Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 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 deleted by JamesBWatson. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nurtuan

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

WP-GNG - Not notable
WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO - Article created by sockpuppet of banned spammer Voidz.

Note that the prod was removed by an SPA... Also probably linked to the pile of banned socks. PeterWesco (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. He hasn't actually released anything. Sources consist solely of unreliable self-promotiojn like this. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. Also, the article was created by a banned sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Boing! said Zebedee under CSD A7. (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KrnP da Mooveh

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

No notability other than links on MP3 catalogs or two youtube videos that have received 50 views each. Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 22:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Entirely non notable web content and I have tagged for A7. Safiel (talk) 01:37, 7 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. Courcelles 00:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flatbush zombies

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

Insufficient information to describe the topic, and very unorganized PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why it can't be speedied per WP:BAND (and WP:GARAGEBAND), but if you think it needs discussion that's fine. Ignatz mice•talk 22:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep They've got quite a bit of media coverage for an up-and-coming band, including some international coverage and at least short features in several major publications. It's arguably not quite in-depth enough to meet WP:BAND #1, but it's close.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's too soon for an article on them. Koala15 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use expansion, but sufficient reliable sources to warrant an article (satisfying WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO) appear to exist: in addition to the above write-ups, there's an article on the trio in XXL (excerpt), a HipHopDX piece ([9]), and a feature in Clash magazine [10]. Gong show 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have incorporated some of these sources into the article. Gong show 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Very unorganized" is not a reason to delete an article, it's a reason to fix it. I see sufficient coverage in third party sources to establish notability and from which to build a valid article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow, WikiDan61, WP:HEY, WP:BAND, and WP:GNG. The band has been featured in articles in XXL, Spin, Clash, and other major music-industry articles. WP:AfD is not for article clean-uo. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 13 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 04:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Indian Standoff 2013

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

Little context, no references or coverage, current context doesn't even signify a "standoff" Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of "standoff": India-China standoff: Army Chief briefs PM, other senior ministers. Keahapana (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable occurrence, no references, no change from how Sino-Indian posturing has been taking place over the last how many years now? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Trivially easy to demonstrate GNG. FT The Ozzie and Indian newspapers all show up on the first page of google. Sheesh, try harder. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this avoid falling under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER? Sheesh! --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Bushranger. Barely worth a line in China–India relations. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi Incident referring to the same thing? I think it might be. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears so! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sven DLinth (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Bushranger. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sino-Indian border dispute. The event was given significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, that being said, I am unaware that the event which was the standoff has received continued coverage from reliable sources. Therefore, the subject falls within the scope of the Sino-Indian border dispute or the China–India relations articles. As such a merger of verified content can be moved to one of those two articles, and a redirect left in this article's space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Defense Industry Daily has provided us these sources to evaluate notability of the event. These sources can arguably be seen as continued coverage, even thogh the event still falls within the scope of the article Sino-Indian border dispute.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sino-Indian border dispute per RightCowLeftCoast. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:48, 9 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin (musician)

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable musician, who played an important part in many early hip hop recordings. Albums released on Profile and Tuff City. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to this book, is a seminal figure in early recorded rap. Called "legendary" in this book. There's more material in a book search that can't been viewed, but what can be seen would indicate that he is an important figure in the genre during its early days. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, Pumpkin has been described as a "hip hop innovator" and "arguably rap's first production hero" [11] and a "seminal" early rap figure [12]. He and his work are also discussed in these magazines (snippet views). Gong show 02:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Looks like a notable musician. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen two of the three cites in the article at nomination and they clearly demonstrate notability in my view. Perhaps the nominator doesn't believe in books. 86.42.88.41 (talk) 21:58, 12 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. Courcelles 00:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Linha 8

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

No evidence that this is notable. Searching for the title on Google, the first three pages mainly contain links to shops and streaming services but nothing which is independent on the subject or shows any notability. Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. I am nominating the artist for deletion as well, as he fails WP:BAND:

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Deadbeef. 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUMS Transcendence (talk) 23:18, 13 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 04:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Catholics

Although I've tried to do some work on this I'm not sure this list should even exist. We have no other "by nation" list for Catholics. Why would the US be an exception?--T. Anthony (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. Religion has nothing to do with most of the sub-categories listed so, for most of these groups of people, sorting them by religion is of no more relevance than sorting them by hair colour. Dricherby (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The original deletion criteria was invalid, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Per WP:NOTDIR: "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon". Catholicism in America is culturally significant, so WP:NOTDIR does not apply. Hence, keep. Praemonitus (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Catholicism in baseball, catholicism in acting, and so on are not culturally significant. Dricherby (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I normally would sympathize with what you're saying I'm not sure this does anything the article wouldn't. Also List of Catholic bishops of the United States, Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States, List of American saints and beatified people, National Black Catholic Clergy Caucus, and Laetare Medal will be unaffected however this goes. Still I see we do have List of Australian Presbyterians so possibly religion/nation lists are done. (Although I see no American equivalent. No List of American Presbyterians or List of American Baptists or List of American Latter Day Saints.)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note also that the Catholic Church is the largest single Church in the US: the CIA World Factbook says 23.9% of Americans identify as Catholic. Are we going to add a quarter of the Americans who have wikipedia pages to this list? Dricherby (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only if they have the notability to be added to the list and the RS to support the fact that they are Catholic. The list isn't huge and nowhere as big as List of American Jews which has already been subdivided because it is so large. Marauder40 (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually I'm starting to have slightly mixed feelings. (I'm usually pro-lists) But I'm still not sure it's necessary so won't rescind the AfD.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No one said that millions would be added to this list. In fact, unlike on some other such lists, all listed here are wiki-worthy, so the list is not out of control. This is also a sound start towards something like List of American Jews - or would you have this and its sub-lists removed too?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per reasons already given both here and in the previous AFD in 2010 that resulted in a keep. Nothing has changed since then. Complaints about whether all denominations have a List like this don't really hold up. All someone has to do is have the time, the notable people and the RS to create those lists. As has already been said there are tons of "List of American ..." all over the place.Marauder40 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 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 04:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people with specific surnames

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

I declined a speedy but feel that discussion is needed about this list of lists. I can see good points, but wonder if it's workable. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workable in what sense? I agree that keeping the list sorted will be difficult. -dav4is (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you actually have in mind for it. 'Specific surnames' is not clear to me, or, I think to ItsZippy. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So, taken at its best, this would be a list of all the surname pages we have on Wikipedia? To me that seems far to vague a topic for a list (do we really mean every surname in existence?). We already have the lists of most common surnames and lists of surnames in specific country (such as list of surnames in Ukraine) which serve the same purpose but much more effectively. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list would have to be over 40K entries long, just a tad WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not worth the effort as we already have many comparable(ish) pages and if created would be drain on resources

Ah, but it is not just a list of surnames, but rather a list of the lists of people who HAVE those surnames. That is, wikipedia has somewhere a list of the people bearing the name Smith and another list of the people bearing the name Starr. Now the titles of those two lists may be (are!) completely different in form, but my list would point to each with the simple names Smith and Starr.

Note that not every surname in wikipedia has such list of occupiers.

-dav4is (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most do. Let's very generously say that only half do. It's still way too many. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the specific links which seem to be causing the disambiguation problems, I see that the targets of these links are all disambiguation pages without the word disambiguation in the title, which nevertheless contain content not available elsewhere. It is to this content that I wish to link. For example, the Sands page contains an extensive list of people named Sands, exactly the sort of list I wish to include in my page. So, my question is this: How should I link in cases like this, and avoid being picked up as having too many links to DPL.
---dav4is (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreeing that this falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even if it's, as -dav4is says, only a list of surname lists. I cannot imagine anyone would ever need or benefit from such a list. And even if there was some benefit to being able to find all the lists of people sharing a surname pages, why not just use Category:Lists of people sharing a surname? Having something that needs to be manually updated when we already have a category that does the job automatically seems like a tremendous waste of resources. Ethraen (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To answer the question from User:Dav4is above, the link should be piped through the (disambiguation) page. For example, if you want to link to Hawley, but don't want it to show up as a link that needs to be fixed by the WP:DPL folks, you link it like this: [[Hawley (disambiguation)|Hawley]], to get Hawley. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was unaware of the category mentioned above, which satisfies my needs — even if User:Ethraen cannot imagine such a need!
---dav4is (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can a list of WP list articles possibly be indiscriminate? it excludes all lists of surnames that are not in WEP, and all WP surnames that are in WP but not in lists. Everything in WP has been selective discriminately by the notability guidelines. whether it's useful or necessary may be another question, but I am reluctant to predict what people will want to use. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of most common surnames, which I think is what people might really be looking for. I'm not sure I understand what DGG is arguing. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 13 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. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mischief Makers (Film)

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

Non-notable searches for Mischief Makers (film) in google give up other results. Should be deleted and instead mentioned on her wikipedia page. Should not be a redirect since there are other films with the same name. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The awards are not notable. As far as I can tell, this is a screenplay, and not a film as implied by the article title so redirecting would be misleading. And there is nothing to merge as the Elise Jackson article already mentions this. In fact, I'm rather dubious about her notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Whpq. 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - After some review, I've nominated Elise Jackson for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:59, 10 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. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Salmon

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

Non-notable author. No signs of any significant coverage; local coverage only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some coverage in local papers. Not sufficient to establish inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:57, 9 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vend (software)

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

Small software company, fails WP:COMPANY, creator of page and main editor appears to be the marketing person for the company while another editor also appears to work at the company SimonLyall (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New Zealand Herald and National Business Review articles easily clear the bar for me. Both are reliable sources, the authors are independent and the articles are fairly long, only about this company and clearly contain the authors' own thoughts, not simple reprints of the company's press releases. I think this easily establishes notability with multiple reliable independent secondary sources about subject, as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Msnicki notes, seems to easily meet GNG. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Few sources seems reliable. Nickjames90 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per the sources provided above by User:Msnicki. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Msnicki. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:57, 9 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 · · 23:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Adams

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

No indication this individual meets notability guidelines, no evidence of playing in a FPL or meeting WP:GNG. PROD challenged with rationale "he plays pro football in Algeria" but no evidence that he has played for his team (which is by the way in Ghana and not Algeria). C 679 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 20:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd guess the creator's mention of "Algeria" in their edit summary was just a brainslip, as the article states that the subject plays in the fully-pro Ghana Premier League. Since the nomination, an editor has added a reference to a match report mentioning subject's defensive error in a GPL fixture; might not be a very favourable mention, but it does prove he was playing and therefore passes WP:NFOOTY criterion 2. The standard Europe-based stats sites don't cover the Ghana PL, but both Transfermarkt and Soccerway show several appearances for his club in the 2012 CAF Champions League group stage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs bringing up to meet WP:GNG as well. Giant Snowman 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY, though I note this was not demonstrated at the time of nomination. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 13 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. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Barlog

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

Article is about a fictional character with no sourcing to suggest notability in the article. In searching for sources, it seems this character appeared in two episodes of season 4 of Oz. I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to no reliable sources evidencing notability. — fourthords | =Λ= | 04:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it can be shown the fictional character is as notable as the Balrog. — Cirt (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:59, 9 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. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

454 Life Entertainment

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

Non-notable record label that falls well short of WP:GNG. The only WP:SIGCOV is from press releases and self-posts on YouTube. Everything else is passing mentions or from blogs and sources that are not WP:RS. Even the MTV reference is a reprint from a website that no longer exists. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Also looks like the second nomination. A comment from 2010 says that "The creator claims the media has not gotten around to cover them." Three years later it looks like they still haven't gotten around to it.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I mentioned when tagging it for notability, none of the sources pass wikipedia reliable source guidelines, and my searching did not turn up any reliable sources. As far as I can tell, it is currently non-notable and, as stated last time it was nominated for deletion, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so potential future notability is irrelevant. Ethraen (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage found in any non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG and thus would not qualify as notable per WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:00, 9 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. Editors seem to agree that we need to start over on this, so I'm pulling out the WP:TNT. I can userfy it upon request, though you'll likely to find the product of minimal help. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MASS KILLING in Bangladesh, 5TH MAY 2013

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

My PROD contested; Peripatetic's CSD removed by page creator, but I thought it would be good to bring it here. The article is poorly written POV anti-government (almost fringe) stuff. No objection to deletion and NPOV recreation (under a better title). Ignatz mice•talk 19:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Moved to 2013 Dhaka protests (which isn't a great title, but not as bad). Ignatz mice•talk 11:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Rework with new title and NPOV. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to better name, rewrite from the neutral point of view, and expand. A Google News search for "Bangladesh protest shooting" shows significant coverage in The Guardian, reporting at least 30 deaths. I'm on a smart phone and working now, but normal editing is called for here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rework -- Peripatetic (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Title is POV, article is copyvio from an activist page and POV, the images are a bad joke!! In fact, the 2 images that are out there are patent nonsense! --Ragib (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, I've given the page a fresh start by removing all the nonsense (and probably some reasonable text, too) and warned the vandals. I also deleted the Al Jazeera source because the bare-url 404ed. The topic is probably keep-able, though it needs a proper name and it will probably need to be at least semi-protected. Dricherby (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this could warrant a page with a proper title and writing for the event itself. There's just little to nothing worth salvaging from this article itself as-is. - Vianello (Talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is with no offense intended to the attempts at cleanup. Sometimes, though, when you start polishing something, all you're left with when you remove the gunk is a grain of sand. - Vianello (Talk) 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offence taken, Vianello. I'm fully aware that the page I left was very, very bare. Dricherby (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Dricherby's cleanup, I think the article stands a chance now (but maybe not). Therefore, I've moved it to the less sensationalist 2013 Dhaka protests. Ignatz mice•talk 20:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sadly, this title is too broad and needs to be redone somehow. Protests have been going on non-stop in Dhaka ever since the beginning of February, starting on the 5th of Feb with 2013 Shahbag protests. Yesterday's action and last night's counteraction are all part of the aftermath of Shahbag and we still have a long long way to go. At any rate, the point is that the title is misleading and needs to be reworked. -- Peripatetic (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suggest you start a discussion about an appropriate title on the article's talk page. Dricherby (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Comment - Or merged with the main Shahbag article in some kind of Aftermath section. --Peripatetic (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Rework: Absolutely this is an important event and has WP:SIGCOV. However, the article as is should have been sandboxed, worked on with at minimum: improved title, more citations, some narrative and organization, and better factual support. This article currently fails on the most basic policy of WP:WTAF. Please rewrite it, resubmit it based on this criticism, and then I'll support its inclusion.Crtew (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did write the article first but it was an unacceptable and total mess. By the time I'd removed the ludicrous claims (e.g., that literally millions had been killed, that nuclear weapons had been used and so on) and the POV-pushing, there was nothing left but the stubbiest of stubs. Indeed, the original article was so bad that it was speedy-deleted as a hoax but restored because the deleting admin noticed it was at AfD. Dricherby (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with many comments above about the NPOV stance while I'm supportive of the development of this as an article. Crtew (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about merging: With all due respect, the 2013 Shahbag protests has been a poorly written, one-side POV article from its inception. That article lacks basic substance in some areas (such as the media coverage section which is an inane list of who has covered the event). The "article" is in desperate need of some balance (and might very well be improved if it wasn't for the battleground mentality on the page). Moreover, whoever made that article into a B-class knows absolutely nothing about the assessment criteria. That topic and this one is important, but that article is at best a start class with a host of problems. To lump this topic in with the counter-protests would miss the mark of what is needed to improve the coverage of what has been going on in Bangladesh since the war crimes trial began. This whole area needs some serious rethinking. Crtew (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is intended to be a biased article with a strongly negative title. There is already a more general article on Hefajat-e-Islam_Bangladesh which includes a section about the clash of Hefajat and police on May 5 and later. There's no need to have another article just on one section of an article.Shantonu.hossain (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you'd read the article before !voting, you'd see that it's been renamed since this AfD started. Dricherby (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That article is definitely not NPOV, but it would see that a merge or redirect into it would be a pretty good option. Ignatz mice•talk 11:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not only the 'title' I am opposing. Even if the title is changed it doesn't justify the need for another article which could be a subsection of an already existing article.Shantonu.hossain (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. As retitled and cleaned up, it's barely a stub, but the event was substantive and newsworthy, and could link up with others.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands as there is no claim to any lasting significance so therefore fails the WP:NOT policy. LGA _talk^edits 07:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:LASTING, which you link: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This is a recent event (four days ago) with unproven lasting effect. You can't cherry-pick half the guideline. Dricherby (talk) 08:11, 9 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. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Kunda, Jr.

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

Contested PROD by the author with no rationale given. Article is about a footballer who fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant media coverage nor does he pass WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : nothing significant found after googling. fails WP:BIO --Robustdsouza (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article also exists as Gabriel Kunda Jr., which had been created in November 2012. ... discospinster _talk 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for merging those AfDs Discospinster the Gabriel Kunda Jr. article was located at Wikipedia:Gabriel Kunda Jr. when I nominate Gabriel Kunda, Jr. hence how I missed it, I've notified the other author, Regards. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any evidence of existence. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two Kunda articles were identical. I removed the non-refs from one before I heard of this AfD. Refs either are dead or don't mention Kunda. Only info about him comes from blogs. If he played for Atlético Madrid B, then he would be notable under WP:NFOOTY, but there is no evidence he did. Bgwhite (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd considered tagging this as a hoax, which it probably is, but guessed the several namechecks on various blogs might have given the reviewing admin grounds for doubt. But even assuming he does exist... None of the "references" in the article mention him. BDfutbol confirms that no-one called Gabriel Kunda or anything similar played for Atlético B in the 2009/10 Segunda B season, when he was supposed to have played 24 games. And even if he had, the Spanish third tier isn't fully-pro within the meaning of WP:NFOOTY. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please do not delete this article this is not a hoax thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalyagk (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 May 2013
Comment this article is genuine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalyagk (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article about this player is totally genuine. He was recently on trail with Birmingham City F.C which he did not manage to earn a contract. Player has received full coverage, a few blogs have video attachments to this player proving this is a true article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalyagk (talk • contribs)
Comment This article Gabriel Kunda, Jr. was under the name Gabriel Kunda Jr but was moved but does not deserve to be deleted. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalyagk (talk • contribs)
Keep - article does not breach any Wikipedia rules and is not a fake video evidence on football websites confirm the player is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecarr100 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if my suggesting the article was a hoax made you think I disbelieved the existence of the player. My beliefs are neither here nor there. The hoax aspect referred to the claims made about the player appearing for Atlético B, when he did not, and the addition of reference links which either don't exist or don't mention the player.
  To satisfy Wikipedia's "notability criteria" for football players, i.e. whether a player deserves a WP article or not, he has to have played in a fully professional league, as listed here, or to have played senior international football, or to have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources independent of the subject. "Reliable sources" include newspapers, broadcast media and reputable websites with a reputation for fact-checking; they don't generally include blogs, forum posts, fansites, or other self-published sources.
  If you think the page should be kept, you need to demonstrate such coverage. Adding a "reference" for his 24 games for Atlético B in 2008/09 which consists of a match report for two different teams entirely dating from 2011 and lifted wholesale from Pere Martínez Sastre doesn't strike me as likely to demonstrate any such thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please do not delete this article I will continue to keep working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecarr100 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant failure of notability standards, no evidence more time to improve the article will result in notability (or verifiability) criteria being met. C 679 20:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment - Article was moved numerous times so I put a vandalism tag but was moved, but I would think this article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecarr100 (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~Comment won't question that it could be improved but passes the notable criteria... not every footballer who has a Wikipedia page is notable but this certainly passes some. I would say it needs to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecarr100 (talk • contribs)
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 13 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 04:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ash-Sharq

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable...only got official links and facebook links when googled.. Strike Σagle 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, popular and gives almost 0.6 million results when googled, and should be kept. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is invalid since we don't consider WP:GHITS as a good argument. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are hardly any reliable source for this topic. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All reasons I could think of have already been mentioned. smtchahal^(talk) 12:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a hard fail on WP:PERIODICAL, and resembles a large number of spam articles about non-notable topics created by the same user. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to State-sponsored terrorism. L Faraone 04:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia and state sponsored terrorism

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

This just popped up on my watchlist againt. Its still a massivly synthetical piece that doesn't actually discuss state terrorism or even provide a source directly linking Saudi Arabia with state sponsored terrorism. Surely what little there is here is much better handled as part of a wider article about terrorist financing. I'd be astonished if it wasn't already. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless I'm mistaken, there's no referenced content in the article that states that Saudi Arabia is behind state-sponsored terrorism. So clearly it can't persist under this title. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to state sponsored terrorism, A small section there would be adequate. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Saudi Arabian terrorism sponsorship. Looking at the reliable sources most of the sources in the article link Saudi Arabia with funding terrorism, and of terrorists from Saudi Arabia. Also the sources give significant coverage of the subject. That being said, at a casual skimming of the sources I did not see anything where the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is directly sponsoring the terrorist organizations or individuals. Therefore, the scope of the subject of this AfD should be changed to match the subjects of the reliable sources it uses.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to State-sponsored terrorism. There are some reliable sources, but they're mentioning facts and incidents about attacks and a country. None of them establish Saudi Arabian state terrorism specifically as an independently notable subject. As it is now, the article is a violation of WP:FORUM and possibly even WP:NOTADVOCATE no matter what the name is changed to. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 8 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 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse_racism

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

WP:NOTRS Gerntrash (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic and its very label has received growing academic attention, such as here: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/6/3/215.short . So, even if some current sources are weak, the article can be upgraded. The scope goes beyond US and South Africa, e.g. on French wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racisme_antiblanc .Whether reverse racism is reality or perception is, of course, a subject of further debate. But the topic is there to stay, and it belongs on wikipedia.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Racism or Reverse discrimination. Ignatz mice•talk 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination. Title of article refers to discrimination rather than racism as such. The article is well researched and its content should be retained if not already in revese discrimination. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination Rrreese (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination as a fork. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of academic worth,and is a highly contentious issue which has been discussed widely by both the press and in academia. It is of my opinion, however, that the majority of the article needs to be re-written and expanded. Particularly as the existence of "reverse-racism" is implied throughout the article, even though it is hotly debated whether 'reverse-racism' truly exists.Veryirregularuser (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable widely discussed topic, most recognizable under this particular name. Agree the article needs upgrading. groupuscule (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . There is room for both to develop. this is asubset of the general topic. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Space: 1999. (non-admin closure) czar · · 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Probe

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

How trivial is this? A "fictional spacecraft" that appears in "just a few scenes in this pilot episode" of Space: 1999. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too appear in only one or two episodes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't really argue against this nomination, since none of these vehicles is notable in their own right. One thing that the Space: 1999 topic currently lacks, however, is a list of spacecraft (in the style of List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series, etc.). If I have time, I'll see about creating one and merging in some of the content from these separate articles. A fair amount of the purely in-universe material could be either dropped entirely or transferred to the relevant episode pages, which are well-sourced. The titles could then be redirected to the list page as a possible alternative to deletion. Super Mario Man 22:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to make a section in Space: 1999. The template for this series suggests that WP has a grossly excessive number of articles on this already. In the past we have had articles on characters in TV series, but these usually get merged back to the article on the series or a single article on the characters. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per SuperMarioMan, into Space: 1999 htom (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Purely in-universe perspective. No indication of independent notability. Transcendence (talk) 23:21, 13 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. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conjurers Encrypter

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or unreliable and thus unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Product appears to be a WP:run-of-the-mill encryption application. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireCMD. Msnicki (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (same issues as FireCMD) TEDickey (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided in the article indciate reviews in Softpedia and Cnet but an inspection of the sources show a description in a directory entry for a download link. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 9 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 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FireCMD

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources cited are all WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. As this is a new product apparently released just 2 weeks ago, the lack of sources is unsurprising. This product may become notable in the future but it isn't yet and Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conjurers Encrypter. Msnicki (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. An interesting product, and some day it may meet notability standards, but right now it does not. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (only "reviews" found were written by the developer) TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notability not enough though a review http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/FireCMD.shtml is written by third party. This link supports it: http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/ . This link http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/FireCMD-Screenshot-234232.html shows screenshots taken by third party (with their copyright notice) with captions. Moreover the software is being discussed at various programming forums and answer sites (though not a reliable source) like this link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16352779/how-to-run-powershell-in-firecmd. Software is available for download from multiple download directory sites. No point in deleting it when it seems like it may meet notability standard very soon. Also the software is being displayed on the home page of this reputed site, tagged as a new & popular software (not an advertisement) - http://alternativeto.net/ Nickjames90 (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia may call that a review, but I don't. All they've done is assign 1 to 5 stars without explaining how or why and without even signing the review with a byline. That's not serious review at all. Alternativeto is even less useful: The "like" votes may well be from the developers friends; there's no way to tell. It's certainly not reliable. And, yes, there is point in deleting an article that does not meet the notability standard, even if we think it might meet it soon: The point is that we have guidelines and we agree to cooperate and follow them. The guidelines ask that we ascertain there are sources now. We do not guess about the future. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. If additional sources appear a month from now, the article can easily be reinstated without prejudice. It can also be WP:USERFIED so you can work on it while searching for sources. Msnicki (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the website http://alternativeto.net/software/firecmd/about/ says the entry was added by "Brainasoft" (the company name). The above discussion doesn't present any new information addressing notability. TEDickey (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. Softpedia is just a directory of software, and the entry is categorically not a review. Stackoverflow is not a reliable source, nor is Alternativeto. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that this http://superdownloads.com.br/download/169/firecmd/ can be considered as a serious review. Nickjames90 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superdownloads is not a reliable source. Msnicki (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Which kind of sources can be considered as reliable sources? The site has got Google PR 6. Nickjames90 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superdownloads doesn't have any meaningful reputation for accuracy or editorial oversight. They're basically a catalog site and vendor of free downloads. This has nothing to do with popularity or PageRank. For more, please see WP:RS. Msnicki (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you determine this measure of "meaningful reputation" exactly? It looks like a "real" review site to me, complete with local content. This is not Softpedia. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're a catalog site and vendor of free downloads because (in case you couldn't tell by looking) that's what they say they are. From their about page, "Operates in Brazil since 1998, as a large catalog of software with more than 30,000 available for download from games, demos, shareware and freeware." They're no more reliable than a product description on Amazon, which we also do not accept as a suitable to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you what they were, so I'm not sure why you're answering some other question. But to that topic, download.com is also a "catalog site and vendor of free downloads", yet their reviews are CITEd all over the place. So back to my actual question: by what measure is a download.com review "good" and Superdownloads one "bad"? Can you offer any cogent metric? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The metric (at least, for me) is that they shouldn't be in the business of vending (even for free) the stuff they're reviewing. But also, I would point to the guidelines. To me, Superdownloads appears to be an WP:SPS: "This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." I certainly understand that some editors might interpret the guidelines differently, but this is how I would call it. Msnicki (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me the reliablility of the superdownloads.com site is undetermined. We don't know if it provides editorial oversight into the selection of software for review. It might or might not be. If there were other somewhat decent sources and this might tip the balance, then it might be worthwhile to post at the RS/N for an evaluation. But given that this is the only potential reliable source scraped up so far, even if it were to be deemed reliable, there's no other source to go with it. -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superdownloads does not appears to be a WP:SPS to me. I read some reviews and it appears that reviews are written by editorial staff, rather than users. Nickjames90 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate reviews aren't 100% positive. Find a review anywhere on that site where they identify flaws in anything. This is a catalog site in the business of offering downloads so of course everything is wonderful. I'll say again: These are no more reliable than the product descriptions on Amazon. Like Whpq, I don't exactly know how their reviews are generated but no way is this a publication with clear editorial oversight. Msnicki (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, they write positive reviews. But that does not mean that Superdownloads is not reliable. They do comparisons with other products. It can be only said not reliable in the case if their positive reviews are misleading and they write points about the product that are not true. Nickjames90 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing truth and reliability. They could be reporting things truthfully but that does not make them a reliable source. A reliable source is one with a reputation and editorial oversight, no conflict of interest and, in the case of a review, the ability to tell both sides, both the positive and the negative. I don't think anyone doubts that Amazon's product descriptions are true but that doesn't make them a reliable source, either. Do you see the difference? Msnicki (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon product descriptions are created by the users(the seller) and not by the editors of Amazon. But Superdownloads reviews seems to be created by editors and not by the users. You are 100% right that a good review should also cover the negative side but that does not make Superdownloads a non-reliable source. Comparatively the reviews which tell about both the sides can be considered as a better or more reliable source. We can compare a download.com review and Superdownloads review and can easily say that download.com review is more reliable than a Superdownloads review but we cant say that Superdownloads review is not reliable just because it does not show the negative side. Nickjames90 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, you still think they're a WP:RS and I don't so I've posted the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Superdownloads.com.br. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the images in the Superdownloads review are the same ones as used on the developer's site? How do we know they even installed and ran this product before writing the review? I think they just paraphrased whatever the developer said, copied his screenshots and called it good. If this site is promising 30K downloads, it's obviously not about searching out only the very best. It's about having more content than anyone else, even if most of it is indiscriminate. If the whole point is merely lots of content, one quick way to generate it is with paid website content writers, e.g., here, where you can buy it by the word, hour or page. Superdownloads is in Brazil, where labor rates may be cheap enough to allow them to employ an army of freelance writers furiously scribbling pages as fast as possible. Msnicki (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then again (as in more than one of the previous download-sites mentioned), the Superdownloads page may have been placed by the Brainasoft developer TEDickey (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point. Even considering Superdownloads as a reliable source, it is not enough to establish notability. Nickjames90 (talk) 02:15, 12 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 Userfied - non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H2i technologies

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

Company fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in WP:RS. For sources that are available, they are listings and passing mentions, company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - user has requested userfication at OTRS, ticket # 2013050610007761.--ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I have no objection to userfying the piece. I will keep tabs on it along with variations of the name to make sure when it comes back it contains the WP:RS needed to support notability. Thanks.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:33, 6 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 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Banerjee

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

Had both contested WP:PROD and WP:CsD, subject is non notable, he is director of a political party branch which is also non relevant (All India Trinamool Yuva), the article may not grown and get sufficiently beyond stub level and it is not going to provide enough context and background. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup to avoid promotionalism. Just clicking on the Gnews link finds coverage, among other things, of his wedding, his political remarks, etc. I think he passes the GNG. Ray^Talk 14:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the party he is a member of is significant, is in power in a state, and he has influence in the party organization due to his aunt being the party and state chief. Apart from him heading two cells/branches in the organisation there is comment in the press on his misuse of his political connections. Original article was written by a fan ( or maybe a political aide), even now article keeps getting changed to include only positive comments so some balancing is required. Injun Gone Loco (talk) 11:09, 7 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. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ILMUNC

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

One of hundreds of Model UN conventions. No indication that this one is notable. Hosted by Ivy League schools, but that doesn't make it automatically notable, as notability is not inherited based on host of conference. Only 1 third party source, a reference from U Penn's student newspaper--the remaining sources are all WP:SELFPUB. GrapedApe (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zilch on GNews, nothing outstanding. Posh presentation, but not notable.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-primary reliable source significant coverage or passing mentions found, clearly does not meet GNG or ORG and thus deletion of the article appears to be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:44, 12 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 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic B. Pratt

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

One of a number of articles about relatives of oil magnate Charles Pratt. It's been unsourced for 5 years. The fact he was president of the board of the Pratt Institute is unremarkable, considering he is one of the family. By and large this is a genealogical piece which would be better recorded elsewhere. Sionk (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems to be a leader of industry and gets a few credit points for being related to someone important and being the president of that institution is remarkable however he got the job. There are many hits for him in the New York Times archive, more than passing coverage, including coverage of his death [13]. AFD isn't the place for sourcing issues, see WP:BEFORE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, but I had a look for sources and didn't see anything compelling. There's no evidence he was a "leader of industry" and people certainly don't inherit notability here from their parents. He was President of an Art College which, today or 100 years ago, doesn't automatically give a free pass through WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know there's "no evidence" when you don't have any sources and haven't apparently looked at them? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not stop jumping to assumptions about me and stick to identifying significant in-depth coverage about Frederic Pratt? The 'hits' in the NYT archive are largely society notices and announcements about events that he, or his relatives, were involved in, for example attending weddings, funerals, fetes, balls, or handing out the annual graduation certificates. Whether that's significant enough to mark him out, well, my opinion would be no, it isn't. Sionk (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you think there are several mentions in the social circulars? Might it be that he was a notable businessman and philanthropist, or did the NYT just decide to include a series of random facts about anyone and anything? Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The fact that he's held high offices in notable position should be enough to squeak through for notability, but sourcing would be great. ^King Jakob _C2 11:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad case of WP:INHERIT. The leadership of the Pratt Institute can go to that article, and the bit about the AOC predecessor to the relevant article.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF C6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Ray^Talk 00:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was not elected to an academic post. He was President of the Board of a private art college. Sionk (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Thanks for correcting me. Striking my opinion then. Ray^Talk 16:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - RayAYang was right the first time. WP:PROF Criterion 6 does indeed state: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." That he was appointed and that the institution is private are both irrelevant. By any reasonable measure, Pratt Institute is a major academic society and he was in post for 44 years. Edwardx (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. Pratt wasn't an academic, he was a businessman and son of the founder. Boards of trustees aren't appointed or elected for their academic prowess, as far as I'm aware. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated my opinion, given the evidence unearthed by Mscuthbert below that he was president of the institution for 40+ years. Ray^Talk 01:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See my argument above. Clearly passes WP:PROF Criterion 6. And I'm working on improving the referencing. Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Criterion 6: the president of the board of trustees at Pratt is the president of the school, which is a significant institution. How he got there is irrelevant to the criterion; it doesn't matter if he's an academic or not, it's that he led a significant academic institution. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 6 quite clearly applies to academic posts. Appointed or elected academic posts, such as academic Chair posts, are indications of significant academic achievement in teaching/research, hence denoting the likelihood of notability. WP:PROF is a notability criteria for academics, isn't it. Sionk (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, is there any sort of information to that effect? The title "President of the Board of Trustees" is no longer used at the modern Pratt website. It's really a question of whether he was running the school on a day to day basis or whether he was more removed, at least in my mind. A person who functions as the head of a major academic institution is notable for his academic contributions, regardless of what his formally listed vocation might be. Ray^Talk 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ray -- you're right that a RS list of presidents would be helpful. I was mostly going on our own list at Pratt Institute which lists him as the sole president 1893–1937. If there were evidence that someone else was actually running the place and he was a figurehead I'd reconsider, but from this NYTimes article it really looks like he was running things and was notable for his commissioning of architects. The Pratt Institute website refers to the brother Charles simply as "President" for his two year term [14] (see 1891), so I don't think it's too much to suppose that he was anything less... Aha! This brochure published by Pratt for its 125th anniversary [15] calls him president on pp. 13 and 14 and on p. 27 says "1923 Frederic B. Pratt becomes president of the board of trustees and assumes leadership of the Institute." (emphasis added). I think it's pretty clear that he was in charge of a major institution, which is a pass of WP:PROF#C6; and the other sources are enough to establish GNG also. Note the obit in the NYTimes -- always enough for GNG if it's unpaid. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And note from NYTimes obit -- honorary doctorate Amherst College, which is spelled out in WP:PROF as also a clear sign of notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pratt was not an academic. Thus references to WP:PROF are irrelevant.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Gnews link contains a lot of coverage of him as heir to one of the country's greater fortunes, not least of which is his obituary in the New York Times [16]. Numerous other sources only referenced in digital databases, due to age of the subject, searching through EBSCO and the like. I think it's quite probable that he may pass the GNG; I may try to track down some of the sources. Ray^Talk 15:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I'm sitting on the fence here with regards to a recommendation either way. If there's anything beyond brief mentions in the newspapers of the day, it may tip the balance (clearly WP:PROF is irrelevant but I'd give credit to anyone who can show he meets WP:GNG). Sionk (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The president of the board of tustees of a major academic institution like Pratt Institute is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claims "Prat was not an academic" ignore the fact that he held the top post at a major Academic Institution. He was leading a major academic institution in a postion that clearly is one that we consider all holders of ntoabel, he was notable, we should have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All we're saying is he wasn't an academic. The noun 'academic' normally refers to a teacher or someone studying at a college. The fact he was leading a college of education is something different, maybe a valid claim to notability depending on your viewpoint. Sionk (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very rare for the President or Chair of a Board of Trustees to be President of the organization, but Pratt was at least at the time an exception. So he was head of a university level institution -- even in its early days it was famous, so he meets the criterion for notability . We do not have to investigate how or why he was appointed--it doesn't make any difference. If we start rejecting heads of organizations because of nepotism, it's going to get absurd. If he were effectually acting president, or president for a few months of transition, it might make a difference; but he was president for 44 years. And there was a full editorial obit from the NYT, which we have always accepted as proof of notability. HI think we have also always accepted honorary doctorates. That NYT obit is enough for the GNG (we'll find them in other papers also, but they're not as well indexed). I find it strange to understand the objections here once it was clear he was effectual executive head of the college; I find it inconceivable that there remain objections after the NYT obit was pointed out. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 13 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 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Chambers

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

Sourced to a track listing for seven years, this is a bit tricky to source because of the generic name, but working from the album title, I was unable to find GNG-worthy coverage of this musician. Additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 10:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned, the name is common enough to make searching difficult. Based on the information in the article, looking for reviews of his album State and Montgomery turned up no reviews. The CD Baby link in the article ended up leading me to another album. a search for It takes a tough man to kill a chicken turned up no reviews either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage. Transcendence (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Checking a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, I too was unable to find any coverage that would be helpful in establishing WP:MUSICBIO notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 14 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 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IK Aarhus

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

This is a Danish hockey team that plays in the second-tier league of that country. It's unreferenced except for the official page. I simply don't know whether the league is high-level enough for a team in it to pass WP:NSPORT. If not, my Google-fu turned up nothing else notable about this team (beyond a funny Harlem Shake video). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE, WP:CORP, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not come up with much either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qworty. Transcendence (talk) 23:24, 13 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. Also nom withdrawn (SK#1). (non-admin closure) czar · · 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope and Social

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

Doesn't really meet notability critera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC); band has never charted, has not been subject to published works to the best of my searching, and every other criterion on the list. the1akshay (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, tricky. It seems that Hope and Social were originally called Four Day Hombre, which currently serves as a redirect to this article under discussion. While I couldn't find anything meeting WP:BAND for Hope and Social, there's plenty of coverage out there for Four Day Hombre: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Since Hope and Social are essentially the same band as Four Day Hombre but with a different name, I'm !voting Weak Keep, but I'm not sure what the correct name of the article should be. — sparklism ^hey! 08:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the line-up of Four Day Hombre and Hope and Social are the same, the music and the approach are very different, as said in the article. Combined with the name change, it seems to me like it's a different band in spirit. Every other article related to this topic references Four Day Hombre, not Hope & Social. Perhaps we should keep (or rename, readd, whatever) Four Day Hombre but remove Hope & Social? I guess I'm !voting Delete though, if push came to shove. 86.2.52.142 (talk) 10:48, 4 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, Dea db eef 07:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename. Four Day Hombre is notable, [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], the only coverage of Hope and Social I can find is on the official site, events listings/announcements in local news, and blogs. Peter James (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename, yes, I've changed my mind. The question is whether to rename or not. the1akshay (talk) 11:10, 12 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. Courcelles 07:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan deeran

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are trivial mentions. Speedy contested by IP. Ish dar ian 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a close call. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or mere trivial coverage. Googling turned up absolutely nothing useful. Additionally, I note that the article appears to be the work of one or more WP:SPAs. Msnicki (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable: person is a publisher of a major news organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.20.139 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC) — 96.250.20.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Plenty of WP:RS about person, confirming WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.59.234 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:N test because person is publisher of large media company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.66 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are trivial or self-published. Possible meat puppetry above. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bet is plain sock puppetry. All the IP addresses map to Brooklyn, NY or New York, NY. Two are assigned to Verizon, one is at NYU. Notice also the same repeated mistake, forgetting to sign, the similar reference to the subject as "person", and the similar arguments about the subject running a "major news organization" or "large media company". (He's apparently just a salesman.) I think they're all the same person, probably the subject himself. Msnicki (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reasoning as Msnicki. Transcendence (talk) 21:04, 5 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, Dea db eef 07:05, 6 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 GeForce. (non-admin closure) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GeForce 900 Series

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

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Sourced entirely to an NVidia blog, and there's no guarantee that it will be named anything like this, or that major changes won't appear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the page (and a rookie wikipedia editor), I agree that the information is not full enough to have an article by itself. It can be merged into a subtopic of a previous generation GeForce page (either 700 or 800) Rgrasmus (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, that's not really appropriate. For starters, neither of those have been released, so talk of a "successor" is very premature. Secondly, this article is solely sourced to an NVidia blog post - not even an official roadmap on their website, or in a press release. That's not to say that you couldn't source it better, but I didn't bother looking as this is way in the future. Thirdly, if any information was to be located, then it may belong in the main GeForce article - but as it's all speculation (and, seemingly, quite wild speculation as well), then it's not really appropriate to do that either. It's also completely pointless having this userfied (it would have to stay there for at least 2 years; may as well start from scratch when it comes closer to the release date.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies if it looks like I'm being unduly harsh; I was not aware you were a lesser experienced Wikipedia editor, and hopefully this experience won't put you off making other articles. If you want any help, feel free to ask me, or any tame administrator. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It seems that someone had changed my reference article from an Engadget article to the nVidia blog. The engadget one is here. It was from a talk given by the CEO of the company. The Volta architecture is listed under the GPU Roadmap in the second image. The two main faults with this current article that I agree with are that the Volta architecture has not been announced as the formal GeForce 900 series and the 2016 release date is merely interpolated. Rgrasmus (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of making the page a redirect to GeForce#Future? Rgrasmus (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source is much better, and that redirect would be perfectly valid, assuming a brief mention in that section is made. I'd leave out mention of the release date for now, though, unless there's a half-decent source with their vague estimate at one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not yet the typical 7 days, but I don't think anyone else will be contributing to the discussion and we both agree to replace the existing page with a redirect to the GeForce#Future section (along with some minor updates to that section). What is the process for closing the discussion? I will hold off on creating the redirect until the discussion is formally closed. Rgrasmus (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the author of the page, if you redirect it now, I'll then shut the AfD. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rgrasmus (talk) 19:42, 7 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. Michig (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Dominik Takács

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

over 5 years after the article was created. this fails WP:VICTIM, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There doesn't seem to be much in English-language sources but there was some international coverage (e.g., the cited article in the Brisbane Times) article claims extended coverage in Hungarian media, which might be enough for notability. Note that the age of the article is irrelevant: if the subject was notable five years ago, it is still notable now and continued coverage is not a requirement. Also, I don't think that WP:VICTIM applies here, since the article is about the event and not, for example, a biography of Dominic Takács. Dricherby (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how about WP:PERSISTENCE ? LibStar (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSISTENCE means that the event needs to have coverage for a period of time after it happens; WP:NOTTEMPORARY means that an event doesn't still need to have coverage five years later. If the incident really did "dominate Hungarian media for several weeks", that might be enough to satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE as not being just "a burst or spike of news reports". Dricherby (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No lasting significance, so fails WP:NOT policy. LGA _talk^edits 08:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article was written, when we did not know that this poor boy was killed by the family dog. So, according to WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this article does not meet the criteria of notability. I think, WP:VICTIM is not relevant here. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the page was created on 18 October 2007, six days after the mother admitted that Dominik was killed by their dogs. The only major piece of information that's in the current article but wasn't in the original is that police were considering charges against the parents. Dricherby (talk) 13:10, 9 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. Michig (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a conjecture concerning the petersen graph

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

I prodded this, but the prod was removed several days later by an IP editor with no explanation and no improvement. The prod rationale was: "A recent research paper with absolutely zero citations in Google scholar. Without secondary sources that describe its results in nontrivial detail, it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards". The article creator has also spammed this material to Petersen graph, Graph factorization, and Michael D. Plummer. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything relevant to Petersen graph and delete as an unlikely search term and non-notable concept. Stalwart111 07:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Academic papers are not inherently notable and this one doesn't seem to have had any more impact than the norm and certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. I don' think there's any need to merge any of the content into Petersen graph: people conjecture and prove things all the time. Full proofs (or disproofs) of long-standing conjectures can be worth a comment but "Robertson, with some co-authors, provided a partial proof of one of his own conjectures" isn't likely to be, even with Robertson being one of the world's leading graph theorists. Also, though this isn't a reason for deletion, the current article seems somewhat inaccurate, since it talks about "the counterexample", which is not a counterexample to the conjecture but, rather, to the idea that a stronger version of the conjecture holds for non-cubic graphs. ‎Dricherby (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should say I have no objection if expert (or more informed, at least) opinion is that there is nothing worth merging. Your explanation seems sound and I'm happy to accept that the sum total of merge-worthy content may well be zero. Stalwart111 10:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd describe myself as "informed", rather than "expert" on this topic. I'm a theoretical computer scientist so I'm confident in my understanding of the mathematics in this paper but I'd certainly defer to an actual graph theorist's opinion of its importance. If it is merge-worthy, it would probably be a sentence or two at most. Dricherby (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I know David (the nom) has a pretty good understanding of this stuff, too, so there's something to be said for his judgement in bringing this to AFD in the first place. Stalwart111 12:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dricherby (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This paper seems to have no citations in other works and the only web refs I could find are pointers to this paper or an associated conference presentation. The work seems non-notable, or at least it is WP:TOOSOON. The work itself doesn't prove the conjecture, only a special (albeit useful) case. The new editor creating this article also created one other article, on Michael D. Plummer, also an author on the paper, suggesting that the editor may have some association to this paper or its authors. With the paper falling below general notability guidelines, and no other secondary works discussing this proof, this article also fails general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. Given no secondary references or citations found, even verifiability is in question, so a merge is not recommended at this time. --Mark viking (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing worth merging. —Mark Dominus (talk) 07:30, 7 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. Closing discussion. Nominator has withdrawn per improvements and sources and there are no arguments for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Last Night (2014 film)

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

I came across this as a PROD and seeing as it didn't pass WP:NFF at that point in time, I redirected it to Sexual Perversity in Chicago#Film adaptations since it was simply WP:TOOSOON for this to pass notability guidelines. The film doesn't release until next year and all of the coverage so far has been "so and so is starring in this film" type of coverage. Nothing that would show that the film passes the very strict standards for unreleased films. I've tried redirecting this three times, giving the editor several warnings that this didn't pass notability guidelines. Since they seem to be adamant about this remaining an article, I'm taking it to AfD to ensure that this doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the same editor has tried to create this through AfC and has been declined twice. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the same editor has deleted the passage I put in the article for Sexual Perversity in Chicago for this film, possibly in an attempt to dissuade any further attempts to redirect. I've left messages for the editor, but with zero response from him or her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as PRODder (PROD). While I would prefer a delete, I would support a consensus to redirect-and-protect to Sexual Perversity in Chicago#Film adaptations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update There are now more references and this article may meet WP:GNG. I am not familiar enough with film-related deletion debates to determine if the listed coverage is considered significant by Wikipedia standards. Changing from "delete" to "defer to history of similar discussions where there was similar coverage." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now as above to Sexual Perversity in Chicago#Film adaptations. As the film has been receiving coverage, and IS in post-production an undeletion/recreation is likely to be expected soon enough that a salting should be unneccessary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Struck my opinion. See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I have seen the articles in pre-production and filming status. This film is in post-production state and can be kept at Wikipedia according to the policies. And you know this better than me.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 04:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While an article in "post" is more likely to have received significant coverage than a similarly-well-known/similarly-promoted movie in the pre-production or filming stage would, there are no doubt films that get widely covered within 24 hours of the announcement of the plans for the film. On the flip side, there are many films that actually exist which are not notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The biggie here is that the film's production would have to have received a lot of in-depth coverage, which this film hasn't. Most of what we have is so insanely light that it wouldn't really keep the film if, by some chance, the film were to release and receive zero coverage after that fact. It might seem unlikely that it wouldn't receive any further coverage, but it's not impossible and there have been multiple films in similar circumstances that were either pushed back even farther (and gotten no additional in-depth coverage) or released with no actual other coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guidelines for future films because it is verifiable that production has taken place and per the general notability guidelines since there was coverage in both Variety and The Hollywood Reporter about this film in development. (Also found this from Toronto Sun in my research.) Considering the director and the cast, I find it highly unlikely that this film will not be reviewed. Its notability will only be further reinforced as the release date gets closer. Tokyogirl79, my experience with film coverage is that there is generally a lot of attention at the start (especially from the trade papers I mentioned) due to big names being involved, and there is a second surge of coverage right around the time of the film's release. In between, circumstances will vary. Subject matter with fan bases (e.g., comic book films) will be heavily covered throughout its whole production. If a film is shot somewhere relatively unusual (e.g., Shreveport, Louisiana), there tends to be local coverage to draw upon. However, there is a subset of films that go through production without much attention, but I think that the early (and especially repeated) coverage from the trade papers make it highly likely that this is a film that will get attention upon arrival. Is there a chance that it won't ever be released? Yes, but for films that have entered production, the odds of that are very, very small. In my opinion, it's not enough to delete this article which, considering these circumstances, is not detrimental to have on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a "Production" section using the aforementioned trade papers. I think that there is more substance than just who appears in the film, even though I think even that would be enough in such an article. Even a cast list is useful in terms of navigating Wikipedia instead of IMDb or other websites; readers who hear about the film can come here and then look at the actors' articles. In any case, I've added a bit about development history (personally find it neat that it was in development since Jan. '11) and that casting began before a director was found. Not to mention filming at Dodger Stadium. Sorry to add on, I just think this is a clear-cut case and wanted to articulate and demonstrate why. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per major improvements and in agreeing with Erik. GNG is now met for a completed film. Was happy to strike my earlier opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom. I'm not too proud to admit that I was wrong, so can someone close this up? I didn't see the sources when I'd searched and I'd been pretty certain that this was just one of many articles added by a green editor with unreliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closeup I think it is better to close it up for now...after agreeing of Tokyogirl79.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 06:20, 8 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. Michig (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen meat incubator

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

Promotion for something that does not seem to exist. What the article seems to be about is home devices for growing animal cells in vitro, to produce something that resembles meat. The concept may conceivably be worth an article if some reliable sources can be found ; a home device for making it is WP:CRYSTAL. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely WP:SPECULATION, except for the bits that are promotional. This technology is many years away from being usable in the home – I remember seeing a news item about artificial meat recently in which they ate the first sample of synthetic meat, which was about half a teaspoon and had taken months or years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to grow. Dricherby (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per DGG and Dricherby. --Harimau Belang (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-o-rama: Does not exist. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:13, 7 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. As commentators have said there is no reason to delete this redirect, you can create the draft in AFC or your userspace and ask an admin to move it over the redirect for you. For the future, please keep in mind that redirects should be nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under Covers (NCIS)

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

This is a redirect page for an episode of the TV series NCIS. I am planning to make a full article for the subject but want to do it through Articles for Creation. That allows more time to find sources and write a good draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ST7 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any reason why you can't develop it at AfC and then just request a technical move (WP:G6) once it's completed? czar · · 04:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary if you need the redirect gone to put an article there, G6 is exactly the way to go. Ping me or any other admin who works in Television content, and we should be able to deal with it quickly and essentially effortlessly. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just make a userspace draft and have an administrator take care of it when you're done writing it. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 16:28, 12 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 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InGoodTaste

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

Community radio program; I do not see how it can be notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I've only found a few passing mentions in Googling. Not surprising for a radio station that itself looks non-notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:53, 6 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. Michig (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anny Slater

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

promotional article on borderline notable attorney. awards are not national, or are only as "finalist" DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be notable, implies possible WP:COI issues, and WP:NOTLINKEDIN Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 7 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 05:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Garabedian

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

I can find no evidence that Eric Garabedian (or Ëric Garabedian as the article says) is an Armenian artist, let alone the one who is "most credited with the rebirth of Armenian art." Additionally, the one citation (about his death in the 1999 Armenian parliament shooting) makes no mention of him, and no other links I looked up about the shooting mention him at all. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 01:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 02:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax (possibly even speedy delete). I also cannot find any evidence that this person existed, either searching by name or by "Shepard of Armenia" (or "Shepherd of Armenia"). If the article is deleted, he needs to be removed from List of Armenian artists, too. Dricherby (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree.Deb (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 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. Michig (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Janine

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO - Created by confirmed sockpuppet of banned spammer: Voidz [34] PeterWesco (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. czar · · 04:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she appears to meet WP:PORNBIO Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO in my reading, not even item (2): she got a minor award as an actor in a genre, not as its creator.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO, the only valid award is the nominee for XBIZ Award, both Tranny Awards and Blog O Porn O's Model of the Year are not notable/well-known awards and do not count towards notability. Being an extra in a notable film or having a supporting role in a non-notable TV-movie does not count for notability. Playboy TV's Foursome has several news sources and appears to be a possibly-notable TV-program, but none of the sources I have found mentions Janine at all. Fails GNG, just a couple of brief news sources about her at AVN, possibly press releases, (eg. [35]) but nothing of substance. Cavarrone (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of GNG. Okay, time for a pop quiz on BLP. Who has problems with the following???

(1) Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with her mother, a registered nurse; her stepfather, a warehouse manager; her father, a retired Vietnam Veteran Sergeant; her stepmother, a CPA; three steps brothers, and one half brother. — UNSOURCED

(2) Alia's parent's were never married, and with both of her parent's other marriages, Alia moved a total of 28 times and went to 12 different school in 3 states. -- SOURCED TO A DE FACTO FAN WIKI

(3) Alia had a passion for dancing that had lead her to become an exotic dancer in her early 20s. -- UNSOURCED

(4) Before she had fully learned the burlesque circuit she had fallen in love, and decided to settle down only after a year and half of performing. --UNSOURCED

(5) She then attended college at a local technical school to study on of her other passions, the law, and went for a degree in Criminal Justice. --UNSOURCED

(6) In her first year she made the honor roll, by her second year she was a member of two honor societies, her last year she was certified for law enforcement, and obtained her private security license for the state of Wisconsin. -- UNSOURCED

(7) After a horrible breakup Alia decided to try to pursue dancing one more time. -- UNSOURCED

(8) On her 30th birthday she moved to Florida to attend dance school. -- UNSOURCED

(9) Dancing wasn't the only art she explored in Florida, however, and she soon gave performing in pornographic movies a try. --UNSOURCED

(10) Though she is most popularly known for her work against Measure B, the mandatory condom law in Los Angeles. --UNSOURCED

(11) Besides performing on stage and in films, Alia has also posed for magazines such as "Score", "Gent", "D-Cup", "Busty Beauties" and is in Lainie Speiser's book, "Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars." --UNSOURCED

(12) Alia has also hosted "Foursome" (2006) for Playboy TV, and has also tried things on the mainstream side of the entertainment industry. --UNSOURCED

It's time to wipe this kind of shit out of WP. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails PORNBIO and the GNG, as well as BLP basics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 10 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 'Deleted Speedied under CSD:G5 Hasteur (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baryo Hakshur

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO - Created by confirmed sockpuppet of banned spammer: Voidz [36] PeterWesco (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG; trivial media presence except self-promotion and minor event announcements.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no opinion here (so far), but please note that according to he:שיחה:בריו חקשור (the Hebrew Wikipedia's equivalent article's talk page), there has apparently been significant coverage of Hakshur (also spelled Chakshur) in Hebrew-language media. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not in a position to parse those sources from the Hebrew Wikipedia... could someone post links here? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gladly. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Baryo Chakshur–related articles at chasidinews.com
2. (The second link given there is dead)
3. Baryo Chakshur–related articles at bhol.co.il

OK, thank you! That first link looks like a blog, how is it as far as reliability goes? The third link is to a page of search results - if some article from there is being cited for some fact here, we should do that more precisely. But as a source the site looks OK generally. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Giacca

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:SOURCES - No sources
WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO - Article was created by a WP:SOCK of banned spammer: Voidz PeterWesco (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seemed like an easy keep, but upon sourcing there is hardly anything out there. Hard to pin down the exact criteria as a producer/DJ, but fails WP:MUSIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. There is a claim to hosting a radio show that is broadcast in over 60 stations workdwide, but as far as I can tell, it's not an actual radio show, and is a podcast. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Very little found. --Michig (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted Article was speeded under CSD:G5. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. E (DJ)

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:RS - "werunthis" "hypesrus" "blogspot"
WP:SELF - Self sourced
WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO - Article was created by a WP:SOCK of banned spammer: Voidz PeterWesco (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable DJ. Koala15 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Relevant Discography StefanMau 01:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefanMau (talk • contribs) [reply]

- Comment What do you mean by relevant, he just remixes other peoples songs he does not work with them. Koala15 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thats not right, he works with them on songs as well as compilations, e.g. did you check the songs / videos So Disgusting or Let Em In? They are original, no remixes. StefanMau 03:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except "other Releases" - The compilations & productions are notable" Girsh.khoja (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable, he plays an important part in todays official hip hop compilations. He worked with the biggest names in the hip hop industry. G-Search brought pictures and audio recordings with him and his artists vibing in the studio and on stage. Also i remember the We Run This tv commercials Bhavana 14:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavana.parihar (talk • contribs)
Delete. I've checked the German sources, nothing there except WP:SELFPUBLISH. The other sources are either not WP:RS or unrelated. Also I deleted the faked interwiki link to the German wiki, there never was an article about him. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Yunshui (A9). (non-admin closure) Gong show 20:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exogamy (album)

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:Promo/WP:Sock - Article has been almost entirely edited/maintained by sockpuppets [37]
WP:WalledGarden - Of sockpuppet created, maintained, and endorsed articles. PeterWesco (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Yunshui (A9). (non-admin closure) Gong show 20:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sundress

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:Promo/WP:Sock - Article has been almost entirely edited/maintained by sockpuppets [38]
WP:WalledGarden - Of sockpuppet created, maintained, and endorsed articles. PeterWesco (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability. However, nominator has not provided information about claims of sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I included a link in the AfD (see above) to the most recent sockpuppet investigation and also on your talk page with much more detail. PeterWesco (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Yunshui (A9). (non-admin closure) Gong show 20:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity (album)

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:Promo/WP:Sock - Article has been almost entirely edited/maintained by sockpuppets [39]
WP:WalledGarden - Of sockpuppet created, maintained, and endorsed articles. PeterWesco (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely a walled garden. Recommend consolidating Exogamy (album), Black Sundress, Continuity (album), Paul Allgood, and Wedlock discography into one AfD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:18, 6 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. Michig (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Allgood

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:Promo/WP:Sock - Article has been almost entirely edited/maintained by sockpuppets [40]
WP:WalledGarden - Of sockpuppet created, maintained, and endorsed articles. PeterWesco (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WalledGarden - Of sockpuppet created, maintained, and endorsed articles. PeterWesco (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[[[Delete]]] - Definitely a walled garden. Recommend consolidating Exogamy (album), Black Sundress, Continuity (album), Paul Allgood, and Wedlock discography into one AfD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems that his main claim to notability is being part of Wedlock but they are not notable, their article has been deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG. TheBlueCanoe 20:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED by User:Yunshui per WP:CSD#A9, following the deletion of the band's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedlock (band) (2nd nomination). postdlf (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wedlock discography

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

WP:GNG - Not notable
WP:Promo/WP:Sock - Article has been almost entirely edited/maintained by sockpuppets [41] PeterWesco (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WalledGarden - Of sockpuppet created, maintained, and endorsed articles. PeterWesco (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[[[Delete]]] - Definitely a walled garden. Recommend consolidating Exogamy (album), Black Sundress, Continuity (album), Paul Allgood, and Wedlock discography into one AfD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for band article here. If the band is deleted as not notable, I see no basis for listing their albums. Best practice to follow in the future would be to have listed this along with the band's article in one AFD, or to at least link to that AFD given that this is largely dependent on it, instead of making readers track it down on their own. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Dames

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

Fails PORNBIO, all but one award/nom are scene-related. No nontrivial relevant GNews or GBooks hits (but a whole batch of typos and press releases). No substantial, reliably sourced biographical content. Deprodded without comment by an IP with no edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The award isn't much but it's better then nothing →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's been in a lot of films, has the award nom and the arrest is interesting. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the above !votes provides any appropriate basis for keeping an article whose subject fails the GNG and all applicable SNGs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has been nominated for AVN awards multiple times per WP:PORNBIO. However, there doesn't seem to be much else of note for this article. Weak Delete Only one non-scene AVN aware per WP:PORNBIO. If there were anything else that contributed to notability, I would change my opinion back to Weak Keep.Transcendence (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, per PORNBIO, "Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration", and that two of three nominations for the subject are scene categories and therefore, per PORNBIO, are not counted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one's honestly a tough call and probably in the gray area a little bit, but I don't think she quite fits the notability guidelines. Not enough notability to meet WP:PORNBIO as established earlier, and it's nice to have a stub article referenced with more than two references, but there's not enough of a body here to make use of them. Most likely, I'd say that's because there's not enough notability to have any available verifiable information to put in the body of the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 01:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO; no other notability source. I would say like User:Red Phoenix that there is "not enough of a body", though from the photo that IS a lot of body. But then again, not WP-worthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 09:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petite Prince

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

Not notable.

Google search with "Petite Prince manga" turns up scanlators and blogs.
Google search with "Pachi Puri manga" turns up scanlators.
Both anime manga custom google search 1 and 2 turn up no hits. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see where this particular manga is really notable as far as Wikipedia's guidelines for books go. It hasn't been officially released in English and a look at Japanese sources (using Google Translate) brings up little as well. I'd recommend a redirect to the author's page, but I can't really find much on her page to suggest notability as well. There is some merit in using the name as a redirect to the completely unrelated book "The Little Prince" since the original French title is "Le Petit Prince" and it's reasonable enough to assume that someone would type in "Petite Prince" trying to navigate to the French novel. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to just "delete" per the comments below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The standard Romanization of the katakana title is Puchi Puri. I see no reason for having a letter 'e' in "Petite". Where did that come from? --Lambiam 10:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Must've been a fansub and the editor just copied it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a lot of sense. Since this is the case, I have no issue with it being a redirect for the Little Prince. As far as the "e" goes, I think it might just be the person writing it being more familiar with the Western/English spelling of "petite" rather than the French spelling "petit". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to The Little Prince per Tokyogirl. Ansh666 00:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, no established notability. Plot and characters are at best like trivia since the article lacks any real relevant information about the material. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 01:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see this passing WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing that would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, most sources are scans of prints. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:41, 6 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.