrews (artist manager)

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

Article does not comply with WP:BLP. No real coverage in media or Google. Notably, User:Highberry is Bob Andrews and the subject of this article so we are looking at an autobiography problem. Subject currently uses User:Bob Andrews UTOW and admitted that Highberry was his account in a sockpuppet investigation. Last AfD was closed procedurally with no votes except nominator and Bob Andrews voting on his own AfD. Relisting to build consensus. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [6]. Unscintillating (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serious sourcing issues. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is about me. i want it gone. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just pointed out to Bob at User talk:Bob Andrews UTOW#Deletion of Bob Andrews (artist manager) that he can have the article speedy-deleted via WP:CSD#G7. —me_and 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nom is incorrect to say that the previous AfD had no !votes except the subject and the nom: there was an IP "keep", a "weak keep" from an editor in apparent good standing, a delete from the nom's sockpuppet, and only a comment from the article subject. Given all the confusion about sockpuppets, I think the results of the previous discussion should be ignored, but equally I didn't want to leave the factual error untouched. —me_and 17:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps someone should take a look at opening SPI on this nominator UnrepentantTaco? Highly unusual that this newly registered user's first action is to AfD nominate the all of the same articles as the previous nominator who was found to be using a sockpuppet. Also unusual that this nominator would mention previous SPI against subject of the article since that was closed with no evidence to support the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.3.145 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all your edits appear to be in defense of the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, nominator does not actually want the article deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar

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

Kindly Merge with Sachin Tendulkar Benedictdilton (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for Deletion, if you wish the article to be merged, please raise a merge request on its talk page per WP:MERGE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 30 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. Mkdw ^talk 05:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sdao

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

Subject appears to fail WP:NHOCKEY. No NHL games. Just debuted in the AHL and 100 appearances are required to satisfy notability requirements in that league. Was taken 119th in the draft, obviously nowhere near the first round. Nothing from his amateur or junior career that indicates notability. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A couple years from now, we'll see. Now, no. Ravenswing 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely not notable. Finnegas (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Setrak Setrakian

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

Barely-sourced BLP with the only "source" relating to allegedly passing off someone else's music as his own on a Web site. A quick Google found no independent reliable sources that discussed this person in any significant context. Unencyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per BLP-1E, the 1E being the scandal controversy ALLUDED TO HERE. The biography is more or less limited to the scandal. Otherwise failing GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks notability outside of scandal.THD3 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the allegations linked by Carrite we need to be extra-careful regarding verifiability of information: often we allow primary sources for simple factual data concerning education and employment but I don't think we should do so here. In any case, nothing in the article looks like a claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC or any other criterion. And there is no evidence of WP:PERP's "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 30 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. L Faraone 01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Saint Laurent

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

Previously deleted at AFD but a subsequent G4 was challenged at DRV. The outcome was to list this for discussion at AFD. So here we are. As the DRV closer I have no opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the G4 deleting admin; what is the actual claim to notability here? There doesn't look to be one, so I would say delete. Giant Snowman 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've spent too much time looking into this. So, there aren't really any great notability guidelines to go on for professional wrestlers so far as I know. Here's what I have:

The notability guidelines for sports figures suggests using WP:ENTERTAINER for professional wrestlers. I don't think there is a great deal of support for the article on that basis. He doesn't have a cult status, he hasn't appeared on shows outside of wrestling programs, and he hasn't made any extraordinary contributions to the entertainment industry.
The subject's relations to the Canadian PM and his "associations" to other wrestlers don't amount to much.
The subject has apparently won a World Championship title, but the awarding organization is only loosely associated with the AWA. The AWA technically went out of business in 1990. At the time of his championship, the revived organization was using the AWA name (called AWA Superstars of Wrestling), though this was successfully challenged by the WWE in 2008 (the org was then called Wrestling Superstars Live). However, it is still a pro wrestling governing body, despite its falling out. The regional/state titles, IMO, are insufficient support for notability.
The subject appears to have some coverage for leaking an album by Guns N' Roses ([7] [8]).
News sources don't produce much in the way of reliable sources or content outside of routine coverage for Laurent.

I can't find a compelling reason to keep the article. He may have a world championship title, but it's unclear to me whether this confers notability in pro wrestling, and the coverage is on the light side. I'm open to revisiting my opinion if it is challenged. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guns and Roses coverage is actually quite problematic, the WP article currently claims a "feud" and "rivalry" something no source suggests (fixable by an edit I know). The first source you mention states "Why then, didn't the RIAA and Axl's lawyers come down on Mister Saint Laurent like a ton of bricks a few months earlier? Partly it was because he'd never actually uploaded the songs anywhere", so it appears he's not got coverage for leaking the album, there is some coverage repeating his own claims that he somehow got hold of material, which he didn't pass onto anyone else so unverified if that actually occurred. Similarly it merely repeats claims that people from Guns and Roses contacted him etc. completely unverified. The second source you mention links and shows a scan of the first source, so clearly based on that. On it's face there doesn't appear much reliability to any of that, it seems a bit of a house of cards built of sources repeating other sources rather than separate jounralism, and that source in itself doesn't appear to have actually verified or fact checked the claims of the subject. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems reliable sources have covered him. Some for his "Wrestling" career, some for his problems with Guns and Roses. But in any case, we've got multiple non-trivial sources at it meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually almost no coverage of his wrestling career, other than the "titles" and some routine coverage in news only detailing basic event information. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable either as a musician or a wrestler. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. His wrestling career is not notable, AWA Superstars of Wrestling is not not the same as the American Wrestling Association (which was a prominent wrestling organization). There doesn't appear to be much to his feud with Guns N Roses, so I don't that that tidbit of notability is going to be enough to salvage the article.LM2000 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I posted the previous statement before article was rewritten, I am retracting my delete vote. Some of the new sources may need to be sorted through if article survives AfD, to eliminate the "padding" and unreliable ones but there's enough to savage the article at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article is now far more detailed and better demonstrates the subject's notability. Earlier comments would not be able to take this into account. I ask those who have commented already to please look over the improved article as Mister Saint Laurent's notability is now more clearly explained. Larsonrick25 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded and improved since I saw it at DRV though a lot of the sources are still bloggy or repeating press releases or relate to people associated with MSL. Though the situation is still rather borderline for notability I can see sufficient reliable sources with enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG guidelines, in particular these.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Only the first few are significant but together they seem adequate. Thincat (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance of your new sources show they are about the relationship with Axl Rose - are you aware of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED? Giant Snowman 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. (They are not "my" sources – they were added by another editor). The article establishes he is a wrestler, a radio/TV presenter, and someone who did (or did not) try and sell some leaked album tracks. And (how could I forget it?) he's a loudmouth. Also, yes, as I commented above, a lot of information is about people associated with him but I have tried to home in on information about himself and what he has done himself. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 45 new sources, approximately 75% pertain to the subject's wrestling career with the remaining 25% pertaining to Axl Rose. Subject is the host of a well known and well publicized podcast, which was written up by Rolling Stone. Subject is regularly written about by numerous major wrestling news sites due to his involvement in several well known projects. His page has been a notorious target for trolling and it appears if he actually were unknown, this discussion would not be taking place. It seems his notoriety is the very reason some object to his page as most requests for deletion inevitably contain personal insults and name calling. One could easily find hundreds of far less notable wrestlers with undisturbed wiki entries. Larsonrick25 (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much better written at this point. However, I still think that MSL is a borderline case for notability because of WP:SIGCOV. The sources vary in reliability but either way he isn't the focus of the bulk of those sources, most basically include him as a trivial mention. ~~The Axl Rose coverage still seems to be his best bet for surviving deletion, but as GiantSnowman pointed out the current sources may not be adequate.~~LM2000 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject was only known for being related to a Prime Minister of Canada, I agree that alone would not be enough for notability. If the subject was only known for being the only person to manage to convince Sierra Leone to allow a one character domain, I agree that alone would not be enough for notability. If the subject was only known for being the protege and tag team partner of Larry Zbyszko, it would be a borderline call on whether that alone would be enough for notability. If the subject was only known for being a broadcaster for Ring of Honor wrestling, that alone actually may be enough for notability as they are the third largest wrestling organization in the United States and he hosts dozens of their home video releases. If subject was only known for being a world champion, that alone may not be enough for notability, although it certainly demonstrates a certain level of notoriety. If the subject was only known as the creator and a cast member of "Scott Hall TV," that alone may be enough for notability as the show was very popular and starred some of the most famous wrestlers in history. If subject was only known for working for the Wilpon family as a wrestling executive or working as a producer on the Frank Shamrock reality show, those things separately may not be enough for notability, although combined they demonstrate the subject is notable in his field. If subject was only known for hosting MLW Radio, that may be enough for notability as that is one of the most popular wrestling shows in the world and regularly features well known guests. If subject was only known for being "that pro wrestler Axl Rose hates," that alone may be borderline for notability, although a cover story in a major publication documenting their feud in depth shows the media was very interested in the quirkiness of the story.

When you take ALL of those things into account, it's very difficult to assert the subject is not notable. Is he the most notable person in the history of Wikipedia? No, of course not. But there is enough fan interest and media interest in him for it to make sense that Wikipedia would provide some information on him. When this discussion began, his page did not do a great job of providing information on him, but now the page does a good job of explaining who he is and what is notable about him. I think this process has improved the article immensely and notability, while not overwhelming, is definitely established.Larsonrick25 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are a lot of references there which seem to exist to pad out the reference section (such as this link which mentions a pro wrestling reality show, but not MSL. However, there are enough other proper references to demonstrate notability. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated, but only because the various aspects of his life are greater than the sum of all their parts. — Richard BB 10:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard BB. Not all sources are reliable, but enough reliable sources are present to discuss his various claims to notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references section here is too problematic for me to change my mind, even if there are a lot of sources now. I've tried to remove some of the poorer ones. I'm concerned that many sources are in a grey area (e.g. Metal Sludge seems to lean more sensationalist than reputable, the article from MetalSucks.net is an editorial, and other sources, like 411mania.com, have questionable reputability according to WikiProject Wrestling). Many sources provide only trivial mentions of the subject. The coverage on the TV show and podcast does not confer notability, particularly because many of these sources only post videos or mention Laurent. Some do not even mention the subject at all and instead focus on the TV show or the podcast itself rather than the subject. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brunel (British postage stamps)

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of hundreds of special issues by the British Post Office. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Royal Mail makes too many special issues for any to be worth a WP article. An additon to ther artifcle on Brunel would amount to trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 02:02, 31 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. L Faraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ice-age animals (British postage stamps)

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of hundreds of special issues by the British Post Office. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Royal Mail makes too many special issues for any to be worth a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 02:03, 31 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. L Faraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Assembly building (British postage stamps)

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of hundreds of special issues by the British Post Office. Article has not been expanded since creation. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It might just about be worth a mention under Welsh Assembly building. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 02:04, 31 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. Issue of lack of independent sourcing per Whpq has not been rebutted by the keep side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Post French Settlement Series

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

A detailed, well referenced article, but unfortunately the postage stamps are simply not notable, even if the subject matter is. Some of the content could be moved to the articles dealing with the subject.Philafrenzy (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep. There seems to be no real reason not to have this article. What is not notable to "you" is usually notable to someone else when you look past the end of your own nose, so "simply not notable" is a weak, opinionated argument. Canada Post released this series of stamps precisely to bring more attention and commemoration to a notable subject in history. The idea of doing away with the article militates against what Canada Post was trying to achieve, and smacks of "cultural erasure". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter is notable, and should be in the relevant articles, the stamps aren't. (see above). And try toning it down a bit please.Philafrenzy (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above? You mean it's "simply not notable" simply because you feel it's "simply not notable"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is a shorthand for "topics that should be included in Wikipedia". Primarily, this is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can find press releases, but not any significant independent coverage. Canada's Stamp Detials is fine for verifying infromation, but as a publication of Canada Post, is not useful for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spotify number-one songs

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

This would seem to fall under WP:CHARTS#Single-vendor/single-network charts, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube Top 100. Nothing particularly significant about being number one on this chart that we need a list, maybe merge the intro into Spotify. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CHARTS#Single-vendor/single-network charts. Any important, referenced information about Spotify could go in the main article. Article doesn't contain much content worth saving. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 30 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. L Faraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian postage stamp of Polio Vaccination 1955–2005

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

This postage stamp is not notable in itself, even if the subject matter is. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. If there is significant coverage in philately magazines (and not just Canada Post stuff), brought forward, I'll reconsider my position. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some independent reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 02:07, 31 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. L Faraone 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian postage stamp of Acadian Deportation 1755–2005

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

This postage stamp is not notable in itself, however, notable the subject matter is. Delete or incorporate into the article on the Acadian Deportation. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. If there is significant coverage in philately magazines (and not just Canada Post stuff), brought forward, I'll reconsider my position. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some independent reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 02:08, 31 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 Deep_Impact_(spacecraft)#Media_coverage. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Bai

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, only briefly mentioned in the only reference. Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deep_Impact_(spacecraft)#Media_coverage. Disagree with nominator that "she was briefly mentioned in the only reference" as a quick WP:BEFORE reveals bunches of articles (eg USa Today, New Scientist, BBC, Chicago Tribune). That said, she is basically a BLP1E and Deep_Impact_(spacecraft)#Media_coverage already mentions her case, so redirecting our readers there appears the most reasonable solution. Cavarrone 06:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as per arguments above. Acabashi (talk) 13:20, 30 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 Nomination withdrawn. Thank you Mark viking, for providing first rate sources that establish notability beyond all doubt. What a pity that someone didn't do so in the two years when there was a tag asking for such sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asterisk (PBX)

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

There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Virtually all of the references are to asterisk's own web site, wikis, blogs, or press releases. (Tagged for primary sources for almost two years.) A PROD was removed, with "this software is used widely" as the reason, but that does not relate to Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I object. I'd prefer not to see this page deleted in the next week. I've made some edits to clean out much of the cruft, but it's only a start. Malcolmdavenport (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article could use some work and better sources, the topic seems highly notable. There are multiple books devoted to the subject:

Asterisk For Dummies
Configuration Guide for Asterisk PBX
Asterisk: The Future of Telephony
Asterisk 1.4 - the Professional's Guide
Practical Asterisk 1.4 and 1.6: From Beginner to Expert
Asterisk Hacking
Asterisk Cookbook

All of these books are by reliable publishers, so count as reliable in depth sources. "Asterisk PBX" gets 574 hits on GScholar. This is more than enough sourcing to pass general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and to build an article. The article itself has some cruft and needs to be based on independent sources. But these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic and surmountable problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a really quick reply, Asterisk is a OpenSource product that is in constant development since 1999. This is just not someones home project. It is in use on 1 million systems in 170 countries and in use in many of the fortune 1000 companies. A few examples of larges orgs that use it are Yahoo, Southern Company (used for 911 services), University of Pennsylvania, Australian Government, British Telecom, Portugal Telecom, Canada revenue agency, Penn university, French Post Office, Amsterdam Government (Slide 8). Forbes has done an article about the product and the founder, they usually don't do things about unknown products. Basically its a well used product in industry, products such as Cisco Unified Communications Manager have an article, i can't see why asterisk would be another story. FreePBX, a product built on top of asterisk has had 5 million downloads and is estimated to be used on 500,000 active systems alone. Just because the product isn't backed by the reputation of companies such as Microsoft or Cisco along with a poorly written article does not make it not notable. In the event the article is saved i will work to improve it, i dont want to waste my time now ins case it gets deleted. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 18:54, 29 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. L Faraone 01:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Palms

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

no sources to prove content, author removed prod Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 15:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I sorted this under fiction because the subject appears to be a location from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, not a place in the real world. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. After a closer inspection, this looks like an in-game element presented as a real world place. The "references" in the article point to Los Angeles, but they don't support the article. In the GTA wiki, Golden Palms is a fictional hotel with no apparent real world notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 30 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. L Faraone 01:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Value City Plaza

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

The plaza is a shopping mall that leases space to businesses which makes it a business itself. Treating it as such, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG. There is also nothing to indicate it meets WP:GNG as the only source I found was this]. Nothing to establish notability and therefore needs deleted. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable shopping center. Dough 48 72 00:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I'm not finding reliable source coverage for this shopping center. A GNews search finds many places with this name in the United States. The link that the nominator found refers to a mall in Brick Township, New Jersey, not the subject of the article. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 30 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. Mkdw ^talk 05:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Udaipur, Rajasthan

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

List of almost all non-notable schools with phone numbers. Fails WP:NOTDIR. No encyclopaedic value. Wholly unreferenced. No notability as a list or as individual entries Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of schools are exactly the way we handle non-notable schools--such as all elementary schools. The secondary schools listed here without articles are every one of them suitable subjects for articles, and this list is a guide to what ought to be written. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG; I agree that this list is needed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This list is exactly what is needed on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A10: duplicate of Edward Wright (mathematician). Article now exists at el:Έντουαρντ Ράιτ. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Έντουαρντ Ράιτ

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

This page is in Greek, with the exception of the odd word and the sidebar Matty.007 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as duplicate of Edward Wright (mathematician). I note, however, that there is no page on this guy on the Greek Wikipedia (I think), so if the author knows enough Greek to recreate it there, they could. Howicus (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and suggest to the editor concerned that they add this material to the Greek Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 29 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. None of the two keep votes take into account that only the club website (primary and non-independent) has been used to source the material. Merging has been considered, but several paragraphs on the history of an element of the jersey design does seem to overburden that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FK Partizan strip

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

Following consensus in previous AFDs here and here, it has been determined that these kind of articles are not needed, any relevant content can be included in the parent article. Giant Snowman 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to be honest the topic is already covered to overkill at FK_Partizan#Crest_and_colours, there is absolutely no need for a separate article. Sources show no coverage of the kit independent of the club itself. C 679 08:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is much that is not mentioned in the main article. Or move to the article FK Partizan, but this should not be delate.--Nado158 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the existing 600+ words in the section of the club article is not sufficient to cover all encyclopaedic content related to the kit? C 679 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the Controversies and the Kit sponsorship--Nado158 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to FK Partizan - There is no reason the content of this article can't be merged to the main page, especially since the subject isn't particularly notable independently of the main topic. – Pee Jay 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm just wondering why is this strip less notable than Arsenal F.C. strip, Manchester City F.C. strip and Parma F.C. strip? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, I think they are all non-notable. Please see my 'To Do' list where I intend to AFD them all in time. Giant Snowman 14:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i find it notable. Interesting subject, with nice overview, not directly related to the main subject in its historical sence. Therefore, notable on its own basis. -WhiteWriter^speaks 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A subject isn't notable just because you find it interesting. A subject is notable because reliable, third-party sources cover it in a non-trivial way. There are no reliable, third-party sources that do this for this subject. There may be plenty of sources that talk about changes in the club's kit supplier or sponsor, but I am yet to see anything that covers the history of Partizan's kit. – Pee Jay 00:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here that merits a separate article. Waffling about a club's kit manufacturer, design and sponsorship is trivial. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipal authorities in Washington County, Pennsylvania

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

Seemingly pointless list of redlinks. Appears to run contrary to WP:NOTDIR. Most of the entities listed on it are small, fairly innocuous municipal agencies with no real individual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. As the nom stated, most of these are very small and run-of-the-mill. It may be beneficial to mention some within their respective towns' articles. Them From Space 17:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to argue this passes NOTDIR. Besides this article, there are several others which similarly list municipal authorities by Pennsylvania county. If this example is deleted, I suggest all of those similar also be put up for group deletion. BusterD (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karunaker Menon

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

non notable civil servant.no references Uncletomwood (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a notable person. Page made for self-promotion. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this rises to the level of a speedy (and was already declined for an A7), but it's definitely promotional and ill-sourced. There is no evidence that the subject is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microburst (wresrler)

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

He does not exist. KzKrann (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Apparently there is a citation which claims he does exist, so it's not a case of WP:HOAX. However, I'm voting to delete anyway because the article fails WP:GNG. I suggest the nominator alter his/her reason for deletion to this. — Richard BB 11:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needless to say, if the article does get kept, the title needs fixing....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepFound a source: http://www.wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=bios&wrestler=27209 KzKrann (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I said above, he still fails WP:GNG. There's no evidence of notability here. — Richard BB 02:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that link just goes to prove that notability is quite some distance away. -- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 30 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEU Museum of Classical and Sports Cars

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

Could be merged with the Near East University Matty.007 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable in the slightest, nothing much to merge. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only car museum in the whole island with 65+ cars inside and the oldest vehicle of the museum is a Model 1899 Crest Mobile which is the only sample of its brand in the world. Aekoroglu (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there don't seem to be any sources that we could use to improve the article. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines say that, to have an article on a topic, that topic should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's necessary to avoid Wikipedia articles just being one person's opinion about a subject, for example. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources in English: perhaps there are some in Greek or Turkish? Dricherby (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found: I couldn't find anything in English but maybe there are some in Greek or Turkish. Dricherby (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could find the informations in english here: http://www.neu.edu.tr/en/node/4329 also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Automotive_Museum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Automobile_Museum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Car_Museum_of_Iran has no independent source or references too. Aekoroglu (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- neu.edu.tr isn't independent: it's published by the owners of the museum. Whether we delete this page or not depends only on whether good sources exist, not on whether other articles also exist that maybe shouldn't. Dricherby (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the refs/sources in english and turkish Aekoroglu (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 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. However I have userfied this to my own userspace - it's one of those articles that you think just has to be salveagable. Its at User:Black Kite/List of Renaissance men if anyone wants to edit it. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Renaissance men

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

The criteria for inclusion on this list according to a hidden comment is "people whose names are accompanied by a citation, from a source meeting Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, which uses the word "polymath" to describe them." As has been amply discussed during the deletion debate for List of people who have been called a polymath, there are no reliable sources for subjective opinions as to whether someone is a polymath or not. This article is even less defendable than List of people who have been called a polymath as it does not require entries to be described as a "Renaissance men" (or "Renaissance women" -- there is a single female entry), but merely as the approximate synonym "polymath". BabelStone (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The entries in this list are far better documented than the matching entries in "Muslim doctors", so if this is to go, at least the Hakim, the Islamic physicians, should be merged with that list to improve it substantially; very likely other properly cited descriptions could be merged with other existing lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've attempted to rescue this article from itself in the past, and I'm grateful to BabelStone for coming to grips with why this article is unsalvageable. The fundamental flaw is that it is utterly subjective. Even if a "called a renaissance man or woman" criteria were included, we'd be getting entries for people who are the "renaissance man of real estate" and the "renaissance man of ecommerce," to name just two plucked from Google. We'd get James Franco and Viggo Mortensen, who made a Buzzfeed list.[17] Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was expecting this nomination. I think it would be good to have a list of people like this, but there can be no substantive inclusion criteria, which is why this article will be deleted. It is bad for wikipedia that this and the list of polymath articles are being deleted, but that is a result of wikipedia policy, a policy that general works, but is wrong in this case. Perhaps we should also look at List of films considered the best a list that has had no proper inclusion criteria, but has been snow kept four times. I would suggest a WP:IAR keep, but cannot justify it under current policy.Martin451 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting analogy. I suspect that the reason the film article is kept is that one doesn't tend to get goofy situations, to which this article is vulnerable, as well as obscure types who are mentioned as "renaissance men" in passing, so they get plugged into this article alongside Leonardo. Coretheapple (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the matter is whether we can write proper inclusion criteria (for any list). The real 'Renaissance men' were (of course) of that time, educated, male, and few. As soon as we open it up by analogy ('modern "Renaissance men"', etc) then we get a much bigger, looser list; we have lost a key criterion (of Renaissance time) so it weakens disastrously to polymath; and we get Recentism. 'Films considered the best' could be reliably measured, e.g. by a panel at Cannes or wherever, and arguably it needs to be. 'Mediaeval Islamic physicians' (included in the Renaissance men, should they be?) is a far better defined set than 'Muslim doctors' which shows signs of including every medical person of that faith now alive and collapse through recentism and weak inclusion criteria.

So: can we tighten the criteria? Suggest at least 1) Lived in the Renaissance period; 2) Described in Reliable Sources as polymathic; and arguably 3) Described in Reliable Sources as Renaissance men. That would include Galileo, Leonardo and Michelangelo, but would exclude Imhotep, Cicero, and all the recent accretions (not of the period). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, the reason for the definition at the top of the page is that "renaissance man" is defined as "polymath." Note that Renaissance man redirects to Polymaths. That article then gives a broad definition, including people who did not live in the Renaissance. I assume that whoever put that definition at the top of the article was making a good-faith effort to deal with that issue. So while I agree that narrowing the criteria makes sense, we do still have that lingering issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that definition and the redirection is wrong. Renaissance man is (at least) a polymath of the renaissance period (I think we could tighten it still further, as mere polymathic knowledge is not the whole story), so we must correct the definition and remove the list members which don't fit. Then the issue will linger no longer and we'll have the core of a decent list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "renaissance men" section of Polymath [18] is a mess. I tagged it for original research a while back but it really needs to be gutted. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given what I've said, I don't find that a surprise. I hope gutted means 'cleaned out, cited and improved'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sorry if above is TL:DR. "Renaissance Men" is sharply definable as men, literally of the Renaissance, and named in Reliable Sources as "Renaissance Men". I've edited the article accordingly, maybe can be pruned further. Article has good refs and is well-defined. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some good work with that article. It's a shame you weren't participating in the article during the bizarre disputes that plagued it some weeks ago. However, I'm not altogether clear that all of the people on this list fit the narrow definition you mention. If it ever reaches that point it would be a rather short list, and then we would be better off merging this to Polymath. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've only had a quick look. There are certainly other good candidates for the list but that's a matter for slow time. I'd oppose a merge to Polymath (which is restricted to intellectual abilities), though a Renaissance man article would be an option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following was placed on the article's talk page by an IP editor, and is copied here:

Dont Delete This page is a great reference, ( and is a wonderful reason on why wikipedia is a fantastic reference ) ..... Articles like ..List of Renaissance men.. this is what wikipedia GREAT 186.66.71.60 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chiswick Chap makes an excellent point for the inclusion of the article--if he were right about "renaissance man" exclusively referring to people who were alive during the Renaissance. I do not believe that he is. Merriam-Webster defines the term as simply "a person who has wide interests and is expert in several areas" with no mention of having been alive during the actual Renaissance. The citation in the list itself, from Encarta, defines a Renaissance man as "somebody with wide-ranging knowledge: somebody with knowledge of many subjects", again with no mention of having been alive during the Renaissance. This certainly squares with my personal experience of the term: I've only ever seen it used to refer to a person who "embodies the Renaissance ideal of being a well-rounded person" or some such, rather than a person literally alive during the Renaissance. Are there any reliable sources that define the term "Renaissance man" as only referring to those alive during the Renaissance? If not, then I feel that this article should be deleted, for the same reasons that the list of people who were called polymaths was. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Wide interests and is expert in several areas" is right as far as it goes, but totally fails to take into account the central difference between RM - whether limited to the actual period or not - and the much weaker term Polymath, which is that RM refers to abilities of all kinds, not only intellectual. Thus the Renaissance ideal of being an all-rounder, good at everything from fencing to music, is key to RM. It is not a synonym for polymath. Therefore Writ Keeper's delete vote is missing the point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a synonym for polymath (though, incidentally, the list itself currently does, as the Encarta definition cited in the lede is a definition for "polymath"). What I said was that, given that it's not restricted to "men who lived during the Renaissance", the subject of the list is far too vague for any kind of encyclopedic meaning or criteria for inclusion, just as the list of the people who are called "polymath" was, and it's subject to the same COI/fluff sourcing concerns. If it were restricted to people who lived in the Renaissance, then we have a much more sharply defined set of people to work with, but it's not. Even if they don't mean the same thing, the two lists are in similar positions with similar problems, and I think that both should be deleted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent it, and the terms are not synonyms. The immediate source is NYT: Bruce Boucher, citing Leon Battista Alberti's maxim "men can do all things if they will". This RS is in the article, BTW. There is no suggestion here of limitation to the intellectual domain (polymath). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say either that you invented it or that they're synonyms. I don't care whether "Renaissance man" and "polymath" are actual synonyms or not; that's not my point. My point is that the "List of Renaissance men" is subject to the exact same problems that "List of people who have been called a polymath" was, including but not limited to: vague definition of purpose, unclear criteria for inclusion (by whose word are we going on this?), sourcing problems (if we go by who has been called a "Renaissance man" in a reliable source, what then is a reliable source for that, and if we're not, how can we write anything verifiably?), etc. "Polymath is a synonym for Renaissance man" is not and hasn't been the basis of my argument; I'm not saying they're the same list, I'm saying they're subject to the same problems, and in both cases, I think they problems warrant deletion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we have, as we do, RS that state that a person was a "Renaissance Man", we are entitled to take it that that person was such, and further that there is a class of people who can be called that, which is all that the list asserts. That makes this list well-formed. As you imply, we have to trust our RS or we'd have no Wikipedia. Let's leave polymath out of this, it isn't relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what do we consider a reliable source for calling someone a Renaissance man? That's the key point. Who is qualified to declare someone a Renaissance man or not? The definition of "Renaissance man" is inherently subjective: how many fields must one be expert in to be considered a Renaissance man? How expert is "expert"? How varied do the fields have to be (e.g. is being a popular author of non-scientific, non-technical stories about one's neurology patients sufficiently different from being a neurologist to qualify Oliver Sacks? Reasonable people will differ, and there will be no one reliable answer)? These are questions to which there are no "right" answers, because it will vary from person to person. So, who then is a reliable source on whether someone is a Renaissance man, since everyone will have different definitions of what a Renaissance man is? Whose definition do we consider reliable enough to use? It's a matter of opinion, and there are no reliable sources on matters of opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is far too powerful and would sweep away a large percentage of our Wikipedia articles, which contain countless millions of statements by ordinary men and women about how they believe the world is. If we say that Bewick is great that's OR; if we cite Wordsworth or Ruskin or Carlyle saying the same, that's an RS. Even in matters of "hard fact", maths or science, all we have to go on is that a mathematician or a scientist wrote that such a thing is proven or tested - "a proof is an experiment in the mind of a mathematician", after all. No, we must trust our sources, we have nothing else at all to go on, other than our own experience which is forbidden to us here. Wikipedia goes on what the sources say, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if we cite Wordsworth of Ruskin or Carlyle saying that Bewick is great, then we have a reliable source that they said that. We don't have a reliable source that it's true, and we can't then use Wikipedia's voice to say "Bewick is great<ref>Wordsworth said so</ref>". What we do is say: "Wordsworth said that Bewick is great<ref>he sure did</ref>". The difference between this and the realms of a mathematician or scientist is that a mathematician or scientist can be proven wrong if another, more reliable study comes along. (Another is that we don't go by just one scientist or mathematician; we go by the consensus of many mathematicians or scientists.) You can't prove "I think this guy is a Renaissance man" wrong, because it's a pure opinion; there is no "more reliable" in a matter of opinion. I mean, I see where you're coming from; we do take people's opinions on faith in many places. But we do that because we believe that they're experts in their fields and others have checked the work that leads them to their conclusion. There are no experts in the field of "deciding whether someone is a Renaissance man", and there can never be any. The problem here is that this list inherently wants to use Wikipedia's voice to say whether people are Renaissance men, but we do not have any sources reliable enough to say that (because they can't exist). We have to trust the reliable sources, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't think critically about whether a source is reliable or not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Writ Keeper. While I believe that Chiswick Chap has done a good job of cutting back the article (even though he removed a person or two that I added to it) ultimately the same problem is going to rear its head because Writ Keeper is correct. One can't just restrict the article to Renaissance figures. So we're ultimately going to go back to the old slog of fans of this CEO or that celebrity adding their favorite guy, based upon the subjective opinions of reliable sources that can be as flimsy as Gawker. Ultimately this list comes down not to objective criteria but to the opinions of reliable sources, and that is subject to abuse and indeed there has been abuse in this and in the list of polymaths article. That is actually how I became interested in this or the other article (I forget which) when I saw one of the endless squabbles over an entry materializing on a noticeboard. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly agree there have been abuses. I don't agree at all that we can't have articles on humanistic matters which are IMO always matters of opinion, despite Writ Keeper's valiant attempts to the contrary (and we have to take math and science opinions, too, because WP editors aren't allowed recourse to experiment, so all we can do is rely on yet more sources, just as with humanities, so thanks for the grudging agreement). Also, it is clear that lists are far better cruft-magnets than articles, because inclusion criteria are always difficult. However, it may be that 'Renaissance Man' would be better off as an article than as a list - if only because there will be a very short list of highly defensible examples to put in it. I do understand the difficulty with the list; though again, if we deleted every article that attracted cruft, we'd have quite a small encyclopedia. Good night. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that this could make a good article, and that a short list of unquestioned, easily-defended Renaissance men (da Vinci, et al.) would definitely have a place in it. Just the etymology of the phrase would make it enough to separate it from Polymath (its current redirect target), I should think. It would definitely be a lot less problematic than a straight-up list. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that whatever happens to this article there should definitely be an independent article on Renaissance men, especially since the current small section in Polymath is so terrible. It would have to be "men," political correctness notwithstanding, as that was the reality of use of the term regarding Renaissance figures. There is potential for abuse in such an article too, but far less. (I can just see a "contemporary renaissance men" section being added.) Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, the article now contains Alexander Weygers, who someone once called the "modern Leonardo DaVinci." Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it is still unclear whether this addition is within scope of the article or not. The lede says [t]he following people represent prime examples of "Renaissance Men", and in one editor's opinion Alexander Weygers is indeed a prime example of a "Renaissance Men". Defining who should or should not be included in this list is like herding cats. BabelStone (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination pretty much sums it up. There is no objective place to put the bar and the term is way too lightly thrown about. "Heroes of country X" articles have the same problems. If there's an official award of some sort, sure, document that. But Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of handing out awards. - Richfife (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search - Richfife (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Todhunter

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

Not notable. Actor lacking multiple significant roles in notable productions. Just lots of minor parts. Closest is a recurring role on Party of Five but that not that significant and is one role. Article puffs up his roles to make him look more notable, eg saying he starred in Never Been Kissed when he just appeared as Stoner #1. Todhunter lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a littble bit about how someone married him. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He's done a lot more than many actors who appear on AfD, but I'm not sure that appearing in 10 episodes of Party of Five, 5 episodes of True Blood, and 3 of LAX quite qualifies as multiple "significant roles" per WP:NACTOR. Other parts were all smaller as far as I can tell. I'm not seeing any media coverage via Google either so he fails WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 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, L Faraone 23:56, 22 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) 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's certainly been in a lot of things and I took a shot at seeing if I could identify any of them as significant roles. The New York times once referred to him offhand as "Chad Todhunter, star of 'Party of Five,'" [19] but that is as close as I could get. I think his several film roles and numerous TV ones should perhaps add up to notability. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His role as Alvin in Penny Dreadful (film) would appear to count as significant. [20]. His voice work in LA Noire would also appear to count as significant: "As Courtney Sheldon, Todhunter is an important character in LA Noire." [21] 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usuing imdb like that is not always a good way to see the significance of a role. The World War Z imdb page still shows Eric West at third on the list showing a fundamental flaw. A better way is to look at reviews, eg[22]. No mention of Toddhunter or his character. Looks like he played just another victim, not a significant role. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/or not Duffbeerforme "Looks like he played just another victim, not a significant role." Opinion or fact? Based on World War Z imdb page and Erik West???? Not what is expected of a Wikipedia administrator! Perhaps if you search the actor by his correct name "Todhunter" (one D) you may have more luck. This delete feels odd! If you have played LA Noire you know the character Courtney Sheldon, this is a major role![23][24][25] mixed with 10 episodes of Party of Five, 5 episodes of True Blood, and 3 of LAX along with some 40 additional roles? Seems notable enough! 50.1.170.155 (talk) 02:24, 08 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (based on the number of episodes and the New York Times referring to him as "star of 'Party of Five'") that that was a significant role. In LA Noire, he voiced an important character, but I'm not familiar with the game, so I can't say if it was a significant role. The source cited for LA Noire says he "is not really known. He’s potentially a rising star though..." He has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. Given that it's questionable whether Todhunter meets WP:NACTOR and that he doesn't meet the more important WP:GNG, the article should probably be deleted. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of minor roles don't add up to notability. Fails NACTOR and lack of significant third party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" required by WP:NACTOR. Miniapolis 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Harry Potter cast members#Epilogue characters. The subject does not appear to meet notability criteria at this time per WP:TOOSOON. Because of the low participation in this discussion, I am closing without prejudice against recreation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bowen

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

15-year old actor who played Harry Potter's son Albus at the end of Deathly Hallows. He already has a very optimistic fansite, but besides a fairly in-depth article by the Oxford Mail, coverage of Bowen in the media amounts to little more than a few passing mentions. WP:TOOSOON, maybe? DoctorKubla (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original redirect to List of Harry Potter cast members#Epilogue characters made sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 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, L Faraone 23:48, 22 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) 08:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Wheat Radio

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

Small article, station non existent any more, and shows no signs of getting better. Almost no references, or info, and no more can really be got because the station has ceased broadcasting. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 08:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 08:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was notable when the previous AfD closed two years ago so its notable now. A quick look at the article history reveals that it was stubbified after an edit war. This version of the article has issues but lists a large number of sources that could be used to create a decent article. Dricherby (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dricherby. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was not notable two years ago and it was not notable now. I invite anyone who claims it is notable to find sources. I spent a long time looking for sources, and stubified it since I could not find any. The edit warring was to add 20kb of unsourced content. I don't know why anyone would find this a reasonable argument to keep the article. Shii (tock) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the edit warring was that you have blanked or stubbified the page nine times since your AfD nomination in June 2012 resulted in a "Keep". It wasn't that somebody was trying to "add 20kb of unsourced content"; it's that you were trying to clear the whole page and people were restoring it. Sometimes, you just blanked the whole thing; other times, you removed all the content over the course of several edits. Meanwhile, other people reverted your unilateral action. Along the way, you've left edit summaries such as "I'm the only one willing to clean up this page and I say Wikipedia is best served by having it redirect."[26] and objecting to the "continual addition of content by user who refuses to use talk page"[27] when this "addition" was, in fact, restoration of the (admittedly poor) content that you had just blanked. You did not "invite" people to find sources: you posted ultimata demanding that somebody provide sources within a few days or you would erase content [28] [29] [30] [31]. There is considerably more verifiable information about this radio station than the one-sentence stub you've left behind. More to the point, despite your claim to have been unable to find sources, the article already contained some reliably sourced information, but you deleted it anyway. Dricherby (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that I am the only one who tried to fix the article, and that nobody who has complained about my edits has examined these "reliable" sources themselves. Shii (tock) 06:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Shii: Well, I just did. These are the sources that you removed....

KTNA, an NPR-affiliated radio station in Talkeetna, Alaska - reliable
Anchorage Daily News - reliable
ABC News - very reliable
Wired Magazine - very reliable
The Scope, an alternative weekly newspaper from St. John's, Newfoundland - reliable and shows outside Alaska reach and listenership of WWR
Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, a newspaper (published three days a week) for the Mat-Su Valley in Alaska - reliable
Anchorage Press, an alternative weekly newspaper from Anchorage - reliable
KTUU-TV, an NBC affiliate in Anchorage - extremely reliable
The Whole Wheat Radio website - about as reliable as you can get

Now, there are a couple blog sources, but these are easily fixed. You had no reason to remove a slew of sourced content, even after consensus. That and the edit-warring on the page are blockable offenses. I think it best that you step away from this article and this AfD before you are blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for what? Being the only editor trying to clean up a page? I removed sources that say things like this: "CD Baby's president Derek Sivers says online radio is the best way to find new music and recommends indie-flavored Whole Wheat Radio, classic-rock Radio Paradise, and Soma FM..." That two-word mention hardly makes a case for notability. Shii (tock) 07:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For one, edit-warring. As an admin, you know better. You also know that a source doesn't have to be a full article, it can be two or three words or sentences. There is no rule that says how long a source must be (ie: how many words or sentences long). You know these things and yet, against established consensus and against WP:NOTABLE, you butchered the article, removed reliable sources and then throw some weird hissy-fit saying you were trying to clean up the article. Sorry, wholesale removal of content isn't "cleaning it up", it's butchering it. But you know these things, as an admin, you know this already. Step back, you are too involved in this article to see the forest for the trees. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm sorry but you (Shii) have no idea what other editors have or have not examined. Point of fact: I have complained about your edits and I have examined the sources. This one, which is the only source remaining in the article, also give the names of the people who ran the station; this one states that the station was volunteer-run, was listened to beyond the local area and hosted concerts; ABC news mentions the station and says what kind of music they played; The Alaska Daily News has a large number of event listings that can be used to illustrate the character of the station; Wired says they podcasted concerts of local bands. Much of the original article was dross but it's perfectly possible to write a couple of paragraphs from the sources available. Dricherby (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dricherby. Notability is not temporary. Levdr1lp / talk 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:N#TEMP, and WP:NTEMP. Oh, I almost forgot, also per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore Shii seems to have removed much of the sources and text that were part of the article, thus the nomination is malformed based on a stubbed edit and I cannot support a nomination in that form. The other version is well-sourced and has no problems at all, and just because it's 2013 doesn't mean the notability goes away. Issues with the text as-is are easily worked out on the talk page rather than through deletion. Nate • (chatter) 22:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the non-stub version of the article actually has quite a few problems (principally large amounts of unsourced content and excessive detail) but, hey, AfD is not clean-up. Dricherby (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that alot can be culled, but definitely not to the point of this stub which reduces the content of this ten-year show to compare this to some teenager's poorly-done Minecraft podcast updated when they're not grounded. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's so ridiculous to see people complaining about how I removed stuff when nobody seems willing to actually look through that list of "sources", none of which used inline citation, and which were mostly one-line mentions (which is not a qualification for notability) or unreliable blogs. Something that existed for 10 years is not necessarily notable. Shii (tock) 06:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not true that nobody has been willing to look through the sources. Dricherby (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cleanup is one thing. I like cleaning up. If it were up to me I'd "clean up" half of Wikipedia. But the kind of clean-up you did is not OK as long as there is a list of possibly reliable sources that you also kept removing in that edit war of a while ago. Both of you should have gotten blocked there; what's unfortunate is that your opponent was a novice, not capable of writing acceptable content based on the sources listed. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dricherby and Mrschimpf/Nate. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Various early versions of this article did show evidence of COI promotional spam. However, unlike far too many other examples, there was also a willingness on the part of the WWR gang to work with the community and accept any necessary compromises. Plus, the above list of RS says it all - one minor point, the Frontiersman isn't a weekly newspaper, though it isn't exactly a daily newspaper, either. Still reliable, though. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I thought it was a weekly. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notability is not temporary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Examining the arguments in the nomination, were we to have a process that certified AfD nominations, this is an example of an AfD that IMO should not have been certified:

Small article,

Small articles are common and desirable in encyclopedias.

station non existent any more

As per WP:N the topic needs only to have attracted attention "over a period of time", so not a guideline-based argument.

[The article] shows no signs of getting better

Missing antecedent, was it the article being small that needed to get better?

Almost no references

What are the applicable policies and guidelines? "No references" is sometimes used to imply a problem with WP:V, but the article at the time it was nominated, a one-sentence-long article with one reference, satisfies WP:V.

[almost no] info

Then the article has info. Having info is not a reason for deletion.

no more [info] can really be got because the station has ceased broadcasting

This is an unsupported premise that nothing new will ever again be reported about the station. There is also an implied idea that there is something insufficient about the existing sources such that new sources are needed, but such insufficiency is a fact not in evidence.

There is no analysis of what can be found in Google books, and the nomination identifies no policies or guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All editors who post at AfD receive the following notice:

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive.

FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus for deletion after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creative strategies in advertising

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

Original research magnet for the encyclopedic topic advertising. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information commonly available in introductory advertising books but not broadly available online. There is more original research fitting in this category warranting an expansion. The merging of this content with the advertising topic would make it unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.89.31 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD was not transcluded, I have done it manually on the list for today (21 May). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - a combination of original research and how-to guide. I fear it simply isn't an encyclopaedic topic in its current form or with its current title. As a concept, it's not clear how it would be considered notable. A particular theory encompassing these ideas might be if it has received significant coverage, but this is a struggle. Stalwart111 13:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this article based on the book Creative Strategies in Advertising by Drewniany and Jewler[32]? If so, it might be possible to convert it into an article on the book, by adding reviews. This classification is found in a small number of other books, e.g.[33] but I'm not sure it's notable. The references section is implausible: what does the second reference have to do with advertising? To continue the criticism, the article represents a POV about what is good and bad advertising, and confuses advertising and the wider sphere of marketing, product development, brand development, etc - but these are not necessarily reasons for deletion (I don't think it's WP:OR because it's copied from somewhere else). If someone can demonstrate that the classification itself is widely used, or discussed in a well-known book, then it might be kept. But even then, it would be necessary to have third-party sources that assess the strength and weakness of this theory of advertising. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of that book - interesting. Obviously not OR here if it has been published elsewhere. I suppose the article could be re-focussed on the book itself, as you say, or the idea, which might get us closer to WP:N. But I'm not sure. Stalwart111 22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 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 · · 07:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, slight merge Having read through the content, this entire article would be a good on-topic paragraph in the main advertising article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an opinion essay about an unencyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 29 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Crooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Was signed to a major label but never released anything. Collaborations with others don't make you notable in your own right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously deleted in October 2008, recreated in April 2009. I see no evidence that anything's changed in the years since. I'm still finding only passing mentions at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 22 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 · · 07:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Peterson (Wisconsin)

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

Obscure losing politician; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orange Mike | Talk 06:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So obscure I barely remember seeing his name on the ballot when I voted in these elections. Generally a third-party candidate in Wisconsin gets no attention unless they're above 20% in an election, which this person never got in their votes. Nate • (chatter) 22:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I personally believe it is shortsighted to delete the biographies of unelected candidates for public office, consensus on this matter is well established. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News turns up a lot of passing mentions and a few articles which look more in-depth, but all of those are from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel so only constitute one source for WP:GNG purposes. I can't find anything else close to significant coverage, and there's no obvious single target for this to redirect to. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. Instaurare (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freikörperkultur. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kampfring für völkische Freikörperkultur

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

Opposed prod however no citations or any references at all have been provided. Tim! (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Query - there are no sources cited in the (very short) article but there seems to be a few GoogleBooks hits when I searched for the subject name in quotation marks. So while there are no references now, is it possible that references could be added or are these potential sources all unreliable or lacking in significant coverage? (Most are in German so I'll have to rely on others). A lack of citations isn't really a good reason for deleting an article, especially if citations are available but just haven't been added yet. If the lack of citations is a symptom of there being no sources, then that's a different story. Stalwart111 06:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Freikörperkultur. The lack of references was easily remedied (see WP:BEFORE), however this seems unlikely to become a substantial article in its own right, distinct from the wider movement of which this was the Nazi organisational manifestation; better merged into the Freikörperkultur#Naturism_between_World_War_I_and_World_War_II section. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As AllyD notes, this deserves a passing mention in Freikörperkultur. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 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) czar · · 05:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INgrooves

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

This article is a promotion for the company and written as an "advertisement". It does not belong in Wikipedia. see: WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING Tyros1972 Talk 05:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may well be in need of a clean-up but that's not really a reason for deletion. There are a few articles about the company and already listed as citations for the article on the company's founder, Robb McDaniels. Beyond those there are a few GoogleNews hits, though some are passing mentions and plenty of music industry magazine sources. I'd be inclined to think is passes WP:CORPDEPTH without too much problem, though the article absolutely needs work. Stalwart111 06:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I participated in the recent DRV discussion where I suggested the subject might struggle to survive an AFD nomination. Having now done a proper search, I'm forced to concede I was probably wrong. Stalwart111 07:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:BEFORE failure. I should add that the "promotion/ advertisement" issues claimed by the nominator are based on nothing, as the article is absolutely neutral and it avoids any peacockery. Cavarrone 06:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 05:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Grebennikov

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

This individual is not even notable as a pseudo scientist (gluing dead insets to a board for anti-gravity!). This article has been here since 2006 and no one has been able to expand it to notability, or even add one WP:RS, at least for this English wiki. Aldebaran66 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His ideas seem to be... unorthodox but Google books gives some reasonable sources. [34] has a couple of pages about him and [35] at least mentions him (there might be more over the page but the gbooks preview doesn't show a lot); both of those are cranky but published by Random House. [36] seems to have at least a paragraph on him. Dricherby (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTEable enough as a pseudo scientist as per Dricherby's links. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards keep, but if people doubt the sources are strong enough, a merge to Anti-gravity would be good, since that article contains an overview of many people's strange theories and Grebennikov would fit in there well. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:55, 31 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. L Faraone 01:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Videojuicer

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

Contested prod. Video platform with no clear evidence of notability. The original prod rationale also mentioned a lack of sources. Although some were added, all but one of them make no mention of this platform, and the one that does only makes a passing mention. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:31, 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, Courcelles 00:13, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:05, 21 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, L Faraone 02:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I am surprised at the total lack of participation for 4 straight weeks in this AfD. Perhaps WP:SOFTDELETE would apply here? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The only source that seems to give substantial coverage to the topic is the Telegraph one [37], but that is largely just giving one of the founders a lot of gab time without actually explaining why the company has earned notability. The rest of the sources, as already mentioned, either fail to mention the company at all, or only mention it in passing. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Karel van Wolferen. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Turning Point in National History

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

This article is about a Dutch non-fiction book. There are problems with the article's notability and sources for years. The impact of the book is unclear. The only sources are an interview with one of the authors on the website of the Dutch Socialist Party, a political party (thus not neutral) and a page on another wiki-project. And finally, the last source is the back cover. It also suffers POV-problems, since there is only a "support"-section, although this last problem is no reason for deletion on itself.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nominator.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query - is there a connection between the author and the political party to make the party a non-independent source? We don't necessarily require sources to be neutral, we just require content here to be neutral. But if it's not independent of the subject, that's different. As an interview, we'd also need to be clear about the extent to which it might be a primary source. I assume you are a Dutch speaker Jeff5102? Can you fill in the blanks? Stalwart111 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if the author is affiliated with the SP, but I do know that they share similar views on the foreign politics of the USA. In this way, the interview will not be held in a neutral way- what wouldn’t be a problem if other (better) sources and references would have been available. But this is not the case. By the way, the interview in the source dates from 2003, in which Van Wolferen discusses another book he authored. This makes it difficult to serve as a source of the book he published in 2005. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing similar views wouldn't make the SP a non-independent source then. It might talk about the book/author in a way that is complimentary but, again, we don't necessarily require the sources to be neutral, just that our reporting of their content here is neutral. So on the basis that it is independent of the subject (even if biased/non-neutral) it is probably okay. Of concern, though, is your further point that the book was published in 2005 while the interview was held two years earlier in 2003. A 2003 interview obviously can't be focussed on a book not published until two years later. For the purposes of this AfD I'm probably at weak delete because I still can't read the sources but from what has been explained (with my thanks to Jeff5102), I have serous doubts about them. Stalwart111 09:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NBOOK. Een keerpunt in de vaderlandse geschiedenis does not meet the relevant notability standard. Also, it hasn't been sourced since 2009... gidonb (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amber provided this link to a Google search. I really haven't much time now, but following your link and having a quick look through it, the 59 results are mostly book sale sites (and not all are about the book). I haven't quite followed all the other links, but the book is number 3 in a top 10, based on sales by a major bookshop in Amsterdam. And here's a lengthy review (lousy Google translation :) ). Here's a film of a lecture, also showing Van Agt, former 3fold Dutch Prime Minister, who heartily supports the book. Hardly irrelevant I'd say. Concerning the support section, as I already wrote on the talk page, of course the support section is pov. It's van Agt's pov. It's support by a former PM. DirkvdM (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A PM in the late 1970s and early 1980s, who is now a non-central political activist, attended the presentation. How many book presentations are attended or lead by politicians, former politicians and other officials and celebrities worldwide? It doesn't imply notability and is not listed under NBOOK as establishing notability. The fact that the book only gets reviewed at blogs and is at most listed elsewhere, doesn't imply notability either. gidonb (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 22 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, L Faraone 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very briefly with the article on the author as a reasonable solution, redirecting from both Dutch title and the English translation of the title--since the book has never been translated into English, there is no true English title. At present it's the author article only as an item in a list. . We have no way of knowing the importance of the book from the material presented. That the PM attended the presentation shows no more than that the PM thought the book would help his political purposes. The book, unlike some of the other work by the author, has never been translated into english or any other language.. . It therefore cannot be assumed to have made an impact out of the country. In contrast, his most important book The enigma of Japanese power : people and politics in a stateless nation has been translated into 10 languages; it has,appropriately, a WP article of its own. DGG 15:30, 29 May 2013

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMFGB

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

Subject fails WP:GNG with minor coverage in one blog link and coverage in a now-defunct blog (still available in Internet Archive) which does not look like a WP:RS. Project now appears defunct as web site has been deleted, so is unlikely to get any more coverage. For background the subject is a lightly-customised version of Android (operating system). Dcxf (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:02, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:15, 21 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 · · 01:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not seeing coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 06:47, 29 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. Mkdw ^talk 05:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Asmalovskaia

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

Can't find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Google just gives me Wikipedia mirrors and other clutter. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:49, 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:22, 21 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 · · 01:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary, no info here that's not elsewhere. Shii (tock) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:BIO. found zero reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus for keep after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Agnew

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 174.118.142.187, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation.... but, to be honest, it's hard to argue for keeping this article without sources, and I can find none in my admittedly brief search. YMMV. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a self-promotion article this article contains no references, links to other articles or has non-notable significance. It should not exist. I doubt we are going to start listing every employee that works in a university. Even the article text is hyped from the reference material supplied. The person is an Assistant Prof. What's next, janitorial staff? Somebody please delete this article. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the two fellowships listed in the article are enough — see WP:PROF#C3. It does seem a little odd to use that criterion for someone who is an associate professor (though the nominator's claim that he is an assistant prof seems to be incorrect), but confirmation that he's sufficiently notable is given by his citation record (one paper in Google scholar with nearly 300 cites, and two more with nearly 200). As for the insulting tone of the nomination: please see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a book reference. It appears that probably he is well known only in the field of Wireless security. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Redlink fixed by Dricherby (talk) 10:36, 29 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 · · 01:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The membership criteria of the Canadian Academy of Engineering seem to meet the level of selectivity required by WP:PROF. Dricherby (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Special Notability Guideline for Professors, point C3, as mentioned above by David E. and Dricherby. This is a very nasty nomination in tone and it's not hard to suspect bad faith. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Taken with the above, WoS shows >200 cumulative cites. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:01, 29 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.