Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 February	1 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flask, Highgate[edit]

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

This article is a conflation of two different places. The Flask Pub Flask Walk, Hampstead and The Flask in West Hill, Highgate. As it stands it is clear editor has mistaken them to be one and the same and notability of the subject is consequently compromised Tmol42 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not noteworthy as a pub or a historic building (Grade II listed buildings are two-a-penny, and need something stronger to pass muster). Davidships (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned in a number of sources according to English Heritage which when combined with Grade II is more than enough for notability. Also, I see no conflation with The Flask in Hampstead here http://www.theflaskhampstead.co.uk/contact-us.php This article clearly relates to The Flask in Highgate. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it was changed. Still notable though. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fixing the accidental conflation only took me a few minutes, so the stated AfD rationale no longer applies. As for a possible new rationale as suggested by Davidships above, there is very signifcant history attaching to this pub. It "stood there at least as early as 1663", according to 1936's Survey of London: volume 17: The parish of St Pancras part 1: The village of Highgate.[1]. I will add some of this information. Edwardx (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both places seem to be notable and so, rather than deleting, we need another page. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks fine now. Szzuk (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Looks OK, but I would prefer to see "not to be confused with" templates on both this and the Hampstead article, rather than each having a see also section. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the pubs are already disambiguated by the use of Highgate and Hampstead, I think see also entries are sufficient. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Olympics (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I question the practical use of this separate disambiguation page. Most of this page is essentially a duplicate of Winter Olympic Games#List of Winter Olympic Games. Then there are only two other links currently listed on Winter Olympics (disambiguation)#Other Uses. A better alternative would be to modify hatnotes on the top of Winter Olympic Games,[2] instead of having readers go to this additional DAB page. The number pages that need to be disambiguated does not currently go above Template:Redirect's limit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was previously a hatnote at the top of Winter Olympic Games. However, I felt that the disambig page was worthwhile as the two main 'alternative' uses are significantly less notable than the topic itself. On the other hand, I completely see your point; happy for it to go if people agree so. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page but delete the list of Winter Olympics from it, leaving only a link to the Winter Olympics article, the TV episode, and the game. bd2412 T 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the two disambiguations are better handled by a hatnote, as has already been done. PamD 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A disambiguation page with 3 names is valid. There are also several books with similar titles, and a band[3][4][5][6][7][8]: I'm not saying any are definitely notable, but it's possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is a disambiguation, shouldn't there be more pages mentioned? And shouldn't this page be in list form? I don't think it's doing its proper job for disambiguation, should either be deleted or edited to be more clear. Adamh4 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a rule of design that says, "keep it simple, but not too simple". I skimmed 400 hundred articles that were returned with a search on Winter Olympics, and noticed "Top Gear Winter Olympics" and "Winter Olympic sports". At this point I don't know how many related articles there are, but I see no purpose to posting anything at the top of the main article except for one link to a disambiguation page. Unscintillating (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSU Prima V[edit]

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

Have failed to find reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. BethNaught (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems that the NSU Motorenwerke "Prima" line is notable, [9] I can't really find much on this specific model. Perhaps it was marketed differently in Europe and more sources exist in other languages.--Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have nominate this for speedy deletion for unambiguous advertising and copyright infringement. It appears to be copied directly from an advertisement for a particular scooter. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article predates the kijiji ad by several months - the copying went the other way around. Wily D 10:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any substantial coverage on this particular model, just YouTube videos, fan sites, and people selling them. If anything, a brief mentioning about this model on NSU Motorenwerke is sufficient enough. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Tinsley railway station#Abandoned plans. WP:NOTBURO; consensus is clear. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowhall (Tivoli Gardens) railway station[edit]

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

A railway station that was never built, and there is no evidence of this having any notability at all, either here, or in Google. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Tinsley railway station would seem to be the appropriate place for this. Mjroots (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowhall Interchange would probably be more suitable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Tinsley railway station. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Tinsley railway station#Abandoned Plans, which already contains all the useful information. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Tinsley railway station. This doesn't seem notable, and I would be surprised if any such scheme (short-lived, aborted, of little interest outside Yorkshire) was notable. There are a few possible targets, e.g. Meadowhall Centre, Meadowhall Interchange, and if the aborted expansion plans for Meadowhall are discussed anywhere it could be merged/redirected there, but since West Tinsley already covers the topic a redirect to that article would be the least work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additionally, a discussion regarding a potential merge can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic nations[edit]

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

I propose to delete this article because of content forking. There is a more appropriate article for the subject (Celts (modern)). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (merge what's acceptable but isn't merged already) It's also what I call a 'Wikipediaism' - something promoted by Wikipedians, if not pretty much invented by them. It's historically fluff as a term. There was no such thing as 'Celtic nations' when the Celts were around, and they cannot be called 'Celtic' now in any properly academic sense: at most it's a candy word for sports games, historical events and the like. But these endless sub articles just get forked with all kinds contentious politics. I think this article just happens to suit various nationalists in here who want these places to be sovereign countries, and it appears to me that they are largely the people who frequent this page. A section on modern Celtic ancestry should be enough for any properly academic encyclopedia in my view. (ie in the actual Celts article - but this should be deleted all the same, as I argued on the talk page a year or so ago). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The two articles are about two different things. One is about the political territories in Europe, the other is about the ethnic (i.e. cultural) group that includes those living in other parts of the world, such as the Welsh language community in Patagonia. Bodrugan (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are 'Cornish' though. The idea of that being a 'Celtic nation' is just romantic. It's not encyclopedic enough for it's own page - none of it is. It's too political, and it's not historically accurate enough. Celts did not have nations, and Cornwall is not a nation now. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep-merge, Fakirbakir, what are you up to? There are naming issues here, but the way to resolve them is not deleting articles left and right, the solution is coming up with decent proposals for re-arranging the topic and then convincing people to implement it via WP:BRD. Don't try to resolve complex questions of content via the deletion process, it isn't the appropriate tool. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to talk last year but no debate happened at all. Everyone who attends the article wants the article that's why. That's partly why WP has have 'AfD'. It's not complex at all imo, it's actually quite simple. There too much forked subs in these areas, and each sub article get's less and leas encyclopedic. Sections in the main article's are fine. I personally think that Modern Celts is an article too much, and I'm 'supposed' to be one! (it's funny how I don't feel very different to anyone else though, and have no desire to forge iron objects at all). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question, I just try to stir up the still water. Somebody creates a FORK and due to the well sourced text the article becomes unmovable. As I see no one really cares about the future of these articles. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fair amount of people will want to keep this one, and it will be interesting to see how many other people think it's too unencyclopedic, or an article too many. Ie how many people still support the old inclusionist 'Wikipdia is infinite ideal = ie let 'everyone have their say'. The simple forking argument may not count here, as people will argue that this group of Celtic nations actually exist. But the idea has no authority at all though. No sovereign, or UN or European recognition as such or anything like that. It's all romantic at best, and to this extended broad degree it's political (ie they support each others causes, as minority separatists always do). They don't have the sources that cover this extended use either: not outside of partisan websites. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (don't delete): Agree with Bodrugan's comment, Celts(modern) is concerned with Celtic Identity in modern times (Modern Celtic culture).Jembana (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you have a user-page thing saying your "proud to be Celtic". That's absolutely fine. But an article called 'Celtic nations' is essentially a third-level sub article, and isn't ok at all. It just makes Wikipedia look a bloated and decidedly non-academic mess imo. Even as a 'notable term' (which I don't think it is personally) areas like Welsh TV news programmes - which can be quite nationally 'proud' overall - do not normally refer to any of these nations as 'Celtic nations' - and only Wales in terms of 'home nation' sport like Rugby. It's article-section material, not it's-own-article stuff. And when they do use the term, they are not pronouncing on France or Cornwall etc at all. That's an important point to: it's not used politically at all. It's intrinsically political in here, hence all the forked politics. The forking will always happen in pages like this. This article is basically yet another article on Celts (or Modern Celts if we have to have that too), but with a specifically 'nation'alistic flavour. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CFORK, content forks are addressed by merger, not deletion. This is a naming/scoping dispute and so RFC is the appropriate process, not AFD. Andrew (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could use some improvement, but not deletion. Celtic nations is about the nations, both historic and contemporary. Celts (modern) is about modern manifestations of ethnic identity. The concept and term is not unique to WP; it predates the existence of Wikipedia by generations, at least, and is a common framing in Celtic studies and politics. If some editors are politically opposed to the identification of the Celtic Nations as socio-political entities, that's not a valid basis for deletion. - CorbieV^☊ 17:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Celts didn't have nations. It's one of the reasons they spread so far then died out. This is all modern politics. This is another 'Celtic' area editor btw. This needs non-interested participants. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per CorbieV. There is clearly a bit of work required here but it's equally clearly a valid article, and distinct from Celts (modern). Deletion isn't the way to deal with content forks anyway, seems like an odd nom. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Breton' banquet? Content forking is all this article contains - that was made pretty clear by Fakirbakir. Also AfD's often deal with merging too. But there's nothing really to merge, as all of the value here is elsewhere. It's a pretty straight AfD for me. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Matt" Lewis? You're really not making yourself look very clever by making (horribly incorrect) assumptions based on people's usernames. You say this needs non-interested participants, are you attempting to include yourself in that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm definitely involved. I've said this page is non-encylopedic before, and have explained why. It's not the type of thing that's suitable for Wikipedia. Webspace yes, Wikipiedia no. We still need people who aren't involved though! Matt Lewis (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is full of content forks and seems to be a POV view from the Celtic League. It really isn't acceptable to redefine Nation to mean whatever you want, and without that the whole article falls to pieces. Many of the historical claims are very dubious. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move this from the Science category to the Society category. Whatever it is, it's certainly not science. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a legitimate article which is not about Celts (modern), though it is a main article linked to that. Merging back to that article would unbalance that one. It may be that it is covering material in other articles, but I do not know which. This article may be about political POV, but that does not mean that it is a POV-article in the WP sense. Artilces on POVs have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the inclusionist argument, but do you think that the available sources for using the term in this politicised broad and 'intercontinental' way are sufficiently sound? - ie is it 'notable' as it stands? And if not, then does it still deserve its own article? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous reliable sources use this specific phrase. From the media (RTÉ, BBC), though academia (National Museum Wales, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations (p 2186, index), Penn State University), through published music (here and here) to governments (Isle of Man Government, Welsh Government) and many others. Curious this should be nominated for deletion. Daicaregos (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just link to uses of the word "Celtic"! That's a 'modern Celt' issue. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each source uses the phrase 'Celtic nations' in context. Daicaregos (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh Assembly uses the format "Celtic 'nations'" for a festival. None of it is worthy enough to me I'm afraid, not for its own article. There seems to be no agreed definition for a start. The best one's the Museum of Wales, but it says "Today, Wales is considered a Celtic nation, one of a family of nations and regions" - it just talks about Wales and then "nations and regions" - all of which were Celtic areas that retained some historical identity. It's a push to say that ref says "Celtic nations" for the lot. Well, it just doesn't. And the Welsh Assembly one uses deliberate quotes too. Some of these are simply regions. I just think 'Celtic nations' is too fanciful a term for it's own article when there is already one on Celts (modern). You can certainly find these sources if you look for them though. Does that mean all the forking is okay? I don't know. I'd like to see some neutral input though - a 'Celtic nationalist' here! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh Government uses Celtic nations to describe those represented at the festival. The links I provided was not a definitive list, they were examples. Here's another one from the Scottish Government. I see you've quarelled with and/or insulted nearly everyone who voted to keep the article. Is 'neutral input' just those who agree with you? Whatever … Keep! Daicaregos (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider reorganisation or merge with related articles according to merge procedures. Although you could argue it's a spin-off of Celts (modern) and keep it on those grounds. It's a long article which people want to contribute to, and just because there's no single definition of "celtic nation" is not grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not just invented here; plenty of sources prove that. Normal editing processes can fix the issues noted. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a widely used term, defined and in use by notable organisations. Frankly, some (not all) of the "delete" opinions being expressed here are just very ugly Celtiphobia and racism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Records and achievements of Beyoncé[edit]

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

Duplicates info at Beyoncé discography and List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé, and is not WP:NPOV. Adabow (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, this info is already covered elsewhere. Hot Stop 06:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty much a duplicate of Beyonce discography. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary recapitulation of material covered elsewhere. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute garbage, fancruft and redundant. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of former-communist-countries Dynamo football clubs[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced listcruft. Seems it was created just for the sake of having such a list and does not add value to the encyclopaedia. JMHamo (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we already have Dynamo FC as a suitable disambiguation page, no need for this LISTCRUFT article as well. Giant Snowman 10:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary fork, Dynamo FC serves sifficiently as the set index for "Dynamo" clubs. Fenix down (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sohrab Ahmari[edit]

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

I don't see any actual third party reference for notability. Zero. The only notable reference is a bad insult from Hooman Majd. R0stam (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple books reviews:

Publishers Weekly
Contemporary Islam journal
Library Journal
Kirkus Reviews
Middle East Journal
The Current, Columbia University
Frontline, PBS

-- GreenC 19:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC. Unfortunately, the nom has also misrepresented the content of the article -- there are multiple third-party references, for example: [10], [11], [12]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Yitzchok Cohen[edit]

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

This article is about a Chabad rabbi in the UK. I could find no substantial evidence for him outside of internal Chabad documents--and even the internal evidence is not very strong. This was deprodded with the note "well known Rabbi involved in Jewish studies in the UK", but no additional sources were provided. If the discussion here establishes a substantial consensus that he is notable by virtue of his position within the organization, I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. But as far as I can determine, he doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reveals your antismitism. If a Rabbi is associated with a Chabad in UK, this automatically shows notenoteworthy. Not every notable person has huge google links like Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.213 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a constructive way to start this discussion, and I trust that future discussion will steer clear of further personal attacks. Sticking to the merits: we have lots of articles about rabbis, but these are generally rabbis with some indication of notability in the Wikipedia sense. I've tried hard to find acceptable sources about Rabbi Cohen, but outside of his own website I've found very little. I couldn't find him at the official website for Chabad Lubavitch UK, http://www.chabad.org.uk/ . The chabad.info link is a group photograph. No other Wikipedia articles appear to mention him. Google has less than 30 hits for his name, and none of them appear to be independent reliable sources about him. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' the article as chabad.info established notability. Rabbis don't get huge media attention so consider chabad links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.207.213 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources (if any). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is non-notable. How does Chabad association show notability? There are hundreds of Chabad chapters, and there must be hundreds of associated rabbis. Not every one is notable. Origamite (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I can make out, Chabab is a Jewish denomination, probably a small one, possibly with just one British synagogue of which he is pastor. The pastor of a single synagogue is unlikely to be notable, even if he may speak at Europe-wide denominational conferences. I am not helped by the website being in Hebrew, which I do not read. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability to pass WP:BIO.--Iniciativass (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many such WP articles on rabbis that have no WP:RS and, consequently no evidence of notability. This is one of them. Agricola44 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional works in mass media[edit]

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

This is not a list of fictional works in mass media. It is a list of slogans in fictional works. Since that list would be so WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I don't know why it has been limited to a few particular ones, and even then has a section called "Miscellaneous" - if that's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE I don't know what is. Notable slogans can have their own articles but either this needs to be renamed or deleted. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually it's not even that. It's a rag-bag of a few quotes from books somebody read once, some things they found funny off of US television, and so on. It seems fairly obvious to me that if this is a "list of x (since it's certainly not a list of fictional works in mass media)" then x must be so broadly defined as to be not worth having. It's OK for lists to be incomplete but surely there is no point in having eight books, two films, twenty or so US TV programmes (which of course is not WP:WORLDWIDE but that could be fixed by expanding the list to every TV show someone once liked that was broadcast somewhere in the world)? Si Trew (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what this list is supposed to be, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hot Stop 06:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm also having trouble understanding the scope of this article. Too indiscriminate by far. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Yeah, this doesn't really have any merit. It's a list with badly thought out scope and poor sourcing, and is generally a big pile of cruft. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rules. Wikipedia is not everything. --Iniciativass (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of lists but delete the Advertising section. It's sensible to have an article that lists all articles like List of fictional musical works, List of fictional plays, List of fictional books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a CSD G4 repost, the content being substantively identical to the version in the first AfD, and still total unreferenced. Xoloz (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Dal Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This was deleted in 2011 and I've no idea how it came to be recreated. I've just had to remove every single citation because the sources were no better (probably the same) as those discussed in the last AfD. As per normal for the creator, this is a family biographical article, hence the use of family documents as sources. Sitush (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB: the creator shows as Fæ (talk · contribs). I've no idea why because the creator is clearly in reality Pkandhal (talk · contribs) (the family member). It looks to me like Fae may have somehow ignored the original deletion decision but I've no idea why they'd do that given that they participated in it. Perhaps I'm misreading something somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost. After the original deletion, Fae seems to have userfied this article for Pkandhal (talk · contribs) (no problem there). However, Pkandhal soon moved the userfied draft back into mainspace without repairing the sourcing problems that led to the original deletion. Comparing the draft as userfied (presumably the text when deleted) to later versions shows minimal, generally cosmetic differences, and all but one of the references used are primary sources that lack verifiability -- the only fact in the article sourced to a plausibly reliable source is the identity of the subject's uncle, hardly enough to establish notability. This is pretty much identical to the deleted text, negligible if any improvement, but it somehow evaded scrutiny when moved back to mainspace. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as shown. Tehsildar looks impressive as a word - but it's only a position in the revenue service. The philanthropic work, unfortunately, is probably totally unreferenceable. Peridon (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Centineo[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think WP: ONEEVENT applies here. There's no apparent reason for a separate article for Centineo when all the content is already covered by Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest churches in Australia[edit]

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

This list is full of primary sources, is incapable of being verified to any encyclopaedic standard against secondary sources as most of the churches self-report (and have a vested interest in over-reporting) and are not independently scrutinised to check the numbers they report have any relation with reality, and serves primarily as a promotional vehicle. Orderinchaos 16:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what is it with the human race's obsession with enumerating everything for its own sake? Unless there are some reliable and independant data sets to draw on this is only ever going to be a synthesis of original research, dependent data sources and odd battles for in/exclusion - Peripitus (Talk) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely a rather crass religious penis-comparison contest. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc, as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree with the other deletion rationales. --99of9 (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mills (writer)[edit]

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

autobiography, standard artist bio, no assertion of notability, no coverage found -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable - no citations, no assertions of notability, no evidence of notability; fails any standard for writers or for programmers or for bios in general. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At the help desk this was asked to be nominated by an IP with the following text:

This article has multiple issues, including:
• No references in a BLP article
• No notability established
• Is essentially a resume
(see also: multiple issues tag on article)
71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if the person had done any WP:BEFORE searches and they responded:

The only thing that I've found for that Simon Mills is his homepage:[13] (it seems to be him). There are at least two other "Simon Mills" who are notable "writers" (authors) [14] , [15] ←(the one I was looking for) ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment the current article seems to be almost identical to http://pages.rediff.com/simon-mills--writer-artist-programmer-/1085640 but I can not tell if our article is a copyvio, or if rediff copied our article. DES ^(talk) 22:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- its likely that the rediff one is a copy of ours - the "read more" at the bottom links back to the Simon Mills (writer/artist/programmer) version of the article which matches word for word and the bullets at the bottom of the rediff match the number of external links that ours had at the time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment There seems to be a somewhat notable book entitled "Testing IT" by John Watkins and Simon Mills, but I am not at all confident that this is the same Simon Mills, there are a number of people with that name on the net in one way or another. If it were he same person, it might be worth looking into further. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands does not in any way establish notability, if no additional sources are found it should go. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DES, does not establish notability, and is unsourced, which violates BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic World[edit]

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

I propose to delete this article because of content forking. We already have an article for this topic (Slavic languages). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Other articles (Slavs, Slavic languages) do a better job. Useful parts should move there.--Rovibroni (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about Celtic nations? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It should be deleted as well ("Celts (modern)" is more appropriate for the subject). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, trivially, not a deletion candidate. Possibly merge, but seek consensus for that, don't try to just delete difficult articles when people aren't looking. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see why this cannot be redirected to Slavs. What's the difference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Slavs or something like that. A google book search for the phrase shows thousands of hits, so it makes sense that we cover the search term, but it does seem like there's no sense in having a duplicate article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I noticed that the Romance and Germanic equivalents of this article are also listed for deletion. Should we be looking at these individually or altogether, because if one were deleted and another weren't, I don't think it'd make much sense. Basically, I think we keep them all or delete them all.

And on a sidenote, I think 'W' in 'World' should be made lowercase. --Local hero ^talk 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no point in a redirect--it's a very unlikely search term, and I think it only appears here because it to make a forked article. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic-speaking Europe[edit]

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

I suggest to delete this article because of content forking. We already have an article for this topic (Germanic languages). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose, trivially, as in e.g. Bantu peoples is not a content fork of Bantu languages, Greater Persia is not a content fork of Persian language (etc. etc.). The WP:UCN title for this is "Germanic Europe" (9,000 google books hits), "Germanic-speaking Europe" (46 google books hits) was imposed on this by people who do not understand neutrality or naming policy. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose provided there is sufficient material to break out of parent article. , the 2 articles do not cover the same topic. One is about Germanic languages worldwide (which seem to include English) and one is about where German (or dialects thereof) are spoken in Europe, albeit needs fleshing out. And it may need changing to "German-speaking Europe". --Bermicourt (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about "where German (or dialects thereof) are spoken". — Lfdder (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt, under those terms, there would be three articles under discussion. :-) We have an article called German_language_in_Europe which covers German-and-dialects-thereof. Germanic is a supercategory, used by linguists, which *does* most definitely include English. Therefore, the topic of this AfD, Germanic-speaking Europe (aka Germanic Europe per DBachmann), is a "parent" article of German_language_in_Europe. The "grandparent" article is Germanic languages, which talks about Germanic-speaking (English/German/Danish/etc) practice worldwide. Fakirbakir is suggesting that the parent-article-content of Germanic-speaking Europe be fully merged into appropriate subsection of the grandparent article which is Germanic languages#Modern_status (they already share a map). HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get that and have amended my comments above. But Germanic languages is a already very long article. I therefore still oppose deletion to give an opportunity to flesh this out into a decent sub-article that can be referred to from its parent. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Germanic languages and the area in Europe dominated by Germanic culture are not the same topic. Krakkos (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adam Young. Merge and redirect are basically the same, and the general argument (including the nominator's) is that there's no (current) independent notability from Adam Young. slakr^\ talk / 08:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sailing[edit]

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

I don't believe that this is independently notable from the article on the creator and sole member, Adam Young (better known for Owl City). That article already covers this musical side-excursion. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming with Dolphins Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 15 "references" that are displayed as "further reading" and the project has an entry at AllMusic. Clearly meets both possible reliability standards and no further research was necessary. Might as well say that Owl City is not independently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adam Young. If someone releases music under a variety of different names, there's no requirement to have a separate article on each pseudonym. Especially as this seems to be a retrospective labelling rather than an organic band/music project, released after Young had already found fame under another name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adam Young, per WP:OR, WP:V. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe[edit]

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

This article is obviously a FORK. We already have an article for this topic (Romance languages). Fakirbakir (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, editor is on some kind of deletion rampage. Even if it was a content fork (which it isn't), the appropriate way of dealing with content forks is merging, not deleting (preserve edit history!) --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dab. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why exactly has this been chosen for possible deletion? What will we have for reference for the Romance-linguistic areas in Europe? Why not propose to delete Latin America? This all appears to be very contradictory, and therefore complete nonsense. The Romance language wikis have a similar page. There should clean-up many linguistic groups and areas, and we should reach consensus on how to reach this. The content of this article should not be deleted, the most that could be allowed to occur is for a merger, but the article is perfectly fine. Viller the Great (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 08:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Icecap (blog)[edit]

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

Unremarkable blog that fails WP:WEB; the only independent source (RealClimate) doesn't even mention the blog. Other sources mention it in passing, [16] [17] but nothing really significant. The closest anything comes to significant coverage in a reliable source is this post on National Review's blog, which is a blog and as such may not be reliable. Even if it is, though, more RSs would be needed to establish notability, and I couldn't find many other such sources. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good amount of secondary source coverage. According to The Boston Herald (February 3, 2007) it is not just a blog but also a climate change working group. Hundreds of sources in Google Books for search of terms "Icecap" with "D'Aleo". Also try searching for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I didn't come across the Herald article; could you provide a link or citation? Also, searches on books.google.com (and other Google searches) do not return results that only contain the search terms; it uses an algorithm to guess at what results might interest the searcher. So while books.google.com returned around 110 results, maybe 25 actually contained "d'aleo" and "icecap", and of those, a half dozen or so are self-published. Also, I found hundreds of hits in google, but no independently-published reliable sources with more than a trivial sentence about the organization. I'll definitely reconsider my decision if any significant coverage turns up. ––Agyle (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, turns out it's not a secondary source, as it was written by D'Aleo, but it was indeed published in The Boston Herald, for what it's worth. Article title: "As you were saying … Alarmists, just chill out". Hope that is helpful, — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks. Highbeam has the first three paragraphs of the editorial (the rest is paywalled), and a forum post contains its apparent full text. Icecap doesn't seem to be mentioned; perhaps it occurs as part of the title in the author's signature, which isn't included in the forum post. ––Agyle (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge summarized version to Joseph D'Aleo, and include disambiguation on Icecap (disambiguation) (D'Aleo is founder of the organization and website, executive director of the organization). Fails general or website notability, and while there are several citations in reliable sources to papers from ICECAP, I could not find any independent reliable source coverage of the organization itself or its website more a one-sentence description. The Wikipedia article's title and opening sentence give the misimpression that ICECAP is simply a blog rather than an organization. As Cirt notes, it is the website of "International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project"; the organization's website is variously described as a blog and a portal (its own one-sentence description of itself as a portal is widely used). This paper from The American Behavioral Scientist describes the organization as a "think tank", and lists affiliations of several authors (possibly "climate experts") who cite an affiliation with ICECAP. D'Aleo alone seems to list ICECAP as his primary affiliation, and many trivial references in reliable sources just mention ICECAP as they introduce or cite him (e.g. Reagan, Michael; Denney, Jim (2011). The New Reagan Revolution: How Ronald Reagan's Principles Can Restore America's Greatness. St. Martin's Press. pp. 152, 361. ISBN 978-1-4299-8996-1.).

There are maybe 20 reliable source independently-published books that cite papers published on ICECAP's website. While the mentions are not directly about the website, they do provide some indication of its notability. Here are the first half dozen I checked:

Glover, Peter C.; Economides, Michael J. (2010). Energy and Climate Wars: How Naive Politicians, Green Ideologues, and Media Elites are Undermining the Truth about Energy and Climate. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4411-5307-4. Quotes D'Aleo and mentions and cites ICECAP several times.
Smerconish, Michael A. (2009). Morning Drive: Things I Wish I Knew Before I Started Talking. Globe Pequot Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-1-59921-517-4. Cites a paper from ICECAP on icecap.us.
Hennen, Scott; Denney, Jim (5 July 2011). Grass Roots: A Commonsense Action Agenda for America. Simon and Schuster. p. 355. ISBN 978-1-4516-0896-0. Cites two papers from ICECAP on icecap.us.
The Polar Times. American Polar Society. 2008. One sentence description of ICECAP & reference to one of their claims.
Sunshine, Glenn S. (30 August 2009). Why You Think the Way You Do: The Story of Western Worldviews from Rome to Home. Zondervan. p. 167. ISBN 978-0-310-32354-9. Single-sentence quote and reference of an Icecap paper.
Bassam, Nasir El; Maegaard, Preben (2013). Distributed Renewable Energies for Off-grid Communities: Strategies and Technologies Toward Achieving Sustainability in Energy Generation and Supply. Newnes. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-12-397178-4. Cites a paper from ICECAP on icecap.us.

While the website's papers are cited by other works, and its director, D'Aleo, is widely quoted, the big problem is the lack of independent coverage about the organization itself. A quality Wikipedia article would be either nearly empty, or depend almost exclusively on information from icecap.us. I think it's better to list a pared-down description of the website in the article about D'Aleo.

––Agyle (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 05:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Averill[edit]

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

Nothing but passing mention in articles about the series he created. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find coverage that reaches WP:GNG either. The person involved in life extension and calorie restriction of the same name seems to have a bit more coverage (at least on Highbeam), but doesn't appear to be the same person. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) (See below.)[reply]
Strong keep. First of all, Meredith is female. Secondly, she isn't an actress, she's a writer and producer, so WP:FILMMAKER/ WP:CREATIVE would apply (not WP:NACTOR as suggested above, unless she acted in something that I can't find). On that basis, Averill easily meets those requirements. She created Star-Crossed, a TV series on The CW. You can see on that show's page how often it's been referenced and reviewed, which meets the third criteria. I think she'd be notable on that basis alone, but she's also produced for The Good Wife and written for a number of other major American television shows, and a quick google search shows a number of interviews in various publications. mikeman67 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please show some of these references. The purpose of these discussions is to review the evidence as to wheather an article should be here or not. Also, which section of WP:FILMMAKER are you proposing she meets. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Star-Crossed. She hasn't done enough to satisfy FILMMAKER or CREATIVE. Other than a few interviews and announcements, she hasn't gotten any press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She meets criteria 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." A television show on The CW is pretty clearly a well-known work, I would think. And it has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles, as you can see on Star-Crossed's references section. Other articles that mention her: [18] [19]. That was just after a quick search. But regardless, I think she pretty clearly meets FILMMAKER. mikeman67 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from delete to Meh. I still don't see two articles that talk about her as more than a mention of her position as creator of a single series, so I'm still not sure there's enough for WP:GNG, but there is more out there than I originally found. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this nice article about a person who is a Television program creator (currently a redlink). Relatedly, I'd appreciate getting that established from this draft at AFC into a bona fide article in Wikipedia. I am told at AFC that the term is a "neologism"!!!, as if it is not a well-defined term. Anyhow, I'll add Meredith Averill to the list of credited creators included in the AFC draft. --do ncr am 03:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 08:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vol Dooley[edit]

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

not significant and detailed coverage needed per WP:POLITICIAN John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no evidence that AfD volunteers are needed here. The article has references and inline citations, an infobox, a portal, and templates that show the previous and successor sheriff. The article was on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours before this nomination, and there is no attempt at discussion on the talk page. The article was well-developed at the time of nomination, and has since doubled in size. Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"has references and inline citations" does not equal WP:NOTABLE. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability outside of Bossier Parish, very questionable national or international notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources include Chicago Tribune article on Louisiana politics, two other newspaper articles, a radio station report, television station news report. The article also incorporates material on the murder of Mr. Dooley's son, which attracted national television attention. Dooley's role in the Jack Favor case is also covered. Many on Wikipedia with articles may be concentrated mostly in one county. Bossier Parish is the second largest in northwest Louisiana.Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (author)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references seem to be about him as the primary topic. For example, the Chicago Tribune article (which isn't linked properly in the reference) only says he doesn't agree with a poll. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The link to the Chicago Tribune has been corrected. There is also a book source. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple of sentences and a photo in a book about the parish. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material found. Mr. Dooley himself appeared in 2011 in Sins and Secrets on the Discovery Channel. Two new newspaper sources have been added or clarified: another Shreveport Times and the Magnolia Reporter. The book reference is about his expertise in fingerprinting before he was sheriff and contains his picture at the time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (author)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Systems[edit]

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

No notability for this company. All coverage appears to be local. Safiel (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First AfD, nominated for notability, was never completed due to the Speedy Deletion of the first incarnation of this article for blatant promotion five years ago. Current incarnation of this article is only a few months old. Safiel (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , probably by speedy A7,and protect against re-crearion . DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Upon first look it looked like a speedy delete. However, further research showed that it is an international company and was covered by Recycling today, Huronia Business Times, and the examiner. In terms of sales their products seem to be niche among green websites [20], BuyGreen.com, and was interviewed by Green living. There appears to be some international presence and some coverage by non local sources[21]. Named the Manufacturing Business of the Year for 2012 and received Barrie Awards Gala suggest at least some notability has been established. Valoem ^talk 22:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A google search for "Busch Systems International" shows a wide enough range of non-local refs to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Washington Navy Yard. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Building 126 (Washington Navy Yard)[edit]

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

Being eligible for listing in the national register is not the same as being actually in the national register. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it is listed it would probably be as part of a wider collection of buildings and not individually. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if possible merge. Clearly not notable on its own, but the article does contain some information that could be useful if someone could find a relevant article to put it on. JDDJS (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Washington Navy Yard. Per nom, this is notyet. Don't delete as information is valuable and sourced. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Washington Navy Yard. If the building is listed on the register, then the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar XzJam app[edit]

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

Newly developed app in version 1.0. A search for sources returns nothing that makes the article meet WP:NSOFT. Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be nothing but promotional spam.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. No independent sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be userified or moved to draft space later, if requested. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Project (film)[edit]

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

The article's title shouldn't head an article that describes just one of the many films in production that happen not to have been titled at any given time. Fails WP:NFF and completely uncited. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete We've reached new levels of WP:CRYSTAL when we don't even know what the name of the article is going to be yet. Mangoe (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V (maybe the title is Untitled Project!) and is unref'd too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bit too soon, not meeting criteria for future films of there being documentation of principal filming having begun. --do ncr am 22:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will agree that it does not meet NFF for no documentation of principal filming's start. But its referenced now and we do keep articles of films which have no name to it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps it would be best to move it to draft space. If we don't know the name yet, that's a pretty good indication that it violates both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. It could also be redirected to an appropriate target, but I really wouldn't know where. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in redirecting such a vague name to anything else. The redirect target however could be the film's director Mani Ratnam. But that would have been the solution if the name was Mani Ratnam's untitled film or something such. Best solution would be to see if filming has started and if not then delete it. There is hardly anything in it to salvage it in a draft space either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I suggested that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Proposal for Future Film AFDs. I've actively been following AFD for just a couple weeks, and there have been several of these film project articles. Moving them all to a /draft space, plus adding links to the /draft articles to a running list in Wikipedia space, perhaps somewhere in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, would be kinder to contributors and more constructive and more in keeping with GFDL license. I see there is inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films/Article listing, a listing as of 2009 of future film projects, most which became articles. A routine message template could be created, to be left on contributors' talk pages, about where to find their article and linking to wp:NFF and linking to the WikiProject Films list of them all, showing theirs. Wouldn't that be better? --doncram 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response User:doncram. I have been following AFDs for 6 years. What would be kinder is to return them to their creator's userspace and assist in their bettering their article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, thanks for your reply on this tangent. What's different now is the availability of /draft space, where film projects and anything else AFD-rejected on "too soon" argument could be held. Userfying gives it back to just one person, while some system covering future films and so on could save them for use by anyone. I think many persons would be happier to see their work put there, if there is good chance it will be used if/when criteria are met (i.e. when principal filming is documentable). There would need to be a proper system to have all "too soon" AFDs contribute to there, and for everyone involved in the AFD and every one of the original contributors all to know about the item, too. That would increase chances of original article being salvaged. Also, to clarify, over many years I have from time to time over dealt with individual AFDs, but only recently have been focusing on the area. --do ncr am 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy) for now as this can be spoken of in the article on Mani Ratnam where it can be sourced that he is working on an as-yet-to-be-titled film project.[22][23] We take each NFF issue on its own merits. Allow undeletion/recreation once filming and title are confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic Digital[edit]

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

It's a web SEO company. Guess what, no sources here that aren't self-generated. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hesitated over the sources but I don't see any independent evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to the firm's own site and press releases, some of which don't back up the claims they are placed to support. Fastest-growing listings and local awards do not amount to evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMT Software[edit]

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

Company may be notable, but tone is promotional. It's all about what its selling. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the company is notable I'll say that we should WP:IGNORE ond delete this article for being overly promotional--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The company was listed on Warsaw Stock Exchange at some point; it shouldn't matter that it isn't now (notability is not temporary). On pl wiki as a rule all companies listed on WSE are notable. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) (WP:LISTED) suggests that our criteria are more strict, and GNG should be respected - still, it may be possible more sources can be found. My quick search did not find any more reliable sources besides what I've added to the article, and to be honest I am not that interested in rescuing what is indeed a promotional entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability requirements. SchreiberBike talk 02:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Belt: Peening Shot[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional article for a repair process. Notability not established per WP:PRODUCT. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing to add ukexpat (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence[edit]

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

Per a RfD here, the effective deletion of this article should be resolved at AfD. The reason for proposed deletion or redirect of this article is that any discussion of the topic long enough to even form a stub would be a WP:POVFORK of Assassination of John F. Kennedy. As written, this article is clearly not neutral - relying solely on a single conspiracy theorist's analysis to draw the conclusion (stated as fact in the article) that Oswald did not fire a rifle. Rewritten neutrally, there is effectively no article as all as @Canada Jack: mentions here. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conspiratorial nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK of Assassination of John F. Kennedy. -- 101.119.14.208 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Yes, it looks like a POV fork based on a single source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN fringe theory. It is not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every JFK assassination conspiracy theory can be covered effectively within the JFK assassination conspiracy theories article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion policy WP:ATD says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And, "Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead". In the RfD of this article, a consensus was found that this article is not a WP:POVFORK, therefore this article was restored. In that RfD there was also a consensus that this article had a WP:POV issue and a consensus was found on solving these issues by making amendments to the text (I agreed to CanadaJack's proposal of explicitely attributing certain sentences to their author). Therefore VQuakr created this AfD in violation of WP:ATD, because he created this AfD before he, myself or anyone else made any changes to this article. VQuakr also tried to delete this article via WP:D-R before, which was rejected. I just recently made changes [1 ] in the article according to the consensus on the POV issue. The article does not "rely solely on one source" and it also does not rely on a "conspiracy theorist" which is obviously used in a pejorative way against historian Gerald McKnight, whose "Breach of Trust is the leading study of the Warren Commission"[1]. The "conspiracy theory" claim is also invalid because no theory about a conspiracy for the JFK homicide is mentioned in the article. The article does not represent a fringe theory, because all reliable sources on the NAA performed on the assassination evidence share the same conclusion with the exception of John Gallagher, who is no expert on the subject (but whose opinion is now also included in the article). The article is also no fringe theory because the conclusions mentioned (on whether Oswald shot JFK or not) are only one part of the bigger whole of the article. The article also is no fringe theory because now also the conclusion of John Gallagher which builds the Warren Commission Report's view is included in the article. The argument not even wrong is invalid because the text of the article entirely consists of reliable sources in natural science, history and criminal justice. The article can not be covered effectively in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories article because it is not about a conspiracy or a theory but instead on the AEC's investigation of JFK assassination evidence.Icarus4 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of your statement is just contradiction I will not extend this AfD by addressing it. However, I do wish to point out the outright falshood above, "In the RfD of this article, a consensus was found that this article is not a WP:POVFORK, therefore this article was restored." The actual RfD closure stated the following: "The result of the discussion was article restored. VQuakr essentially tried a WP:D-R here, but D-R is BOLD, and there's consensus to revert it. No prejudice against AfD, a merge proposal, or similar actions." No conclusion whatsoever was drawn about its status as a fork. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect because of three reasons: First, it is not necessary to repeat all consensual topics in the closure summary of a RfD (in the e.g.: the POV issue). Second, your argument for your attempted WP:D-R was [[24]] WP:POVFORK and there was consensus to revert your attempt which means consensus was found to reject your argument of POVFORK. Third, the consensus to reject the argument of POVFORK was explicitely stated in the discussion. I repeat here the consensus from the RfD on why this article is not a POVFORK: "The article is not a WP:POVFORK because it is not a fork. But some of its content is disputed for its representation (attribution of quotes to their author)." And "The target article contains no information from the redirected article. This information is also not contained anywhere else on Wikipedia." Regarding one of VQuakr's arguments from his opening posting: This article is much longer than a WP:STUB (an article containing only one or a few sentences of text). Icarus4 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Icarus' claims notwithstanding, this is essentially the opinion of a single author, who is a well-known conspiracy theorist, and hence does not warrant its own page. And, yes, he is a "CT" because he concludes, using his opinion as fact, that the FBI and Warren Commission deliberately covered up these tests as they "knew" the tests "proved" Oswald was not the assassin. Indeed, this POV article dismisses one objection to the conclusion that Oswald did not fire a rifle by describing this person as someone "with no expertise" while citing the opinion of McKnight who, as a historian, has even less expertise yet McKnight's opinion is in the lede with no explanation as to how a historian is more an expert than a ballistics professional! Further, the most obvious and fundamental objection to these tests - Oswald's original paraffin sample was handled, altered and had contamination and is therefore useless in terms of gaining ANY definitive conclusions - is utterly buried in the article with a quick rejoinder. If this was NOT a POV article, the lede would include something along the lines of "the utility of the tests has been questioned owing to the contamination and handling of Oswald's paraffin sample." As previously stated, a brief mention could be made on the rifle page to these tests saying that some see it as indicating Oswald did not fire a shot, and/or placed on the conspiracy page with a similar note. Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these arguments are irrelevant for an AfD. I will only address the most important reasons why. Your argument, "this is essentially the opinion of a single author", even if it were right, would be irrelevant for an AfD. For a lack of diversity of sources, the "one source" template is already used, and also the "expert-subject" template could be used. Fortunately there are several other sources available, but unfortunately I don't have access to all their works, therefore I invite all editors with access to those sources to contribute to the article. Your argument, "an author, who is a well-known conspiracy theorist" is also irrelevant for an AfD, because it is an argumentum ad hominem which is an informal fallacy. This argument of yours is also a personal attack against the independent, third-party, reliable source Gerald D. McKnight, because it is used as a pejorative aiming to debase his work. This argument of yours would also be irrelevant even if McKnight were what some call a "conspiracy theorist", because he would still be an independent, third-party, reliable source (see above: argumentum ad hominem). Your argument, "this POV article [...]" is irrelevant for this AfD, because for the WP:POV issue there is already the "POV" template is use. All those of your arguments that I won't contradict here shall be discussed in the article's Talk page chapter "POV issue". I already answered there. Icarus4 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. The page should be kept, but re-written, so that McKnight's conclusions are clearly marked as his conclusions. It is not a conspiracy theory that the AEC tested the paraffin casts, and that its results suggested Oswald did not fire a rifle. This has been discussed in Harold Weisberg's Post Mortem, David Wrone's The Zapruder Film, Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, and Don Thomas' Hear No Evil. The most complete discussion, by far, however, is on my website, patspeer.com, in the chapter Casts of Contention. It can be found here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention Now, to address one of the problems mentioned by those wanting to kill the page---that there is no alternative voice offered--well, the reason for this is, in part, that those claiming Oswald acted alone have never dealt with this issue, except by pretending it didn't exist. My 7-24-07 post on the Reclaiming History blog (http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/) discusses Vincent Bugliosi's incredibly flawed treatment of this issue in his book Reclaiming History. In closing, then, let me state that it would be a travesty to delete this page because it suggests a possible conspiracy simply because those claiming there was no conspiracy have never dealt with this issue, and refuse to deal with this issue, decades after Weisberg first discussed it, and 6 years after I first posted the results of the NAA tests online. FWIW, should the page be allowed to stay, I will help re-write it so that the conclusions contained within are clearly marked.(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patspeer (talk • contribs)

Welcome, and thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. Please note that your website is not a reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Vicenza[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable school with no reflinks; open for five (5) years as a stadium in the 13th century. Quis separabit? 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was one of the first universities, as verified by Britannica and a book from Cambridge University Press, which I added as references. It is misleading to say it was a "stadium." it was not just a place where football was played. It was a Studium generale, which means simply that it was a medieval university. Legitimate and verifiable universities have been kept in all previous AFDs I have seen. If it closed after 5 years, so what? Notability is not temporary. Edison (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, this was a studium generale, not a stadium. But I would suggest it would probably be notable if it were a 13th-century sports stadium. Nonetheless, we're talking about a university - one of the first, in fact. Stalwart111 05:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear notability as an institution of higher education. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Medieval University of Vicenza or University of Vicenza (13th century). The fact that it existed, even for a few years is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need to? There isn't another one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Short lived it may have been, but it was verifiably a university, therefore it is notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note: I'll be happy to userfy for someone who wants to improve the draft. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroki Tanaka[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without addressing the delete rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, player has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football or appears to have garnered significant, reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This is a young player just signed to a team in a fully pro league listed in WP:FPL. He did not play in the first match of the season [25], but given he's just out of university, that's not surprising. There's a good chance he will play in the season, but no certainty. WP:NFOOTBALL does not allow for considering the "possibility" of appearing, so I cannot vote "keep," but it does not make sense to delete an article that might be revived satisfying WP:NFOOTBALL very soon. Michitaro (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED listcruft. There is no source at Rotten Tomatoes that aggregates all films with a 0% rating. This article may omit film currently with a 0% on the site, or may include outdated ratings of films that have since been rated higher. If there were a page that listed all films with 0%, this would likely fall under WP:COPYVIO. AldezD (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some coverage of this ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), but I do think that there should maybe be a little more requirements for this page to keep it from becoming an always incomplete list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This editor is clueless about copyright law. A list of films (formatted differently in a different order anyway) on a film website isn't copyrighted. This list is useful in the way that the 100% list is. Both should be kept for the sake of film reviewing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for the same reasons the 100% list was kept. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic alcohol substitute[edit]

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

Certainly an interesting topic ~~considering it hasn't even been invented yet,~~ see my comment below, but I think we're jumping ahead of ourselves. It is getting some popular coverage but not enough to establish real (viz. long-term) notability, so I'm proposing to delete per WP:CRYSTAL, specifically point #5 regarding product announcements. N^oformation ^Talk 03:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this article, the substitute in question already exists and is a benozodiazapine derivative, but Nutt won't divulge its idenity. If it's already in use and indicated as a treatment, we probably already have an article about it and so this would be superfluous unless his particular product ends up being notable per se. N^oformation ^Talk 03:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's not enough information available on this subject to warrant a separate article. The mention in the David Nutt article could stand to be expanded, but that's the only place where this content can go for now. Ibadibam (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. Note recent AFD, and commenters below are correct that there is not a credible claim this is a copyvio. Such lists must have creative selection and/or arrangement in order to be copyrightable. This has neither. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:COPYVIO of Top 100 Movies Of All Time at RottenTomatoes.com. AldezD (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note—Article may list a movie that has since been removed from source (Top 100 Movies Of All Time), but this was [at one time] a copy & paste of work from RottenTomatoes.com. AldezD (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This was recently kept just last month with a clear keep. Copyvio my ass. A list of film titles isn't copyrighted. An admin please close this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note—This article is a copy & paste of the list published at the source, then alphabetized. Three other references verify data in the lead, and there are additional refs in the list back to RottenTomatoes for movies that have since been added to their "100% fresh" list after this article was originally copied. AldezD (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AldezD: so in that case we should delete AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies and every other one as a copyvio?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This was debated just last month and there wasn't a single "delete". It satisfies notability therefore there is nothing further for AfD to discuss. If the nominator has copyvio concerns then he should follows the protocolas outlined at WP:DCV. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahadur Mansoor Ali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a local hero of some sort but there's nothing out there about him other than the local website that is linked. An admin removed the PROD on the grounds that it was "not clear" that it fails GNG. Sitush (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but I think removing the prod was sensible. There's no way to tell, at a glace, whether the "Anjuman Islah Kamsar-o-Bar" is a significant or notable group. If it was and the subject was the leader then he might well be notable. But having conducted my own search (using a few different parameters/spellings) I can't find much of anything about the group or the individual. So delete for now, but I'm happy to reconsider if sources are found that I missed. Stalwart111 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I wasn't taking a pop at the admin: if an article is de-PRODed then I tend to note the reason why that was done. It can provide guidance for anyone who comments here. I wouldn't bother if I was always right but, erm, I'm not. - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, didn't think you were - just noting that AFD allows for a broader consideration of those issues. Having been given a chance to consider them, I think your initial "instinct" to delete was spot-on. Stalwart111 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F. Morosini Military Naval School[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 03:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query - is it actually a secondary college (like a high school) or an adjunct training facility? If its a high school then WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES probably applies but its not really clear to me. Stalwart111 03:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the sentence "School's programs match public schools.", it seems like the equivalent of a secondary school. But that's just based on one sentence - the rest makes it seem like it's not. No idea. 206.117.89.4 (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)[reply]

Considering it says it's residential and the staff are employees of the Italian Navy, it's presumably a proper school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my thinking - I'm inclined to support keeping it until we work out otherwise. Stalwart111 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a secondary school, which we keep by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above, unless it can be shown that this is not an official secondary school. ₆an⁶sh₆ 11:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude chilling park[edit]

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

Contested PROD. One new editor already tried to delete it (process incorrectly) and was blocked for it. Now the blocking admin has removed the prod. Perhaps they'd care to justify the global encyclopedic significance of a local artist getting their joke sign left in place and an offhand Twitter post being the canon source behind all of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have speedied this myself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is dubious; I'd prefer to see this mentioned in an article on Guelph Park, if it has sufficient sources to be notable itself. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have speedied it? By what criteria? It has a good cross section of WP:RS and meets WP:GNG. A Google news search easily reveals multiple coverage -- dating as far back as September of last year -- in the city's largest daily, the public broadcaster CBC and private network Global. The nominator's rationale seems to ignore that entirely and the comment above from an admin that he would have unilaterally speedied it is disconcerting, to say the least.Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources (well, the originals, a lot are just re-hashes) meet RS, but are they substantial enough? This isn't even a park, it's a prank sign in one corner. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This started out as a prank sign, then after public debate, was officially retained by the Vancouver Parks Board as a piece of public art. Even if it remained at the level of a prank, if it has the refs it's a bona fide member Category:Practical jokes and Category:Individual signs. But it did not end there, as substantial coverage verifies. We have a nomination statement that misrepresents the state of the article, with a claim that "an offhand Twitter" is "the canon source behind all of this" -- a quip that, weighed against the considerable WP:RS out there -- all the reporting that has been done by major news organs -- is flatly untrue. And of an admin who's threatened to delete it because... ? I'm concerned that what we have here is a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT argument taking hold. If it's notable according to reliable sources, editors' personal views about intrinsic merits of pranks, or public art pieces that start as pranks, or articles about individual signs, or what topics they personally prefer to see in Wikipedia are of no consequence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as silly as this is, it seems to have garnered substantial coverage in reputable sources. Meets WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Company Man (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Updated the page with more information.Pizzamancer (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep now don't jump down my throat but I'm wondering if a locus nomination is enough to meet WP:NBOOK--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that nominations don't give notability, only the actual win does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written with little actual information about the story, plot, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.1.4 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Atkinson (surgeon)[edit]

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

Questionable noteability created for an election candidate prior to an election along with Bill Denny (officer). They also seem to have been created by an editor with potential for WP:COI (based on timing, their userpage content, these are the only two articles the user has created so far, and user's own photos used in the articles). Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seems to be a sufficient amount of sources to establish notability. Creation before an election I don't find too much of a coincidence. Should Barack Obama not have had an article prior to the 2008 election, would its creation be questioned? Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of sources and noteability are different. Barack Obama was a Senator prior to being elected President and always have more than enough noteability prior to being President. Timeshift (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candiates for offices at the level he is a candidate are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And his candidacy is irrelevant to his notability, which is otherwise established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has a relatively minor claim to notability seperate to being an election candidate, and stands zero chance of election so isn't notable for that either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the candidature is non-notable soap, so I edited that section out. Provided it stays that way, I have no problem about a distinguished member of the Order of Australia being listed in Wikipedia. Incidentally, I don't live in South Australia and have no interest of any kind in the outcome of any election there. Bjenks (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a brigadier, he meets WP:SOLDIER, a standard for inclusion of military biographies which, while not actually a guideline, is widely accepted within the military history editing community on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Brigadier generals are, by consensus, considered to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as a soldier as above, and also it seems as an author, although only to a marginal extent. Orderinchaos 17:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER (although it would be nice if somewhere on that page there could be a quick run-down of the ranks that qualify under #3). The article as it stands is in fairly good shape too. Frickeg (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is obvious in several fields; e.g. AM citation: For service to medicine as an orthopaedic surgeon and through contributions to professional associations. If candidature causes people to write good quality bios for Wikipedia, then I wish there was more of it! Pdfpdf (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Denny (officer)[edit]

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

Questionable noteability created for an election candidate prior to an election along with Rob Atkinson (surgeon). They also seem to have been created by an editor with potential for WP:COI (based on timing, their userpage content, these are the only two articles the user has created so far, and user's own photos used in the articles). Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2014 (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/2014 February 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minimal claim to notability, could have been PRODed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not senior enough for military notability and no other real claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginal notability and unlikely to ever meet WP:POLITICIAN - if they unexpectedly do, it's not a difficult matter to recreate at the appropriate time. Orderinchaos 17:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - He is an interesting person who is of sufficient note, except that the only independent mentions of him are brief and often peripheral. Much of the material in the article is not supported by the references and the longer references are not independent. It's vanishingly unlikely he will win and not much more that his candidacy will attract enough independent writing to support an article. Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly heading for deletion, seeing as we're in the middle of an election campaign and shouldn't be giving non-noteable candidates articles, is it possible for this AfD to be closed now and delete rather than waiting the 7 days? Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to Denny at Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2014 in the meantime. Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is Member of the Order of Australia sufficient to demonstrate notability?--Grahame (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A valid question, seeing that there have been 8,233 inductees in the general and military divisions (and 19,400 OAMs, in case anyone would also want to consider them). Our Category:Members of the Order of Australia shows many AMs who are unquestionably notable for the reasons they were given this and other accolades, e.g., Olympic gold medals. I suspect that many recipient bureaucrats and military personnel are non-notable beneficiaries of insider reward systems—as against outsiders who need to perform more exceptional deeds to attract recognition. Be that as it may, I propose that we NOT consider anything less than the AO ranking as sufficiently notable in itself. Bjenks (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this 100%.

The answer is definitely no, although AC definitely would be and AO probably. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability established. Bjenks (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just. He's pretty close, but not quite there. Frickeg (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The previous AfD was withdrawn when the nominator learned that this was an educational assignment. That was courteous, allowing time for improvement, although mainspace articles should meet mainspace standards whatever their origin. However, a year on, there have been no major improvements, and in fact I notice that none of the article's original authors has edited since December 2012, that presumably being when their class project ended. Consensus now is clear that this does not meet Wikipedia's standards and that, though an article on this subject might be possible, it would be better started from a clean sheet. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in the family[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article in an essay. This article is written as such due to a class assignment that is far over and is wholly unencyclopedic. The article is written in a manner that attempts to persuade, and short of a complete rewrite, this article has no content that is salvageable. In addition, there is a whole section (Sexism_in_the_family#Media_for_children) that has nothing to do with the family, but instead an entirely different subject. A merger with Sexism may be considered, but this page has so much bias in it that a complete rewrite of any facts would be needed for a merge with that article. A deletion of this page is the best decision. 155blue (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, presentation seems well sourced and most educational and encyclopedic for topic choice. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Presentation is sourced an is completely in violation of WP:NOR. It is an essay which job is to persuade, not to inform. This violates one of the pillars of wikipedia in that it is completely biased.155blue (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Survived the first AfD because it was involved in an educational assignment, but Oklahoma State University should be ashamed of itself for allowing its students to leave the article in such a state. Not only is it an essay, it is a horrible OR essay. It fails to adequately define the topic. The sources listed are not used to aggregate the consensus view of an established topic, but rather are cobbled together to form a vague and original thesis. I am always hesitant about voting "delete" for a topic that hypothetically could be worthwhile, but in this case it is ill-defined. Any attempt to fix it would be more work than simply deleting this mess, but more importantly would be an artificial attempt to recitate a fatally flawed article because it happened to have a good title. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I take the view that any article with more than six 'cleanup' templates automatically qualifies for speedy deletion; not including {{notability}} which is missing, there are currently seven.--Laun chba ller 17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a real topic, and a real issue, with a lot of real research done on it. An encyclopaedic treatment could be good, but this isn't it. Article starts with a POV perspective (granted, one that I share) then attempts to convince the reader that it's bad and that something must be done. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Agree with the above assessment that a new title would be needed at a minimum, as well as a hefty dose of WP:TNT to start the thing over. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Bell (comics)[edit]

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

Outside of the one obituary and a blogspot uploading his work, I'm not finding anything on this guy, so I feel he's not notable. Rusted AutoParts 00:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that he just died the easiest thing to find is his obit. However, dig a little deeper into Google and you can even find him referenced on Russian academic sits. Not bad for someone around 80 who did most of their work before Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.26.90 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Gordon Bell is a significant name in British comics and cartooning. The article may be poorly referenced (I've added another ref, so that's a press obituary and a reference in a scholarly book, which I think should be enough to establish notability) but that's no reason for deletion. This proposal should be summarily closed and replaced with a refimprove tag, --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nomination, Nicknack009 has added a good bit to the article (including references). Would have voted keep anyway. Subject is definitely notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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