Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 December >

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trevar Ondiek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY (no appearances in any US pro league). Also appears to fail WP:GNG; only two or three of the sources listed come close to being independent, and those that do are passing coverage or listings only. Haven't found anything better with Google-fu. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2012 (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) 06:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ged Dalton[edit]

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

Deleted PROD per WP:PROD. Reason (by User:Telfordbuck) was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." Illia Connell (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – He has made appearances in Cup matches, but none of them were with a fully pro club he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and more importantly, he fails WP:GNG due to the fact he hasn't received significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 19 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of surfing areas[edit]

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

Huge laundry list, virtually no sourcing. No obvious criterion for what constitutes a "surfing area" and not just a beach. Some entries have been disputed for years. Loads of redlinks. I see no way that this can be a verifiable list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Answers nicely to the definition of an "indiscriminate list". הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of "surfing areas" is too broad to be useful. Secret ^account 20:37, 20 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Riplinger[edit]

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (academics). She might be notable for the controversy around her views on the King James Bible, but that seems to be an internet only controversy, and not in enough reliable sources to be notable. First Light (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If only to keep her fans from accusing us of bias and vandalism when we remove their poorly-sourced praise. That and because there are absolutely no sources in the article demonstrating notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little in reliable sources. Her books have only been reviewed in a few small journals (Master's Seminary Journal, Christian Research Journal, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal). One of those reviews says Riplinger is "reportedly a lay person with degrees in architectural and structural engineering, who lives in Ravenna, Ohio, though this reviewer has not met her and knows little about her." There is a Christianity Today article that might have significant coverage ("King James-Only Advocates Experience Renaissance" by Joe Maxwell), but I don't have access to it. But as far as coverage of Riplinger personally goes, I can't even find out where she got her degrees. I gather she taught at Kent State University, but even that isn't in reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not because she is not notable. She is. "New Age Bible Versions" was received with acclaim by much of the "King James Version Only" movement. King James Only advocate, David Cloud, notes that it gained "a far-reaching audience". The late Jack Hyles pastor of one of the largest churches in the US at the time, presented Mrs. Riplinger with an honorary doctorate degree from Hyles-Anderson College for her work on the book. Her work is commonly cited by King James Only advocates. But the article in its present form lacks substantial biographical material and breaks the wikipedia policies against using information uncritically from self-published books. The editors of this page have removed substantial, verifiable material (including simple biographical material from a linked wedding certificate for general date of birth, place of birth, etc.) I tried to add material that simply documented that her degrees were in home economics and art but the editors removed that too, while allowing to stand the unsubstantiated claim that she has studied at Harvard and Cornell and was a "professor" (rather than an instructor). Wikipedia needs a page on G. A. Riplinger but the current regime of editors will not allow a serious one with verifiable substance. No page on her would be better than this sham. Yeoberry (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To a degree, the failure of your attempt to "balance" the article rests on your own shoulders, because your approach to it has been shrill and demanding and has ignored the advice you've been given by a number of editors about how things work around here. Instead of listening to what you've been told, you've been beating people over the head with the expectation that they will do what you tell them to if only your cudgel is big enough. That's simply not going to work around here, my friend, and your heavy-handed attempts to force it to happen have been fruitless - and will continue to be so unless you wise up and listen to what's being said to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– You continue to ignore four facts: (1) the article as it is violates wikipedia policy by uncritically accepting the subjects claims in a self-published work; (2) it lacks basic biographical information, e.g. a casual reader wouldn't know her birth name, what part of the US she is from, etc.; (3) it lacks significant favorable information about her (honorary doctorate, the sales of her most prominent book); (4) the controversy around her, including from leaders of the very KJV-only movement she is apart. I provided all of that with verification. Rather than augment or improve it, they simply reverted back to the current article, which is inadequate. If this is the way things are done "around here", then I don't really want to be around here. If you want a serious encyclopedia, you and your fellow editors are going to need to change.Yeoberry (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your 4 points for the most part, you didn't provide "all of that with verification", you violated the mandatory policy of Wikipedia regarding the biographies of living people. That is why the material was removed and discussions were initiated on the talk page. You are blaming others for your lack of understanding of the rules that we are all obliged to follow here. It is wrong to shoot the messenger so you should stop doing that. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

–What "mandatory policy of Wikipedia regarding the biographies of living people". I didn't uncritically copy material from a self-published book, such as this page still retains. I have verification from an official copy of a marriage certificate by the state of Ohio. I have the words of Riplinger and D. A. Waite themselves. And other accurate citations. My every statement is verified which is not the case with the page as it currently stands. If you showed some concern for that, I'd believe you were serious about the wikipedia standards.Yeoberry (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep and let someone edit neutrally who has access to the sources. I have just speedy-deleted Yeoberry's attempt at constructing a competing article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/G. A. Riplinger, as A10, attack page, written by the above ed. The additional material there is not limited to her education, but contains some negative discussion of her personal life. The nature of that article does not give me much confidence in the argument. This appears to be an editing dispute which is a poor enough reason for deletion, but especially when the person saying it seems to be saying: if it can't have the negative material, we shouldn't have it." They've already been given a final warning for BLP violation by another editor. However, some of the complaints about neutrality of the p[resent article may be well-founded; I have not investigated. As for the responsible arguments, St.A's argument for "delete" admits in so many words that her work is notable and widely quoted. Christianity Today is a very respectable publication,and we should not be deleting on the basis of no sources for notability when the person urging it admits there's a source but has not read it. We do not delete when the only sources are pay-walled. The nom's argument that the notability is limited in a small circle is unreasonable: WP covers non-mainstream religious movements and the people who are notable within them. KJO is not fringe, tho it seems to me a rather extreme form of fundamentalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

–My competing article, "G.A. Riplinger", was not an "attack page." That's completely unfair. It simply didn't uncritically accept the claims from Ripliinger's self-published work. I reported neutral biographical information sorely lacking in this article and favorable information also lacking. I had verification of every statement made. It's simply that a person who has made the sorts of controversial statements she has, has gathered much unfavorable attention. There is no way to have a neutral report on her without citing those criticisms.Yeoberry (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lengthy discussion at Talk:Gail Riplinger (the subheading title there keeps changing....) about the "verification" that Yeoberry was using—I invite other editors to get involved. I was a bit unsure about the notability of the subject when I nominated it here, because of the article's dependence (still!) entirely on her own sources, plus one quote from the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, which in their own words is "designed to present scholarly articles from a fundamentalist perspective." If the "keep" editors here could offer more than the one reliable source (Christianity Today) it would help the article going forward if it is kept. I realize you have no technical obligation to do so, though I would hope that more attention to the article would help move it forward from the BLP violation and POV soapboxing, assuming it is kept. Reliable sources actually used in the article would help with that. First Light (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

–I used reliable sources and verification, including an official wedding certificate from the state of Ohio. (Is that state considered unreliable?) But it was taken down (at least three times) and the current unverified, scanty article put back.Yeoberry (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using various Google searches, it appears that the Christianity Today article doesn't even mention her name, which would be notable in itself by its absence, demonstrating a lack of notability in the field by a source that covers it. (A search for *"King James-Only Advocates Experience Renaissance" riplinger* in all of Google produces no results.[1]). First Light (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but let's get some facts corrected, etc., without adding attack facts) -- even the largest detractors of the subject admit that she is notable (Yeoberry) or provide sources that assert notability (Christianity Today is a major publication); notability is the criteria for keeping an article, not support for a subject's beliefs. (edit conflict: reply to First Light): not everything is free on Google. Getting the article from EBSCOhost shows that she is the main topic of the article (her first name is spelled "Gall" in the online source, probably from an OCR error). The best quote about her influence from the article is "Riplinger's book, which was published in 1993 and has 100,000 copies in circulation, has itself prompted vigorous rebuttal from many quarters" and then follows are rebuttals from several very prominent scholars. That someone is considered important enough to refute argues strongly for notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. I can't bring myself to endorse this article with a keep, but the subject is notable enough for an article. A major figure in King James Only circles, her book was influential enough that people like James White (theologian) wrote extensively to rebut her. Negative notability is still notability, but it does point to the challenges we can expect in having a neutral article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -My examination of the subject convinces me that Riplinger is quite notable in Christian circles. The article itself is deficient in not making note of her many critics and their arguments, but that's a matter for editing and considerations of WP:WEIGHT, and does not enter into the question of deletion. To not have an article on this person would be detrimental to the encycylopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question of notability is open and shut - when I clicked the Google Books link above, there are _books_ written about the significance and effects of her work. The article in its present form seems decently neutral and straightforward, although it could use some better citing. Ray^Talk 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:Notability (academics). The mere fact of being considered newsworthy and getting mentioned in books is not in itself a measure of academic notability. Furthermore, being quoted by advocates of the KJVO (The King James Version Only) and an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson College which includes in its basic statement:

"SCRIPTURES — We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice." [[2]]

is not independent academic endorsement. The KJVO movement is definitely notable and I suggest it is best understood as a type of extended event or perhaps a very loose organization. If this analogy is applied here. Riplinger falls under the "one event criterion" wp:BLP1E and/or "notability is not inherited" and so any properly sourced encyclopaedic material here should be included in the King James Only movement article and at most Gail Riplinger should be a redirect.Jpacobb (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Riplinger is definitely not an academic (despite her pretentions to the contrary), but she is an author of multiple books that have been widely reviewed, albeit not in places where we're used to looking for reliable sources. Garamond Lethe 17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having spent quite a few hours assembling sources and after a good conversation on the talk page, I've concluded that Riplinger is a notable author but there just aren't enough reliables sources on her life outside of New Age Bible Versions to support a free-standing article on her. If this article is removed sooner rather than later I'll start a new article on NABV. Otherwise I'll continue working on this article with the assumption that we may move it in a week or two. Garamond Lethe 02:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any consensus for moving it, I'm seeing what basically looks like no consensus (5 keeps, 3 weak keeps and 6 deletes). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of the Riplinger article, I would support a New Age Bible Versions article and help with it. Basileias (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This person would barely pass the notability guidelines and from some editor standpoints there is not enough coverage that is third party and independent with editorial oversight. However, I believe there is enough sources to get over the notability hump. While the subject deals with fringe theories in the Evangelical movement, those theories are chronicled in Wikipedia and a proponent of them is most definitely notable. What her fans or detractors "feel" is irrelevant. Basileias (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This individual is notable for what she has written and done, even though the article requires vigilance. Andrew (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least a weak keep -- However, I would have preferred to see more content, and citations of more than the subject's own work. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of sources on the talk page and I'll be at Kent State in a couple of weeks looking for more there. Give it a month and I think the article will be in significantly better shape. Garamond Lethe 15:24, 25 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest paid mayors[edit]

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

Although the salaries of each of these mayors is cited, there is no citation given, nor none to be found, indicating that these are, in fact, the highest salaries anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The resources needed to prove the claim of the article, "Highest Paid mayors", simply do not exist in a citable form and likely never will. Page deletion is advised. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Moved to support.[reply]

Keep. For the United States such a list exists http://www.hourdetroit.com/Hour-Detroit/February-2012/Pay-for-Pols/ and the mayors on the list are included for the part that they make it to the top ten. Same goes for Canada who's highest earning mayor just makes it to the top ten. http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mayor-will-donate-ten-percent-of-pay-1.757628 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westbird (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But will justification of the scope of the article ever exist? I mean, the title says it all, "Highest paid mayors". EVERYWHERE. We'd have to find out what every civil executive in every piss water community around the globe makes to back this up for real, and there are entire countries that either do not run with transparent governments or are run by civil commandants, not mayors. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary in order to justify the article? on that note most lists of this nature would have to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paid_film_actors There is no way of knowing if the some movie star has made more as many movie star contracts are private. I believe a list can be compiled that will beyond reasonable doubt include the highest paid mayors. Westbird (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split by country if sources can be found. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep T.I.M^(Contact) 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the source cited by Westbird. The office of "mayor" and the type and level of renumeration, will vary very much in different countries--it is sometimes primarily ceremonial. So dividing the list by country might be good, but there's no point in it while there is still so little material. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 25 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foosh Energy Mints[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY for Products. Has links but they are merely trivial coverage or mentions and fail product WP:CORPDEPTH as its simply inclusion in lists of similar products. A google search shows only press releases, product updates and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Hu12 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hu12's claim sums it all up, article clearly fails Notability guidelines per reason of WP:Corp. Main contributor has made no indication to address the issue, either, leaving me to recommend it be deleted. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found nothing. Corn cheese (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only put this up today and I do intend to try to fix it. PLEASE HELP!!!!! KEEP THIS ARTICLE! This product does achieve WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTABILITY for Products, even if my poor article might not yet. On Notability: Foosh was the first highly caffeinated mint. It came out after penguin mints, which are tasty, but only have 7 grams of caffeine. Foosh Energy Mints have lasted the test of time as they have been available nationwide and internationally for 8 years. The sources are reliable. I will add more links. Please don't delete this page until I have had a chance to respond to the above comments. Back in 2009, the articles I created for my favorite energy candy, Foosh Energy Mints and Buzz Bites, were deleted. (I have been trying to have these on Wikipedia for years!) These products give people like me, who don't drink coffee, an alternative source of caffeine. I have tried many such products and these are by far the best. The company who makes them somehow found a way to mask the bitterness of caffeine. Penguin mints are yummy, but only have 7 mg of caffeine, versus the 100 in Buzz Bites. People who buy Buzz Bites or see them around will check the internet to see what they are all about and Wikipedia is a good first place to look for reliable information. Thank you for any help you can give to get this to meet all guidelines!!! Respectfully, Matushka (talk)
Comment. Foosh Energy Mints was speedily deleted four times prior once as WP:CSD#A7 and twice as WP:CSD#G11 SPAM advertising and once at a previous AFD. This is a reemergence and a continuation of an older promotional campaign by Vroom Foods, Inc (and Matushka (talk · contribs)) to exploit Wikipedia for Advertising purposes, see also - Foosh Energy Mints Spam case. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently, these (and Buzz Bites) "are by far the best," according to Matushka. The comments in favor of keep support a decision to delete this article as blatant spam. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I Agree 100% with Hu12 that Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"! I am not trying to advertize here, just to inform! I am certainly NOT a spammer! It wasn't spam when I first tried to write this article, and it is not spam now. When someone wants to know about things, Wikipedia informs. How is it that Penguin Mints, Bawls Mints, Tic Tacs, Think Gum, etc can have articles, but not my favorites? Is it spam because in this afD debate I say I like them the best? Why is this product spam and not all the others on Wikipedia? Why did someone remove all of the links to make this an orphan? Isn't being called a spammer a personal attack, which is against the Wikipedia personal attack policy? I am obviously not a professional. I am confused and hurt by the above comments. Please explain. Matushka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a compendium of everything. As such, every topic including Foosh Energy Mints needs to meet Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, andin this case, additional guidance on inclusion is available for companies and its products. There are certainly articles in newspapers mentioning this product in conjunction with other energy mints or candies, but I did not see significant coverage about the product or the company that would meet the inclusion criteria noted here. I understand the article's creator has a passion for the product, but that is not sufficient reason to justify an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What this article needs is some published evidence that this particular product is important, and for articles like this, the GNG is the only way we have of telling. General sources about such foods, or articles that merely mention it , are not sufficient. Promotionalism, Matushka, does not mean only commercial promotionalism. It means promoting anything commercial or non commercial; it can mean promoting a cause. It doesn't matter how valuable or worthy it is--we still avoid it. I don't see the current article as particularly promotional, but your intent was; that makes it difficult to write a good article. But it is nonetheless possible, provided you can find enough good sources to write a proper sourced article, based on the sources, not your own personal knowledge of the product. . The famous candies you mention have such sources. Our terms of notability and COI and promotionalism are "terms of art," terms used here in a special sense in our special context, and people who are not aware of this are sometimes rather taken aback by it. Perhaps we should find ones without the implications, but we haven't been able to. And, unfortunately WP is these days beset by such extensive true commercial promotionalism and writing by press agents that there tends to be a certain amount of suspicion, which is justified 95% of the time. So we apologize, but it still is not now suitable as an encyclopedia artivcle. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCIENCEDOMAIN international[edit]

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

Non-notable marginal publisher. No independent sources. None of the journals they publish is itself notable. Their only claim to notability is being included in a list of "predatory" publishers, which is not enough to build an article upon. Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reliance on primary sources and a lack of significant coverage by media. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be re-written, not deleted. The company publishes 25 low-quality, scholarly journals. Were it written from a more objective point of view, I think the article would have good encyclopedic value. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

What is notable in some sense is that each and every one of those 25 journals is of such low quality that none would qualify as notable. The only info from an independent source that we have (and as far as I know, the only independent info that can be sourced to an RS that exists) is their inclusion on a list of predatory publishers. I don't see how an encyclopedic article could be written based on that... --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This publisher is very small and lacks minimum coverage in media. Even a small publisher needs to prove itself, to get sufficient attention. Its text is mostly taken from the publisher's own website (a kind of self-promotion). Visitors can visit the website of the publisher and can see all the information. No additional information is provided in this wiki page. This page does not add any extra value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia9876 (talk • contribs) 11:33, December 15, 2012— Patricia9876 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

STRONG Delete Non-notable publisher, wanted to advertise its own portfolio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wang Tiong (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — Wang Tiong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I strongly second the opinion of user Randykitty. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitandkat (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC) — Kitandkat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a prejudice. Certainly not notable, appears to have advertising overtones. Recommend deletion as a means of correction, main contributor nor others have taken bold action to fix it. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dani's Castle[edit]

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

The page has no content except for a sidebar, which is in my opinion not enough content to be an article. (If the article is expanded, please close this request for deletion.) Manie sans delire 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:TOOSOON, the show isn't going to air until 2013, although filming is concluded and in the can.Roodog2k (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for now - It seems the show has gained attention with the most recent being this Irish news article from 4 days ago. Although it seems the show will air in the new year, this is not a guarantee so userfying may be best for now. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has some small level of notability, but may not be ready for mainspace yet. That said, we have included articles with about as much notability from more major production companies. This is a weak keep, a strong oppose rationale is like to switch my vote. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep purely on the grounds that the star of the show is very much in the news at the moment, therefore the show is likely to be greatly anticipated. Deb (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are definitely independent sources talking about this already, e.g. Yahoo TV UK. Yaris678 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2012 (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) 06:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic weaponry[edit]

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

The article title is too ambiguous to allow a meaningful article. Atomic weapons were exotic at one time: now they are commonplace. Bowler hats with steel rims are certainly exotic, but (I believe) only exist in fiction. And so on. Severe risk of becoing a ragbag of trivia. TheLongTone (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The book provided as a source, Browning hi-power exotic weapons system, is described on Google Books as guide on making home-made submachine guns. Aside from this being a very disturbing reference, how does this support the concept of "exotic weapons" as described in the article? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the nom. I don't consider a bowler hat with a steel rim to be exotic. Putting that aside, I do agree that the term is too broad. The 'ragbag' of trivia is a sort of innocent WP:COATRACK, where anybody can put any weapon that they consider exotic. Exotic is a subjective quality, not an objective quality. Even if you change the name of the article, you're likely talking about a lot of WP:OR... Roodog2k (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject would seem to rely on an undefined (or personal opinion) interpretation of "exotic". Just not sure how we could ever accurate define the word in this context so as to produce a workable article. To me it's like creating Strange hats or Unusual cars. As Roodog2k notes above, the definition is subjective. What I find exotic may be considered by others to be routine, especially in circumstances where "exotic" can often be used as a synonym for "foreign". A traditional Fijian club might be considered "exotic" in England (or may have been considered "more exotic" in 19th Century England) but would be considered completely ordinary in Fiji. The European Steyr AUG rifle might be considered "exotic" in the US where gun owners would be more familiar with M16-style weapons, but would be considered "standard issue" in Australia where Steyr rifles are the weapon-of-choice for the Australian Army. I just can't see this article could ever work in any meaningful way. Stalwart111 02:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is subjective, could not even be a category, inherently POV since my exotic weapon may be your everyday weapon. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am disappointed to find that the draft has nothing to say about bowler hats or much of anything else. I've long wanted a bowler hat and our article tells us that Doctor Who will be wearing one soon too. And, on further inspection, I find Oddjob's hat! So, you can delete the article in question now - we have bowler hat weaponry well-covered already. Warden (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous! An AFD with pictures! It's been ages! Stalwart111 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a Strange hat or an exotic weapon?TheLongTone (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both - see Chakram. Stalwart111 12:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr. Who does carry around a sonic screwdriver, which is arguably an exotic weapon. I'll add it to the Exotic Weaponry in Popular Culture subsection of the article when I have a chance. Roodog2k (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now hang on! I've just remembered that henchman Random Task (Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery) throws a shoe. Does anyone remember the guy who threw a shoe at George W. Bush? That's potentially WP:EFFECT and WP:GNG. This might not be over just yet! Ha ha. No seriously - well, the weather outside is frightening... etc, let it snow, let it snow. Stalwart111 22:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles like this were common back when I joined Wikipedia in 2005, but they're now recognised as not being a good idea (though they did add some fun to the place which is now missing...). Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first I was going ot !vote "Delete", because the concept looks subjective, and the article looks like too. However you can find the expression used often in books and academic sources. It could be interesting to have an overhaul of the article to cover well-sourced and well-defined usage of the term. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a great example of the problem - that first page of Google books results includes references to movie weapons, ancient Roman weapons, underwater guns, Role Playing Games (but not RPGs), futuristic chemical weapons and jungle weapons from the Vietnam War. Which do we decide constitutes an "exotic weapon"? Which of those 10 definitions do we use? Stalwart111 00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's why I didn't say "Keep". One should comb sources, see if and what are consistent, well sourced usages of the term and build articles on them. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For sure; just not sure that would be possible, or that someone volunteering to try would be enough to stem the tide of Delete votes here. But I don't think anyone would strongly object to it. Stalwart111 00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see why this was relisted, even after the tweaks, the scope of the article cannot be defined. I would not oppose articles about "exotic weapons" of specific times or national assemblies, perhaps unified by a grander article, but this will spiral out of control unless it is built from the bottom up. This page should be deleted and recreated as many less ambitious articles about "exotic weapons", if we ever reach consensus on what exactly that means. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too subjective of an article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relister's comment I relisted this because of Cyclopia's comment near the end of the discussion relating to research which might result in an article which could be kept, which I hoped to see acted on or further discussed in a relisted debate. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That way madness lies: it would become endlessly recursive. Define exotic: source that definition. Now find a source to back those definitions against any others. & so on. Shame, it would be an amusing Strange...but True article, but this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of beermats. I would like to know more about the man who (allegedly) set up a machine to hurl dumplings at incoming traffic at a USAF base in Germany, or the use of beehives as ammunition in siege warfare, but c'est la vie.TheLongTone (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undefinable parameters for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Military technology or List of weapons. The article describes nothing but some random weapons. Besides, everybody probably has a different understanding of "exotic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by King jakob c (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the problem here is the word "exotic". As inclusion criteria, in this usage it's just too vague. Perhaps this could be kept if the name of the page and the inclusion criteria was clearer? - jc37 02:13, 19 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Bites[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY for Products. Has links but they are merely trivial coverage or mentions and fail product WP:CORPDEPTH as its simply inclusion in lists of similar products. A google search shows only press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Hu12 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article coverage exists in electronic media, but not any significantly credible way. The product certainly is not revolutionary, and not likely to break headlines anytime in the future. Recommend delete unless better sources can be identified and added to article. T.I.M^(Contact) 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPLEASE HELP!!!!! KEEP THIS ARTICLE! This product does achieve WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTABILITY for Products! On google search, where to buy them, forums about them, articles about them, etc. are on at least the first 43 pages of results! (When other similar products that are on Wikipedia are googled, the results are similar, but the pages fewer. -see Penguin Mints and Bawls Mints) The references used include The Wall Street Journal, CNN Money, Time Magazine and the Houston Chronicle - RELIABLE!!!

More on Notability: This product is revolutionary, as Buzz Bites were the first chocolates to be enhanced with extra caffeine. They have lasted the test of time as an avalanche of copycat products have come and gone. They have been available nationwide and internationally for 8 years. I will add more links. Please don't delete this page until I have had a chance to respond to the below comments. A few years back the article I had created for my favorite energy candy, Buzz Bites, was deleted. (I also love Foosh Energy Mints and and have redone the article I created for them, too). I have been working to have these on Wikipedia for years! These products give people like me, who don't drink coffee, an alternative source of caffeine. I have tried many such products and these are by far the best. The company who makes them somehow found a way to mask the bitterness of caffeine. Penguin mints are yummy, but only have 7 mg of caffeine, versus the 100 in Buzz Bites. People who buy Buzz Bites or see them around will check the internet to see what they are all about and Wikipedia is a good first place to look for reliable information. Thank you for any help you can give to get this to meet all guidelines!!! Matushka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Moved and reformatted misplaced comment by Matushka. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Buzz Bites was speedily deleted previously as WP:CSD#G11 SPAM, recreated then deleted @ AfD as spam. This is a reemergence and a continuation of an older promotional campaign by Vroom Foods, Inc (and Matushka (talk · contribs)) to exploit Wikipedia for Advertising purposes, see also - Buzz Bites Spam case. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently, these (and Foosh Energy Mints) "are by far the best," according to Matushka. The comments in favor of keep support a decision to delete this article as blatant spam. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I Agree 100% with Hu12 that Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"! I am not trying to advertize here, just to inform! I am certainly NOT a spammer! It wasn't spam when I first tried to write this article, and it is not spam now. When someone wants to know about things, Wikipedia informs. How is it that Penguin Mints, Bawls Mints, Tic Tacs, Think Gum, etc can have articles, but not my favorites? Is it spam because in this afD debate I say I like them the best? Why is this product spam and not all the others on Wikipedia? Why did someone remove all of the links to make this an orphan? Isn't being called a spammer a personal attack, which is against the Wikipedia personal attack policy? I am obviously not a professional. I am confused and hurt by the above comments. Please explain.Matushka (talk)
- Matushka: if you will follow the trail of links, you will see that this product and related products have been the subject of large spam campaigns with numerous sockpuppets who wasted many editors' time, so even if you created this article in complete good faith, you will have to excuse other editors for jumping down your throat... הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the same reason that Foosh Energy Mints is problematic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a compendium of everything. As such, every topic including Buzz Bites needs to meet Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, andin this case, additional guidance on inclusion is available for companies and its products. There are certainly articles in newspapers mentioning this product in conjunction with other energy mints or candies, but I did not see significant coverage about the product or the company that would meet the inclusion criteria noted here. I understand the article's creator has a passion for the product, but that is not sufficient reason to justify an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (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 to delete this material. There is a consensus that the article is promotional, and it should be rewritten accordingly. Equallycorrect challenges Ms Meir's notability, but Gobonobo answers that by linking to reliable sources that have noted her. Phazarkley asserts that the sources are all "connected to her"; this is simply inaccurate. Agricola44 attacks the sources, describing one of them as "obscure" and "not mainstream", another as "a peripheral mention" and another as "PR material". This is helpful but falls short of the detailed and specific analysis of the sources that would be necessary to achieve deletion in the face of the sources and !votes provided.

The "keep" side also fails to make its case. Gobonobo's more specific discussion of the sources is helpful but not conclusive. I considered relisting again, but I am prevented by the third paragraph of WP:RELIST, so the only close available is no consensus. In the circumstances WP:NPASR applies. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Jessica Meir[edit]

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

This article does not meet the criteria for Notability. While this entry is very well written and compelte, the significance of author's scientific credentials are not high enough to warrent this page. Author does not appear in major scientific journals (Science/Nature) and a quick scifinder search reveals a decent but not remarkable publication record. Equallycorrect (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was created by someone who clearly knows what their doing, but it's littered with un-RS material. An article this well-written that only receives 100 views a month seems a little strange to me. At the very least, this article is excessively promotional and should be trimmed down to its encyclopedic content, though I think a full deletion would be taking it too far. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination seems to make a case for how this article may not meet WP:SCHOLAR, but the number of write-ups in popular science sources such as US News & World Report, ScienceNews, LiveScience and Globe & Mail suggest that Meir is worthy of notice anyway, passing WP:BIO. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject does not pass WP:Prof. Only chance is WP:GNG. Article is overly promotional in tone and reads as if written by a PR hack. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Does not pass WP:Prof, as others have mentioned, but the number of citations and amount of coverage is sufficient for GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be a consensus that Meir does not pass WP:PROF. I would concur, adding that WoS shows an h-index of 8 and no highly-cited papers, which is about what one would expect for an early-in-career academic. I think WP:GNG is problematic too because most of sources are actually either web-pages or non-published docs, e.g. NASA and NSF PR. The one exception is the US News piece, but this still falls short of the "multiple sources" commonly expected. If the article is kept, it will have to be overhauled to remove WP:OR, which actually comprises most of the article. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't the Globe and Mail piece constitute a second independent source? I also think that there is an amount of coverage beyond which semi-connected sources become sufficient to add weight to the independent sources. Yes, she has NSF grants, yes, she's worked for NASA, but the extensive coverage of her work goes beyond what would normally be expected in highlighting a funded researcher. Many of the sources are connected to her (as Phazakerley points out below), but it's not the number that are connected that determines GNG, but the number that are independent; if there's too much weight to connected sources, that can be trimmed in cleanup (though most support uncontroversial facts in the article, not assertions of importance, and thus most seem harmless if the article is kept). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below, Agricola44 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Sources seem PR-hypey. It's hard to find any truly independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wouldn't the US News and Globe and Mail articles about her count as independent sources? (as do ScienceDaily and some of the other citations, though they're not in depth enough to satistfy GNG on their own). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long list of popular press mentions. It is very PR-hypey, but that is something better fixed by editing than by deletion. Ray^Talk 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply fails WP:GNG, the sources about her are almost all connected to her.--Phazakerley (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice of this AfD should be placed in the Birds, Oceans, Spaceflight and Women scientists projects, to ensure a more thorough discussion, especially from editors in those projects. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG which supersedes WP:PROF. PROF enables important researchers and educational leaders who can't garner editorial coverage. She has plenty, and with so many references, I feel the author earns some latitude to make a slightly glowing, PR style article. USN&WR, ScienceNews and Globe & Mail are certainly not connected to her. She belongs in WP.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think one must look at broader context. For example, "Science News for Kids" is an obscure web-zine from a non-profit orginzation, not a mainstream publication. The Globe & Mail article is actually about Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation and some of the folks involved, like Sam Wasser (who certainly should have a WP article). Meir is only peripherally mentioned. Public relations material (like the NASA web pages), even boatloads of it (which constitutes much of the remainder of sources), has never counted significantly toward notability because of its promotional and ephemeral nature. Agricola44 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2012 (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) 06:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Braced Experience[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK as it's self-published and has no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources (see Google News search Google News Archive search). OlYeller21^Talktome 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources for this book; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Gong show 18:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notion of an "orthodontic novel" is amusing (and we do have a list of fictional dentists) but after spending some time looking for reviews or other substantial coverage of this self-published work in independent reliable sources, I could find no evidence of any such coverage or other indicia of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional spam, given the cross-wiki page creation (they also created a Wikiquote page, which is also up for deletion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2012 (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. The decision on whether to merge or keep this article is a little close - no one here is advocating deletion (the nominator changed their vote a few times) but there is some disagreement on whether to merge or keep. As some have noted that the article has undergone improvements over the course of the AFD (including the creation and expansion on a critical reception section), I've closed this as keep but recommend that discussion on possible merging continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tight A$[edit]

Delete and redirect - "Tight A$" is my favorite song from Lennon's solo work, so I did extensive research to find something notable about this song. I found absolutely nothing. The article at it's current state fails Wikipedia:Notability (songs) as it's article and it's lone citation state that it's a song by John Lennon on the album Mind Games. The content itself just says it's a song by Lennon Mind Games and Gimme Some Truth and the musicians who play on it, but both album articles I just mentioned cover that information. To continue in the citation , John Lennon himself calls the song a "throwaway track" making it even less notable. To put things in short it fails notability, is a stub, and has one citation that calls it a "throwaway." --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mind Games (album)#Track listing - Several songs are forgotten especially if they are from the artist's first days. Google Books found one result here and Google News found minor mentions here, here and here (seventh result from the top). Billboard suggests it never charted and there isn't any evidence to suggest it was commercially used. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject passes WP:GNG. There are several books that cover the song in some detail, for example Blaney's Lennon and McCartney: together alone : a critical discography of their solo work, du Noyer's John Lennon: Whatever Gets You Through the Night, Rogan's The Complete Guide to the Music of John Lennon, Madinger and Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Urish and Bielen's The Words and Music of John Lennon. And that's just a non-exhaustive list from books in my personal collection. Notability is determined by the availabilty of multiple published sources independent of the subject - those do not just include those available on the Internet. The nominator made similar claims about the non-notability of other Lennon songs, such as "Meat City" [3] and "Well Well Well" [4] and those were quickly turned into decent articles. It will take some time to complete all the songs that the nominator wishes to redirect, but their notability is similar to "Meat City" and "Well Well Well" and so should be kept. Further, contrary to the nomination, at least two of the facts in the article as it exists today are not covered in the Mind Games article: the specific instruments played (and by whom) and the fact that the song is on Gimme Some Truth. It is particularly inappropriate that the nominator wishes to "delete and redirect," since deletion prior to redirecting (even if redirecting were appropriate) would unnecessarily require an editor to perform additional work to restore the information that currently when expanding the article. Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, none of the references you just mentioned are found on the "Tight A$" article which is what matters. Also it may pass the general guidelines, but because it's a song it should pass the song notability guidelines as well, which by the article's current citations, it does not even come close. It doesn't matter how much independent coverage this song has UNTIL it's being used as citation on the song's article, so if you want it to stay up, please add it. I believe articles shouldn't exist UNTIL they've been made into decent articles, and as of now the "Tight A$" is redundant information already covered by the Mind Games album. Honestly, "Meat City" and "Well Well Well" now only have a description how their music and some quotes from the band and they don't pass song notability either. Quotes like "Meat City" shows Lennon excited and disturbed by the "abandonment of reason rock 'n' roll could elicit from its audience." (From Meat City's article) and "clenched" and "grunge-like" and claims that Starr's drumming is "some of Ringo's toughest." (From Well Well Well's article) are neither famous nor impressive. If you'd like to transform "Tight A$" from a short non notable article into a long non notable article, please don't. Songs should either be singles (hopefully charting), receive a lot of media coverage, have a cultural impact, be covered by many other artists, have a very unusual structure/technique that inspired something, or anything that actually means something to someone who's not a huge John Lennon fanatic (Such as myself) (which I'm not accusing you of this, but instead mentioning the only people who would ever look up this article) If what's on "Meat City" and "Well Well Well" are the most notable things you can come up with, they should be deleted as well. This isn't a John Lennon fan wiki. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making up your own personal notability guidelines, which is fine but Wikipedia deletion discussions should be based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia's notability guidelines, basically "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," cover all topics, including songs. And per WP:NNC, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." And even if you are not impressed by the information in the "Meat City" or "Well Well Well" articles, what makes them notable is the multiple reliable sources saw fit to give them significant coverage; that they were impressed enough by the facts about the song is Wikipedia's standard, not your personal preferences. Nor my personal preferences - I added the information that I was interested in to these articles, which is hardly all the information that could be added. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments - When I said it wasn't impressive I meant it's the type of information that gets deleted for being trivial non Wikipedian information. When it comes to articles, it not about "facts" it's about notability.

From the general guidelines: Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.

Nothing of about "Tight A$" or "Meat City" agrees with the general guidelines of "Independant of Subject" since all of the quotes in "Meat City" are ones said by Lennon and "Tight A$" still is just an article that mentions the exists, what album it's on, it's line-up, and nothing else.

From Wikipedia:NSONGS: "an article about a musical recording that does not attempt to indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9." Making all 3 songs eligible for deletion. Unlike most of the criteria for a song article, that's not just a suggestion, but a guideline. Also it means that they not only have criteria for AfD, but even criteria for speedy deletion--Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the "Meat City" article meets "independent of the subject," except the quote from the lyrics and arguably the one quote from Lennon, and even that is reported by a source independent of Lennon. As for WP:CSD A9, that applies only if the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true). The John Lennon article certainly exists, so I am not sure why you believe that A9 is at all relevant. Rlendog (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but all I see in their articles is a huge collection of information that doesn't prove these songs have any notability. The articles almost make it seem like "It's by John Lennon so of course it's notable!" which is anything, but true. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia is a "huge collection of information." What makes that information notable is that multiple reliable independent sources saw fit to write about (or otherwise discuss, e.g., documentaries about POB which discuss all the songs on the album) that information. In any case, taking "Meat City," I am not sure why you claim that Lennon's inspiration for the song or critical reaction to the song is non-notable. In your original comment on my talk page [5] you stated that "a source describing why he wrote it" or "an depth critical response" would even satisfy your criteria. Rlendog (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "BeatlesBible.com" a fan site? (Old Dirt Road's only citation) --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct about that. I added a better source for some of the information, but I don't have Blaney handy. I won't object if you remove the "personnel" until I have a chance to add the appropriate source to that book, if it really bothers you. Rlendog (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that a fan site is not a reliable citation... so if I delete it "Old Dirt Road" is now subject for immediate removal. As for "Tight A$" it's allmusic references of "Mind Games" just mentions it's being on the album, which makes it a good citation for the Gimme Some Truth album article, but not suitable for this article, since yet all that citation does it mention it's existence. As for the other citation from allmusic for Mind Games it's the same story, except it also mentions it with "Meat City" which makes it look like a bad citation for an article specifically for "Tight A$" and better suited to one on the entire Mind Games album. If you think a description of each songs's musical arrangement is necessary, the Mind Games article itself is rather short and I feel that your book on John Lennon would do way more good there than on an article of a non notable song such as this. It's unimportant songs like this having articles that keeps information that should be on album articles from being there. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Allmusic site has little bearing on the notability of this song (or "Old Dirt Road"). You raised a legitimate concern about the current state of sourcing of these articles, and I addressed it (to the extent I could at the moment). When I add a better source for the personal, that in itself will also have little bearing on the notability of these songs. The notability of these songs rests on the many published references which provide significant coverage, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until these citations are on the article their existence doesn't matter. Temporary citations act as poor citations that should be removed because of lack of credibility, and no where in Wikipedia's guidelines says it's okay for an article to temporarily have insufficient citations. Unless add you proper citations now, the article currently still has no credible citations. Also both article's content is still at the same state as originally adressed: redundant. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where you are getting this notion of "temporary citations." Everything in the article is currently reliably sourced. The only citation that may need to come out is the Beatle Bible link, but the information sourced there now also has an additional reliable source supporting it. And now there is even (a little bit) more non-redundant information in the article than there was before. Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New comment - I see you added some information, but remember it's also part of the guidelines that articles that don't have much of a chance from growing past a stub should be deleted. The information you added still makes it a stub. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are still mistaking the current state of the article for what it could be. WP:NSONGS states that song "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The article is currently a stub but has the potential to grow beyond a stub using the sources I mentioned above, and others. In addition, I'll just emphasize that NSONGS says that articles unlikely to "grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." It does not say they should be deleted. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Rlendog. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I saw you added a lot of information, although it's still a stub. If you do as you say and add even more information, I won't have a problem if it stays up, but as of now I don't change my vote. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added even more information and the critical reception section is decently sized. So I'll change my vote to Keep, but please fix the other stub/poorly referenced Lennon or else it will seem like I have to nominate those articles for deletion as well for you to fix them. For me it's a win-win because either a poorly referenced stub gets taken down, or it gets turned into a decently sized and well referenced article. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, until a more a substantial version of the article exists I don't think its a good idea to keep it because "it might grow in size". At the moment the article itself is borderline on notable. I believe the information could easily be merged into the parent album. One key thing you should ask is if the coverage about the subject is primary. In this case many of the references, they primarily refer to the album as a whole and not directly to the song itself. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge - Oh wow you're right... um... I hate changing my vote again, but that's probably the best point brought up yet. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Mind Games. This is clearly encyclopedic, well-sourced content. --Michig (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2012 (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.

Stats)

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

The result was speedy keep. The close is a little early, however due to the expansion of the article, the nominator has changed their opinion to keep, and there was no other advocacy for deletion. Thus, I think it is fine to close this early as a speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Dirt Road[edit]

Delete and redirect - The article's citations prove no notability, it's a one sentence stub that just tells you it's a song by John Lennon while the album's article Walls and Bridges already covers that. Other than that it has a list of musicians who are on the song, Walls and Bridges also covers that. Basically this article is s stub of redundant information more suited to the Walls and Bridges article. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:GNG. There are several books that cover the song in some detail, for example Blaney's Lennon and McCartney: together alone : a critical discography of their solo work, du Noyer's John Lennon: Whatever Gets You Through the Night, Rogan's The Complete Guide to the Music of John Lennon, Madinger and Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Urish and Bielen's The Words and Music of John Lennon. And that's just a non-exhaustive list from books in my personal collection. Notability is determined by the availabilty of multiple published sources independent of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator made similar claims about the non-notability of other Lennon songs, such as "Meat City" [6] and "Well Well Well" [7] and those were quickly turned into decent articles. It will take some time to complete all the songs that the nominator wishes to redirect, but their notability is similar to "Meat City" and "Well Well Well" and so should be kept. Further, contrary to the nomination, at least one of the facts in the article as it exists today are not covered in the Mind Games article: the specific instruments played (and by whom) on the song. It is particularly inappropriate that the nominator wishes to "delete and redirect," since deletion prior to redirecting (even if redirecting were appropriate) would unnecessarily require an editor to perform additional work to restore the information that currently when expanding the article. Rlendog (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Read the section on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tight A$ listed as "comment" and replace every time I type "Tight A$" with "Old Dirt Road" --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your made up notability requirements are as irrelevant here as they are there. Rlendog (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made up? I was just going by how those articles still don't prove notability and their article makes like look like "just another song on the album that has had no significant media attention or anything else notable." Which is true. Why don't you understand that not every John Lennon song (or even most of his solo work) is notable? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's notability guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Which this song, and "Tight A$" do. And I am not sure why all the books discussing these songs do not meet your standard for "significant media attention." Rlendog (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that a musical description is significant coverage. I also don't support of random Lennon songs have articles, where has this song made any sort of impact outside of the Walls and Bridges album? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the book sources stated in User:Rlendog's !vote above. The topic appears to pass WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The books he mentioned still aren't being used as citations on the article... --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NSONGS which states, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Happy to change my vote if enough detail can be added. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AS much work as been done, it is no longer a stub, and the consensus is to keep I have struck my merge !vote. This is not support to keep because using, John Lennon: The Stories Behind Every Song, does not make every JL song notable. I think more work on the important JL songs and less on the permastubs would benefit not only Wikipedia, but John Lennon too. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Rlendog. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well since this is article is on longer a stub and it actually has a decent sized critical reception section, I acutally feel forced to change my vote to Keep. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted. No claim of notability, borderline promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leanmill.com[edit]

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

The site hasn't launched yet, and hasn't received any coverage as far as I can tell, which rather suggests it doesn't meet the criteria set out in WP:CORP. Alexrexpvt (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fartak Moscow[edit]

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

Soccer club established last year, no third-party references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator without an explanation. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Hoax alarm buzzing. "Alex Simpson was also out injured for a few games when he required a colonic irragation on the pitch. The match was subsequently abandoned due to flooding." This is somebody being silly. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (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) 06:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Unknown Past[edit]

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

Non-notable film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The blue link (in the article) is to a user page. Otherwise all red links and no reliable independent sources. The blue linked person claims to be nearly 17 and on YouTube. That says it all, really. The plot as given looks like a load of old cobblers, which suggests to me that it is going to be on YouTube because no-one else will touch it. It might have made it in the old days of Hollywood and Hammer Films horror, when plausibility was the last thing for concern, but not now. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm somewhat concerned at the promotional tone of the original editor's user page (User:Shivamguptacgasrtist) and that he linked to it in the article currently up for AfD. Is that something that would be considered to be too promotional to remain or should be put up for WP:MFD?Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This simply isn't notable. A search under the title and actor's name brings up few hits, none of which are usable to show notability. I'm debating nominating the user's page for MfD simply because it's a relatively obvious attempt at promotion.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability whatsoever. Furthermore, I don't really understand the plot. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2012 (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. If anyone wants to try and create a usable list per S Marshall, please ask. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of beverages/soft drinks[edit]

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

Unworkable list, certainly in this table format and with this title: as stands is a List of carbonated drinks by major US manufacturers. Where is orange juce, or even a place for it, for instance. Or Irn-bru. And so on TheLongTone (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overly broad list parameters. List of carbonated beverages made in the United States might pass muster, if that's what this is supposed to be. But there are tens of thousands of beverages in a world so at this is structured it is either going to be so incomplete as to be useless or so overly long as to be useless.... Carrite (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CLT. Better served by a category. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of carbonated beverages made in the United States per nominator and Carrite, whose arguments fail WP:ATD which enjoins us to exhaust the alternative to deletion before deleting. In this case the rename is a viable option. Presidentman's argument falls foul of WP:CLN which says that if a category is appropriate then a list probably is as well. (Lists are sometimes more helpful than categories to our end-users because few end-users use categories proficiently, lists can be sortable, and they can be watched.)—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 25 December 2012 (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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiara Belen[edit]

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

Note for an Admin - WP:WITHDRAWN I agree with everyone below that a multi individual review is much too complicated. Especially when a couple are already clearly borderline. Of course it started with two, and grew from there. Apologies.--Nixie9 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are all covering women who lost America's Next Top Model show. They fail WP:GNG, fulfiling WP:ONEEVENT, each was on a single reality/competition show, not the winner. The existing listing for each on the show's article/table is sufficient. The majority of the articles are a play by play of the show, followed by the claim that she was in one to a handful of photo shoots or in non-speaking television roles, with no editorial references. I wish each lady luck in their careers, but the subjects are not encyclopedic. Nixie9 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the list of previous runners-up to this competition (often 2nd or 3rd runner up). This group could very well be the original case study for WP:ONEEVENT. Each lost this event, and has had minor modeling photoshoots, but no editorial coverage establishing notability. Now fans are trying to add every contestent. Most articles have had source needed tags for ages. There are a few ladies I excluded due to editorial coverage, but I did not do a deep investigation. If there are only ads for refs, and no editorials, I scooped them up in the dragnet.--Nixie9 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Nixie9 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These huge group discussions are always a bit problematic as I want to be sure I've given each one a fair hearing. However, I will just quickly vote keep for Amanda Swafford as she is a bit more special with her disability. There is an extensive interview with her in a London paper here, and she was still being recognised several years after the show according to the Google snippet view for this, and this. She has demonstrated longevity and general notability, so she shouldn't even be on here.Mabalu (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that the fact that some of these were brought back for the "All Stars" show is probably significant too, meaning that they kind of go beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT now they've done the follow-up show several years later. This article sums up what some of them have gone on to do, though the irony is that a couple of the more interesting/notability-passing ones aren't in your list. (I'm glad you didn't nominate Isis King, by the way.) But I really do hate this style of nomination - four or five names is manageable but listing 30 at once is overwhelming and runs the risk that some people will get deleted without receiving a fair assessment because of the pressure to come up with a blanket decision. Mabalu (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Mercedes Scelba-Shorte by the way. She demonstrates general notability with a number of articles in various third party sources, largely due to her work as an lupus spokesperson, something she has been doing over several years according to the dates on the news results which start in 2004 and go up to 2012. I see a number of hits for her on Google News under her name Mercedes Yvette, in various languages, e.g.. 1, 2. Seriously, there's a lot out there about her work with the Lupus Society, so she shouldn't be on this list either. Mabalu (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Yaya DaCosta - again, really? The article shows a quite impressive list of film, music video, and television appearances, and nominations for awards (even though most are as part of an ensemble cast, it still counts). It all adds up into a clear general notability pass. There is this, and she has lots of hits on Google News Archive. I will say that after looking at three in a row and finding plenty of reasons why those three pass general notability, I am going to vote a blanket keep on the entire list with no prejudice against renomination of certain individuals. Mabalu (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket keep on the entire list without prejudice to renomination of individual articles per Mabalu. This kind of blanket AfD is just about the worst way to handle this sort of thing. WP:SINGLEEVENT may well cover some of these folks but, like it or not, others meet WP:GNG because their appearance on a reality show, even as a loser on a reality show, even as a loser on this loser of a reality show, gave them the leg-up for the future prominence they were looking for and led to later biographical events that rendered them notable by virtue of being covered in reliable sources. In my view reality shows aren't much better than Muzak, which I truly despise. But what I despise is irrelevant. Both Muzak and a fair number of these losers are appropriately covered in wikipedia articles, under wikipedia's policies and guidelines. David in DC (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, If there is sourcing for each article then they meet GNG generally. Insomesia (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Insomesia except for Samantha Potter, which will likely redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep and relist individually, even if most will likely be deleted, so as to not give the reviewing admin nightmares. i concur with the nominator that their appearance on ANTM doesnt grant notability, per the lack of serious media coverage for most of them post show.(mercurywoodrose)99.157.206.37 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2012 (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. I'm moving all these to the instructor's user space. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Leavitt[edit]

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

No assertion of notability other than being interviewed for the Federal Writers Project Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, the article is an excuse for an essay. --Nixie9 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This biography is an essay about an ordinary person, subjects of a writing project. No notability is asserted for the subject. May be valuable as a time capsule but not as an encyclopaedic biographical entry Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:19, 22 December 2012 (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. Close: I'm redirecting all of these to the user space of the instructor. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Turner[edit]

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

No assertion of notability other than being interviewed for the Federal Writer's project Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG same as all the others sourced from this same book.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betty McCoy[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, other than the fact that she was interviewed for the Federal Writers Project. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This biography is an essay about an ordinary person, as a subject of a writing project. No notability is asserted for the subject. May be valuable as a time capsule but not as an encyclopaedic biographical entry. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (NAC). Till 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Matthew[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only appearances so far have been in a series of low-budget shorts and "TV movies" that do not appear to have had any airplay. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable - Autobio. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Fails WP:NACTOR also - Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bjelleklang under criterion A10. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State of Grace (acoustic version) (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

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

Much of the information is duplicated from State of Grace (Taylor Swift song). The accoustic version does not need it's own page. Merge it into the main article. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed merge with the main article of the song Seasider91 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A10). This is a "recently created article that duplicates an existing topic": State of Grace (Taylor Swift song). No content to merge, and not a plausible alternate name for a redirect. Gong show 23:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article as different versions of same song do not get separate article space - per WP:SONGCOVER. No objections to a straight delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin (song)[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONG, this song isn't notable in itself. As far as I can tell it was never released as a single. Any information about it should be merged with the album article: Nursery Cryme Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing really to merge. No objection to a redirect if anyone thinks it would be useful, but bear in mind anyone searching for 'Harlequin' will likely end up at the disambiguation page which already lists this song - the target there should be changed to the album if this is deleted. --Michig (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - not really fussed which one, but there's nothing of note here. —Andrew_stalk 06:15, 25 December 2012 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Eagan Holmes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:PERP. No indication that he is a lasting figure of notability beyond the contemporaneous news coverage, and we should not be indulging the copy-cat mentality and turning murderers like him into infamous celebrities.
Also see this lengthy administrators discussion regarding the exact issue of perpetrators' stand alone pages Wikipedia:AN#Length_of_full_prevention_on_shooter_page
Finally, this article is essentially an unneeded WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the event article, with almost no information not (or that could not easily be) duplicated there.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showing that these shooters/mayhen creators are meantally ill will help people to understand that they have a responsibility to intervene before bad things happen. There are a long string of mentally ill persons who have committed this type of crime. It is most important to get that message out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.18 (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox, 192.28.0.18. Please stick to rationales that have a basis in deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep - why try to beat a dead horse? this AfD is over before it began. Highly notable because of persistent coverage by media and passing WP:GNG by a mile.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no knowledge of persistent coverage, it has all been part of the immediate event. If people are writing books about him years from now, like Oswald, Hinkley etc, then that is persistent coverage. WP:PERP specifically discludes contemporaneous coverage, which all of this coverage is. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook wp:PERP/wp:BLP1E.TMCk (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Pretty much seconding what BabbaQ said - the article covers a notable subject who still gets plenty of ongoing news coverage attesting to said notability. I find the timing of this nomination (i.e. several days after the Sandy Hook massacre) to be a rash, knee-jerk reaction. Why is there no hue and cry to delete Jared Lee Loughner's page, for example? 3hunna (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIME: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." WWGB (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage has this had that is something "Beyond contemporaneous news coverage" ? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstention I thought we are over this?! Fox2k11 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep 4 this reason I agree with the thought that this page should be deleted due to the fact that it lends fame to these cowardly nut cases however I think it should be kept here for the simple reason that this active shooter type scenario, while not entirely new, has definitely gained some kind of favorability among lunatics as of late and this page with the background/history of the offender may serve a basis for a personality profile which could be used to potentially provide relevant information into a profile of future nut-cases... Wikispeak1 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Wikispeak1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Umh, do you suggest that our law enforcement relies on our information we give in articles or do you encourage private persons to do their work? Maybe I misunderstood? In any case, there is a big difference between an encyclopedia and ongoing real live by professionals. Here on WP we don't do "profiling" and such is not a reason to keep the article in question. We go by our rules, policies and guidelines, not by our own opinions or feelings.TMCk (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily meets notability criteria. BLP1E, by it's own criteria, does not apply. BLP1E lists 3 criteria necessary for it to apply. Only one is met, so the criteria are not met for BLP1E to apply. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which BLP1E are you referring to? There must be more than one if you're right. And what about WP:PERP? Any take on that?TMCk (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E. It lists three bullet points, and says that all three must be true for BLP1E to apply. In this case, and similar cases, the first criteria may apply, but the second and third generally do not apply. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E / PERP, take your pick --No unique names 03:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holmes will likely have a long and detailed trial and (probably) execution, so alot of information is going to come out about him in the next few years as lawyers and activist debate his mental state and weather he should get the DP. Kinda like our articles on McVeigh and Terry Nicols--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping nor is expecting a long trial as per WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the shooting article, there is simply no new information here. - filelake shoe  15:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I am thinking that even though it does give attention to this kind of stuff its an important reference. I came to this page to get sources to compare shooters over time to see where they got their guns...this is part of an analysis of gun laws ...so it seems important o be able to look up details like this on killers. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tovegrant (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to address how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I see no real reason not to have the article, and agree that it is simply being recommended to be deleted in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. It is still of informational value despite the notoriety of it's subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrrgghhh (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — Arrrgghhh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: This crime was really the first of its kind. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not the first school shooters so should we delete their page too?Nettieoneg (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I've been following this AfD for a number of days and none of the keep arguments are convincing. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used as well as crystal balling on future coverage. This one fails WP:PERP which trumps WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until the end of the trial: Of course there haven't been any updates lately. He's just sitting in jail. Once the trial progresses, we're guaranteed to be given more information that is likely to be quite unique to Holmes and this particular incident. It seems premature to delete it and insist that it's not historically significant enough at this point. Not only this, but the event has already sparked similar copycat attempts recently. Like I said, we should at least wait to see how everything plays out before deciding to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.178.252 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 108.180.178.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. The WP way is to wait how things "play out" before even creating such an article because our guidelines and policies strongly advise us to take this approach. Like LipStar said above, there are little to none arguments to keep that are base on those rules.TMCk (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allegedly responsible for one of the worst mass shootings in American history, so neither BLP1E nor WP:PERP apply. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Why? Those policies don't back up your claim.TMCk (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes' role in the shooting has been extensively documented. BLP1E calls for deletion if the event isn't significant and the subject's role in it isn't well-documented. And this crime is one of the deadliest shootings in history, and has been covered for over six months.HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 01:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is deleting this article in the best interests of the reader? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Same as before. This passes WP:BLP1E easily, as it fails the second and third prongs of the deletion test. The execution of the crime is unusual, and relevant to Gun politics in the United States and other mass shooting perpetrators in the united states like Seung-Hui Cho. No one likes "turning murderers like him into infamous celebrities" as Gaijin42 said, but that's not strictly relavent. More details about Holmes will emerge as the trial progresses. He is currently kept in solitary, which is normal protocol for "high profile suspects." Wing gundam (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets WP:PERP in spades: "the execution of the crime is unusual". Hello? He went to a movie screening through an emergency door, was wearing full body armor, and used gas canisters. And then he shot 70 people. As for sustained coverage, of course most of the focus was at the time of, but he still has gotten plenty of coverage in the last 30 days.--Chaser (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2012 (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 Outsider (Known Space). Of course, any editor may change the redirect target as an editorial decision. NAC—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Starseed[edit]

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

Entirely not notable. Should be merged into the article for the fiction work it is related to, or deleted entirely. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need to have this article on Wikipedia. 00:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is a discussion, not a vote, ReformedArsenal. We know that you want the article deleted without your having to repeat it in boldface. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every AfD I have ever seen uses this format of voting, and in the past I have had people encourage me to vote initially to make it crystal clear. Also, the main article for the AfD page recommends that "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Transclude" or other view. Some bots and tools which parse AfD's will only recognize bolded words, so following this convention is highly recommended."ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now go and read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination and every other discussion on today's AFD per diem page. Far from this being the case for "every AFD discussion I have ever seen", you are in fact the sole nominator who got this wrong today. Discussions are read and closed by humans, not robots, moreover. Once again: This is a discussion, not a vote. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps you should take a look a little further in your guide my friend. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations. Also, the VAST majority of discussions for December 10th have recommendations listed in EXACTLY the format that I used (because that's what the guide recommends). If you're beef is that I contributed my recommendation, then so be it. But the format of using bolded headings has a long standing precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 2012-12-11 13:23:09
        I've pointed you to the Guide. I've pointed you to all of the other AFD discussions as examples. I've even given you the explanation from the Guide. Obviously it takes a very large cluestick indeed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you're guide... and all the other discussions... format it the way I did. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator deletion tool isn't required here. This is a poor article that, from a review of the sources documenting Niven's works, has no chance of ever improving. Looking at Stein & Niven 1994 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSteinNiven1994 (help), I observe that Starseeds are not documented separately from Outsiders even by the author. This article should either redirect to Outsider (Known Space) or star seed, depending from editorial decision as to which redirect serves readers better and whether Known Space characters or, perhaps better given Known Space#Species, species in Known Space (which is how Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart collect the topic in Figments of Reality) ever come about. But the edit tool gets us from here to there, not the deletion tool.
- Stein, Kevin; Niven, Larry (1994). The guide to Larry Niven's Ringworld. Baen. ISBN 9780671722043.
Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read most of the Known Space stories, and this is a minor element. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't addressed the fact that it's also a novel, a band, and a song. See the editorial decision mentioned immediately above. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So move Starseed (disambiguation) here after deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I've relisted it so that AfD participants can actually discuss whether the topic is notable, not about the process of whether or not to have an AfD. Here's a hint: administrators closing AfDs ignore all that clutter and look only at the arguments presented for and against deletion. So it'd be nice if someone could present some rather than arguing about process. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The administrator deletion tool isn't required here." and what follows is a fairly clear one, already presented long since. On the principle that one shouldn't opine an editorial action that one is unwilling to do onesself, I could have just done this by now. But heigh-ho. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Known Space#Species, where starseeds probably should have their own short entry but currently do not. PWilkinson (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to WP:verify notability. Without reliable third party sources articles typically get deleted. Perhaps a redirect to the fiction would be ok. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2012 (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 Western (genre)#Film. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Western[edit]

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

The term "epic western" does not seem to be established. --Spannerjam (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you try to look up the term? I went to Google Books Search and found a result from The Film Experience: An Introduction, which says, "Three hybrids or subgenres have distinguished the western: the epic western, the existential western, and the political western... the epic western concentrates on action and movement, developing a heroic character whose quests and battles serve to define the nation and its origins." Other results show that this is definitely a term. However, on Wikipedia, we unfortunately do not have a stand-alone article for the Western film genre (and we really should). We only have Western (genre) which has a "Film" section. I would suggest redirecting this term to that section. Since this article has no references, I would not merge any of the content. I would be fine with dropping in a sentence from the source that I quoted, but that "Film" section is unfortunately pretty sloppy too. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now to Western (genre)#Film... but as the topic of "Epic Western" is emminently sourcable and IS covered in multiple sources,[8][9][10] let the redirect be without prejudice toward a recreation of a far better and more comprehensive article which could/would cover the subject in literature and film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumu Kasuga[edit]

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

Only one source, which does not appear to be notable and is broken anyway. All other sources are the manga/anime itself. Redirect declined due to one secondary source, but it doesn't look reputable. (This is my favorite character, though. :-P) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The manga can count as a primary source, and the newtype source can be fixed using the wayback machine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It needs more than just one secondary source though. You can't build an article entirely out of primary sources. Also, a wayback of the one secondary source shows no mention whatsoever of Azumanga Daioh or this character. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters. As much as I think that Azumanga Daioh is one of the more popular and best comedy anime (despite never watching it; after all, I'm a fan of School Rumble), notability for characters is not inherited, and unless I see more sources (Japanese perhaps?) about creation/conception and/or reception, she doesn't need a standalone article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can the other two nominations be merged here? They more or less have the same rationale and are about characters from the same series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 13:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not notable enough in the real world to warrant a standalone article. 1292simon (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Donald Brewer[edit]

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

Only notable for part in 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. (WP:ONEEVENT). Lamar Joseph Conner listed for same reason. TheLongTone (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recipient of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, German nationwide press coverage. --NiTen (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC) !vote refactored (analogous to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages} into conventional form, to catch Bots and toolserver widgets AfD stats and reports. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)>[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany is split into a number of classes and over 5,000 can be awarded every year. He appears to have received the Officer's Cross, one of the lower levels, certainly nowhere near notable enough for automatic inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination and input by Necrothesp. EricSerge (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Necrothesp. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (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 School District 23 Central Okanagan . MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, consensus is that elementary schools are not generally considered to be notable. TBr and ley 08:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kelowna#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the school district? See below. TBr and ley 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its School Board's article: School District 23 Central Okanagan. PK T(alk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan per long-standing consensus for ordinary elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Carrite JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I was withdraw this nomination. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Christian School (Kelowna)[edit]

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

Non-notable school, consensus is that elementary schools are not generally considered to be notable. TBr and ley 08:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Includes classes through 12th grade. Long-standing consensus is that high schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, my bad. Didn't notice that. TBr and ley 19:47, 18 December 2012 (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 School District 23 Central Okanagan. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casorso Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, consensus is that elementary schools are not generally considered to be notable. TBr and ley 08:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the page for the school district, if it exists. Otherwise delete. Elementary schools are run of the mill unless there's something extra. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan per long-standing consensus that all but the most extraordinary elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per above JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:02, 25 December 2012 (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 School District 23 Central Okanagan. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne McClymont Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, consensus is that elementary schools are not generally considered to be notable. TBr and ley 08:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its School Board's article: School District 23 Central Okanagan. PK T(alk) 16:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:01, 25 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wilkinson[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of 16 fights, only 1 notable opponents and 2 notable events. Too few. Mazter00 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, only one fight for a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has fought for the UFC several times (in the house and the live finale) so he passes WP:MMANOT. Also has fought several times for top British promotions, so has domestic notability. Was also the second ever TUF wildcard winner, for which there were only three ever. All of this is sourced and so shows notability. Also very well written, sourced and lengthy, unlike many stubs we have for the project. Also, this nom should have been brought up with the article creator. Once again, JBJ fails to let people know about deletions... Paralympiakos (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PASSES WP:NMMA. 3 fights for the UFC clearly establishes required notability per the guidlines.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has fought only once for the UFC. Exhibition bouts does not count. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With only one official fight for a top tier organization he fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leeroy Barnes[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails both WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, no fights for a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:MMANOT is passed, as he has multiple fights for a promotion listed on MMANOT. The tiering is misconstrued and not read as it should do and was intended to when the essay was first written. He has domestic notability, even if not worldwide notability. We have plenty of BIOs of individuals who are only famous in their own country and this is one of them. He's fought for the top UK promotions, so his notability extends throughout the UK MMA scene. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fights for a top tier organization so he fails WP:NMMA. Fighting for second tier organizations doesn't meet the usual standards of WP:ATH since he's not competing at the highest level so I think MMANOT is being interpreted correctly. Jakejr (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMJ University[edit]

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

does not meet wiki notability criteria, and also wiki:GNG , the sources are linking to a article which mentions about dubious private university !! Shrikanthv (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A university authorised by an act of a state legislature. Seems notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree the university might be of dubious quality, but I was quickly able to find those sources when I deprodded it, it appeared the subject met WP:GNG even if improvement is needed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This university appears to be notable based on reliable sources. TBr and ley 21:50, 25 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative treatment of ingrown toe nails[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a guide for medical treatments. A mention of treatment can be made at ingrown nail. Note that there is also a Surgical treatment of ingrown toe nails article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very close to a howto guide in nature, and while the article in fact is better than the title suggests, it's feels too close to a medical advice guide, and I also am unclear on why any of this, that is notable, wouldn't just be included in ingrown toenail or some other medical topic related. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly because practically every single edit that Dayslypper (talk · contribs) made to ingrown nail, over two years, was reverted. example example Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article called ingrown nails. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is an unlikely search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or userify. It seems per Uncle G that this can be considered a POV fork of ingrown nail. Looking at the contribution history, the author's edits were generally low quality, but spelling and grammar mistakes are not a huge deal. What worries me is the pushing of apparent POV backed up by a website he claims to own. Regardless though, this is an essay and possibly original research. I also don't believe this is a candidate for redirect since it doesn't seem to be a plausible search term. We should work with the user to help him/her understand what the issue here is, since I see no interaction with other editors in the article talk page or his own. If there is information that can be salvaged and merged to ingrown nail, then great. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf Online Organization[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Persian Gulf Organization

Articles for deletion/Persian Gulf Online Organization

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

1. notability due to lack of independent WP:RS 2. lack of coherent topic and other issues that can't be fixed due to 1.Widefox; talk 06:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources both independent and reliable to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG: 1 (a primary) makes no claim for organisation name, but instead claims "IIC" or "ISP" or "individuals" in the year 2000, one year after the article's unsourced claim of organisation founding date - this is contradictory or at least too scantily covered by its own primary source(s) to verify the organisation name. The further reading book added in response to this AfD itself claims to be collection of wikipedia (etc) WP:CIRCULAR. After I went through a lot of the sources, I marked how they either don't back the statement claimed, contradict, and/or are primary. Where are the WP:RS? We shouldn't have an article without substantial secondary coverage. This article is WP:ADVOCACY. Widefox; talk 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per first AfD. In fact 07:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reason (in particular on the independent RS needed for notability), this is not a WP:VOTE. Widefox;talk 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the first AfD was not a "keep", it was a "no consensus", which, while it results in the article not being deleted, it is not the same. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. In fact 07:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I think expanding on your vote is even more important after listing at ARS. Without would fuel the sentiment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination) that ARS is being misused, and is disruptive. Widefox; talk 11:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. In fact 07:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of independent RS is available in the article. I would like to know what the nominator means about "lack of RS" and "lack of coherent topic ...". It's the second Afd and i think at least more valid and clear reasons to delete should be considered than before. Furthermore, there is book in the "Further reading" section which shows it's notable enough. ●Mehran ^Debate●

Please can you say which one/ones (being reliable and independent - e.g. [11] is not independent per Goodvac's analysis in the previous AfD) ? (I fleshed out coherency problem of e.g. organisation name above.) Widefox; talk 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Goodvac in AfD1. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what did he saw that you are agreeing with? Dream Focus 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said last time, [12] is notable coverage. Read it through instead of skimming over it, and it is clearly about the organization, that what he is interviewed about and talking about. All the sources found previously, taken as a whole, do indicate notability. Dream Focus 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

coverage yes - is it the only one? and it is not independent per Goodvac (a follow up article due to a complaint letter) so doesn't help notability. Also seems short of "significant coverage"? just news. Widefox; talk 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interviewing the guy about his organization is significant coverage. Why would it matter if they got the idea to interview him based on a letter or not? Dream Focus 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is not independent per Goodvac. What little info we have comes from him and is not deep - no founding date, no founder, no board members, location, charity no. per WP:ORG Primary criteria "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." so it isn't enough even if we agreed it is independent. Despite falling short of WP:ORGDEPTH, we have an article with all these facts in, which is not covered by a single independent RS. Widefox; talk 09:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

taking the alternative criteria WP:NONPROFIT, "multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources" - no, yes, no, yes. Widefox; talk 09:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is independent, I don't care what Goodvac said in the AFD least year. In addition to what I've said before, Mehran last time found proof that the organize is influential, ample sources providing that. Dream Focus 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is not neutral at all, as he deleted this article from the disambiguation page in here. In fact 04:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem like they did that on purpose, and then tried to cover it up pretending they were up to something else. Anyway, please expand on why you think the article should be kept, copy pasting over what you said last time perhaps if you don't want to bother having the same exact discussion over again. Dream Focus 05:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact: Instead of an WP:Ad hominem attack on me, neither me nor Jimbo [13] has a horse in this race. This WP:ADVOCACY has no place here. Dream Focus you should know better and WP:AGF. Before descending further, I like it is not a strong argument to keep, influential or not, the burden to provide a couple of WP:RS is not met. Widefox; talk 12:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dream Focus.

Anyways, I just found this. In fact 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that source is UGC so is irrelevant. Widefox; talk 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

an article in Ettela'at newspaper

http://www.criticalissuesforum.org/PROJECTS2011/CN_Beijing/benchmark_1.pdf

http://registeredindie-com.doodlekit.com/media/AA/AI/registeredindie-com/downloads/54031/Iranian_Directory_-_Politics___Nonprofits_-_011810.pdf

In fact 13:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

an article about Persian Gulf Online in Shargh Newspaper. In fact 13:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two main newspapers in Iran have talked about this NGO. So I believe it is notable. In fact 12:14, 25 December 2012 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Han Sanming[edit]

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

It looks like this is a director's cousin who likes to make cameos with no real substantial roles. I don't this makes the person sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Notability is not inherited.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel compelled to note that after initial nomination, I realized that he was the lead in one of the movies (but all of the other roles do appear to be cameos). But is that sufficiently notable? I still find it questionable given the large number of movies turned out in China. --Nlu (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm not sure that he strictly meets the "significant roles in multiple notable films" clause of WP:ENTERTAINER, good coverage in a number of English-language sources leads me to believe the he may have even more coverage in China or elsewhere. See coverage in CRIEnglish, a Guangdong news source (same article elsewhere?[14]), a Czech source entitled "From miner to an international film star", and a book. Photos with captions suggest to me he is well known: [15][16][17] Other reviews of Still Life discussing him: Boston Globe and the New Yorker . Location (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lead role in only one notable film, so does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. 1292simon (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hold up friends. Leading role in a film Still Life (2006 film), that won the Lion d'Or (highest honor) at Venice film festival.[18]--Nixie9 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the awards won by the film. Since none of them are acting awards for the subject, the awards support notability of the film but not of this actor. 1292simon (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Han Sanming did win Best Actor at the Valdivia International Film Festival.[19] BTW, WP:ENTERTAINER does not specify that someone must have been the lead actor in one of more notable films; it only specifies that their role must be "significant". (The number of actors in Wikipedia would surely but cut in half if we required two lead roles.) In addition to a lead role in Still Life, we have a book reference stating that Han Sanming's role in Dong was "highly important". To me, that justifies recognition of a second "significant" role. Location (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Die My Darling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Die my darling

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

This topic about an industrial/trance band appears to fail WP:N. While the topic may possibly meet point #5 of WP:BAND (depending upon whether or not Trisol Music Group is considered as a "major label"), this may not be enough to qualify overall topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One album with a major label isn't enough to pass WP:BAND. 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

League of Communists of Yugoslavia in Serbia[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced article. Buttons (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now referenced. Small party, but still one of the main post-SFRY communist groups in the country, with 1,5 decades of continous history. No need for deletion. --Soman (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two of four sources appear to be from the party's webpage. Like you said, small party (now defunct) but found and no evidence to support the claim it was a main post-SFRY communist party. I don't see any notability here, definitely not its owns article anyway. Buttons (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment de-registered doesn't mean defunct. And the fact that it is now de-registered means that it had been registered, for which certain criteria would be fulfilled (not sure RS rules, but in BiH it would include quite significant registration fees). I would invoke WP:PAPER here, the article does no harm, it is not a ploy or hoax but a serious attempt to carry on a legacy of a movement that once governed the country. Studying the post-SFRY parties and their developments is essential to understanding the SFRY era itself. --Soman (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-comment It means exactly that since the party would not be able to function legally, but you can call it what you like. The criteria for political registration in Serbia is 10,000 validated signatures from eligible-to-vote citizens (and 1,000 I believe for minority groups), not that its a issue here. I could agree with you about preserving the article for historical significance, but as I before said, it has none. Sorry. There are hundreds of active and hundreds more defunct parties in Serbia with zero relevance here or there, this one somehow managed to show up on Wikipedia by chance without anyone explaining why it deserved to be. P.S. Wikipedia is not here to study anything, just to promote the facts (ideally). Buttons (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd say that 10,000 validated signatures is a good criteria for notability, again recalling WP:PAPER. If there is hundreds of other groups that fulfill the same criteria, I see no problem in including them as well. --Soman (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability of party (as opposed to WP:EXIST) is not supported by independent sources. 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections at Wikipedia without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia and I believe we should treat them the same way we treat villages, rivers, highways, high schools, and professional athletes — if existence is confirmed, they should be presumed notable. If you wish to consider this an WP:IGNOREALLRULES defense, that's fine... It is the way these things should be handled. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (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 Debian Social Contract. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ean Schuessler[edit]

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

Vanity article created by User:Eanschuessler and copied verbatim from his website (or vice versa). Related Afd regarding his brother in 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Schuessler. Location (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking like self-promotion to me. Deb (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixie9 (talk • contribs)
Redirect To Debian Social Contract. I found this one interesting since I know a bit about Debian in general. Schuessler is certainly known for having been part of the creation of the Social Contract, that much is not for debate since it's easily sourced. However, I don't feel that this plus having been president of SPI gets him past WP:GNG because there's nothing else out there. So I feel this fails WP:BIO#2 criteria for a standalone article. However, I don't have a problem with a redirect to the Social Contract article since it's a valid search term, and adding a paragraph or two about the background and people involved in its creation since it's pretty bare at the moment. I'd be more than happy to do that work once the AFD closes. As it stands, without meeting the notability guideline, the article right now is essentially an advert for his company. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2012 (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 Steffan_Cravos#Fitamin_Un. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fitamin Un[edit]

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

This topic about an underground record label appears to fail WP:N. Searches in Google Books and News archive are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [20], [21].) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steffan_Cravos#Fitamin_Un - It seems this is yet another indie label that hasn't received significant attention and doesn't have an official website. My own search provided results here (brief email announcement) and here (brief and unreliable forum post). I found some brief mentions in Welsh so it's possible any other sources aren't English. Unfortunately, I haven't found anything to support the information at the "Fitamin Un" section of Steffan's article but it's probably better than deleting. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two references from BBC websites, but not sure if this will satisfy. Lack of on-line references (in Welsh, English or whatever) is a problem with Welsh articles and I should imagine with a lot of minority languages. In the grand scheme of things, the label was not that notable, but as they were a 'major' label withing a minority music genere within minority language group they were quite important.--Rhyswynne (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the artists it signed were notable, there doesn't seem to be anything supporting that the label itself is. 1292simon (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moscito (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Small academic project. No evidence of awards. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. There is a small chance there are sources in German, but there's no German language wikipedia entry and I've exhausted my German skills. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates massively puts the articles to deletion or declares it as not notable. The fact that this is done without consideration of the matter can be seen on the example of the AMBER force field which is one of the most famous and widely-used in chemistry and which the Stuartyeates declares as not notable. I propose to cancel all Stuartyeates editions and ban him.P99am (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are presumably talking about this edit, which was solely based upon the state of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Afd discussions are for the discussion of the merits of a specific article, and are not the place to discuss or propose user restrictions. If you have a problem, try discussing it with the user on his talk page, and failing that, making use of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Dialectric (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Moscito is known program. P99am (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fairly weak argument (WP:AADD). Some sources to back up that claim would help strengthen your argument, as claiming it's well known without any support behind it weakens your argument. (X! · talk) · @240 · 04:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to vote, but I will provide some research. The first two GHits are both WP; this is GHit 2, and after GHit 2, all the hits on "Moscito" are related to GHit 1 (a bridge, as in the card game, system). However, I figured there should be some Scholar hits (this is used for science, after all) as it would need to be referenced in papers, and I got 262 hits. However, I think most of them are referencing not the software, but the research in the first research article, which used it (which says more about the research than the software). I got some hits on Google Patents as well for references to the User Manual (and thereby some use in there, I think). However, WP:PATENTS indicates that patents are both WP:SELFPUB and primary sources. Therefore, while I'm leaning towards no real assertion of notability based on those findings, I think this might need some more knowledgeable eyes from a relevant WikiProject member. MSJapan (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for '"moscito" molecular' on Google Scholar garners 87 hits. Most of the peer-reviewed hits are not about Moscito, but use the program for their molecular dynamics simulations, for example, [22] [23], and [24]. I have no recommendation, because I am unsure whether these count as secondary sources. It seems to me that if a researcher is going to use a program as the basis for their own research and report on it in a paper, that paper is a secondary source for the program and because it is peer-reviewed, it is considered reliable. If so, there are numerous secondary sources and the article should be kept. If not, I have not found any independent secondary sources discussing the Moscito program itself. Mark viking (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these are secondary sources. Yes these are independent (assuming that the software author and paper author have no connection). The problem is depth of coverage, the sources need to ' address the subject directly in detail' as per WP:GNG. My reading is that these don't. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources supporting that the program is notable. Smells like there's some WP:COI issues, too. 1292simon (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2012 (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. Notability, in particular, three editors felt the article met the criteria for A7, a somewhat lower bar than GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gerhardt[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPEEDY, reason A7. Asserts notability as a Magic: the Gathering player, but his resume includes only a single Grand Prix top 8 as a notable finish. There have been significantly more than 100 Grand Prix and will be an additional 40+ in 2013, each with (obviously) eight Top 8 competitors.

Article also lists Scott Gerhardt as founder of Shuffle and Cut Games. By comparison, neither the world's largest Magic: The Gathering retailer, Star City Games, nor its founder, Pete Hoefling, are mentioned on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, Scott Gerhardt is self-created. This isn't WP:OUTING because as one can clearly see in the article's history, it was created by GerrardCap who first listed his name as "Scott Gerhardt" in his user page and then blanked it, and has made no other edits to Wikipedia other than to Scott Gerhardt and inserting a link to it from a page listing Magic Grand Prix high finishers. Damon Killian (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why on earth should any MTG player be notable? --Phazakerley (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No independent sources support notability. 1292simon (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Macleod (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lewis MacLeod (footballer)

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

Article about a footballer who plays in the Scottish third division which isn't a fully pro league. Therefore the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, the player hasn't received any significant coverage so he fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly fails WP:NFOOTBALL; the question is whether or not he passes WP:GNG. I don't think he does - he has not been the recipient of significant third-party coverage. The article certainly has lots of sources, but if you take the time to look at them they don't cover this person in nearly enough detail. Many are basic match reports. Giant Snowman 11:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL. Just for clarity sake I was the nominator second time round this being the third. It still obviously doesn't pass WP:FOOTY as he has only played in the Scottish Third Division which isn't a fully professional league. Despite lengthy improvements it still fails WP:GNG as the vast majority the of sources are no more then routine match reports. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly there. Sparhelda 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Where? – Michael (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources such as here and here clearly show his notability, having started every game for Rangers this season. Sparhelda 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete – Notability is not clearly established and hasn't been at any of the other AFD's. Playing for a notable club does not automatically make you notable. Also does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL.Blethering Scot 22:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This significant third party source on MacLeod indicates clearly his notability. His club is notable so all we are left with is that he doesn't play in a fully pro-league even though his club is fully pro. Deletion would therefore be just a box ticking exercise.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apparently Charles Green (businessman) has "bought the history" of Paulo Maldini, which now belongs to the hitherto-anonymous Lewis McLeod. This has been ratified by the SFL and Jim Traynor has written an article about it. 176.253.82.115 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Above contribution is clearly rubbish/vandalism -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Player passes WP:GNG with significant non-routine coverage in third-party sources. An excess of references in addition to these is no reason for deletion. Sgt Elvan (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Library (movie)[edit]

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

An article about a movie that I rescued from a copyvio CSD, which I subsequently attempted to source without success. The work fails WP:NFILMS as I was unable to find substantive third-party coverage of the film itself or the award-winning story it is based on (or its author). Taking to AFD since the editors involved removed the CSD tags and the same will likely happen with a PROD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment It should also be mentioned that the article was submitted to AFC and declined two months ago. The version there is essentially the same as the one that was tagged for CSD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cannot find reliable sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Per WP:NFF, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G-12 Most of that article was copied from that website. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 12:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't qualify for a G12, since I modified it substantially to prevent the G12. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Oh yes. Oh yes. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 12:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
!vote Delete per above. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 12:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN report filed here. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 12:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - patently fails WP:NFILM. ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incubate for now per WP:NFF and being far TOO SOON for an article on this film project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since nomination, substantial improvements have been made. Slated for January 2013 release. This should, at the very least, satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. If not kept, we should also think of Incubating/Userfying it. Such articles provide information to readers and serves the Project well... Why delete. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 05:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are the same sources I found WP:BEFORE, they do nothing more than prove that the film exists. Certainly not that it is notable in any way shape or form. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you also would have found that it is slated for release next month. For topics seen as not currently meriting articles, deletion policy allows userfication or incubation to take them out of article space until notability is established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anything is better than deletion. It was brought to AFD because it doesn't meet the article notability guidelines; I have no problem with the contents being userified. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Changed my opinion based upon very recent improvements by User:Bonkers The Clown and believe it is sensible to incubate this for a few weeks. As this Belgium film is expected to have a release next month, we can allow it to be worked on out of mainspace until such time as WP:NF is better met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 20 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hampton (author)[edit]

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

Self-published author; claims to notability don't meet WP:BIO guidelines, i.e., no significant in-depth third party reliable source coverage (most of the refs are press releases, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to find any coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that this author is ultimately notable. I see plenty of WP:PRIMARY sources such as press releases, as well as posts in blogs and such that Wikipedia wouldn't consider usable as a RS, but nothing that would show notability for the author. As an FYI to whomever added it to the article, merchant sources such as Amazon are considered to be unusable to show notability. Even when it's for interviews or actual site reviews (written by someone who works for the site and put in a separate section from the regular reviews), such things are considered to be somewhat suspect because it's always in the best interest of the merchant to promote their authors/product in a way that would promote sales. By that same token, listings of the book at Alibris do not count towards notability either and general customer reviews are never usable as sources. I'm tempted to remove them from the article on principle, but this is almost guaranteed to get deleted unless miraculous RS come out of nowhere. I doubt that will happen, though. It's just sort of the reality of indie and self publishing that the books tend to go largely unnoticed as far as mainstream stuff goes.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually followed this person via media for several years. His books are no longer in print and he isn't marketing anything. What makes him legitimate is the fact that he is a mental health worker who has had a hard life experience. Given the events that happened just a few days ago in Newtown Conn, as well as around the U.S. I think it will be benificial to leave his page up and not delete it. Wikipedia is full of idiot entertainers and athletes who bring noting to society but trash and negativity, but this man on the other hand brings light and positivity and HIS page is being considered for deletion?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.134.30 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC) — 204.76.134.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment None of your arguments address the criteria for deletion, which is that that subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and how dare you imply that Tom Brady brings nothing to society but trash and negativity!? MisterUnit (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about your argument is it's ultimately WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, neither of which are arguments that will keep an article. I agree that there are a lot of things on Wikipedia that I personally dislike. Heck, I've even contributed towards some of them. However that doesn't mean that they didn't meet notability guidelines in some form or fashion or that they aren't contributing to Wikipedia in some fashion. The thing about people and things that meet notability guidelines but are considered "trash" is that they still impact our culture in some format, for better or for worse. We can't keep every article out there and Wikipedia was never supposed to be an encyclopedia that comments on everything under the sun. At some point we have to have limits as to what constitutes notability. This keeps a lot of blatantly non-notable persons and things off of the site, but it also impacts a lot of people, things, and situations that I'd otherwise love to write an article about. It's just the way things are and while you're free to argue for changes, it's unlikely that they would change enough to where this article would be kept. We keep articles because they meet notability guidelines, not because we "should".Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: 204.76.134.30 appears to be a SPA account possibly related to the subject of the article and topics related. PeterWesco (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2012 (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/2012 December 18. Snotbot t • c » 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails WP:AUTHOR PeterWesco (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From google, these are the sources for him and they are not independent WP:RS like a major newspaper. Likely fails WP:AUTHOR at present unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2012 (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 My Gym Partner's a Monkey. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Gym Partner's a Monkey characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is an extensive list of characters from the show with short descriptions and trivial info that relies entirely on primary sources. The consensus at this article's last AfD was to merge with the main article, but a user has since recreated this page without prior discussion. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to My Gym Partner's a Monkey. Doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This was not a long-lived cartoon, so the probability of decent secondary sources is very low. Maybe protect if the redirect is undone again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the show proper. I'm sorry for edit warring about the cast in 2007. I swear it will never happen again. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable TV shows usually get an associated character article, and I fail to see why this is an exception. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - none of the characters are notable, can be adequately covered in the main article. Claritas § 08:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the interest of building a consensus. No sources to WP:verify notability but I suppose we could write something about the characters at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2012 (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; drive-by PR resulted in the nomination, resolved by reversion to last known good version. Nominator requested and non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tribune Media Services[edit]

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

WP:NOT advert User:CorporateM 01:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly disagree; article is neutral and describes company's main products solely in list form and text and can certainly be sourced. One of the two big TV listings providers in the United States and one of the largest newspaper syndicates around. No real reason presented for deletion besides throwing in a WP: policy with no rationale. Not for that, but drive-by PR resulted in article getting promo-speaked into a stub. Corrected quickly and no problems existed with version I saw when I listed my rationale. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, someone re-wrote it 30 minutes after nomination. This is the version I originally nominated. Current looks ok I guess. User:CorporateM 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the nominated version looks terrible (whoever 'updated' it pretty much made their company look terrible; the new update was restored from an earlier revision). Did you want a NAC on this or should we let the nomination play out? Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a NAC is, but I don't see any reason to AfD it anymore. Guess I should have looked at the edit history. User:CorporateM 03:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens occasionally. I didn't even know the content was changed so abruptly. NAC=non-admin closure of the nomination, which I'm doing now. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 18 December 2012 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yongnian[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and no references. Article is also overly promotional in tone. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:43, 18 December 2012 (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) 06:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Attiya[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 providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Altered Walter (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:40, 19 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky_Shivers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ricky Shivers

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

Has no top tier mma fights and fails WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This is such a poorly stated deletion reason (what's that "unrelated matter" doing here?) that I think this should just be closed, regardless of the state of the article. --Atlan (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like ive said Portland is now trying to cover his tracks by deleting his previous edits to this page that unrelated matter "On a completely unrelated matter Dan Henderson knocked out Fedor" is a reference to a edit i made the on Dan Henderson page i changed the result from a KO to a TKO as Sherdog.com lists it when another editor and a couple of ip's undid his edits on the Fedor Emelianenko page he listed them as well as me as suspected Sockpuppets here anyway my point is that this is the true reason why he nominated this article for deletion User:PortlandOregon97217 is on a WP: Witchhunt. Entity of the Void (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cover my tracks? Why don't you recite what you wrote on this very page recently. I only undid that because you undid all your cursing and accusing. If I was on a witchhunt I would have flagged all of the articles created by you. But since this one seems particularly weak on when talking wp:GNG i choose it. He hasn't fought in Bellator,anything zuffa, or dream. You also nominated a few articles i made (2 or 3? i forget) for speedy deletion. This is just an example of the kettle calling the pot black. and as for Fedor and Hendo I have posted my objection on both fighters talkpages and no one has responded. I have even posted on your talkpage about the matter but you don't seem like you want to hammer it out. I don't see how sherdog's database is more reliable than the sources(x3) I have provided contradicting sherdogs database. you arent even citing a news report or an interview or anything. News articles > Sherdog database PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you looked over the articles i created and chose this one because you thought it looked particularly weak so in other words you were in fact looking for one of my articles to tag for deletion by the way youve never said anything on my talk page unless of course youre still trying to imply that im User:Delinquent1904 i can guarantee you this is my only account also i dont care about the Fedor or Henderson pages now that theres a source Delinquent1904 is the one that keeps changing them so talk to him/her about it so why dont you just withdraw this deletion request and we can both just get back to editing Wikipedia. Entity of the Void (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Perhaps I was confused. My apologies if I am mistaken. I will at least get rid of that sockpuppet investigation. I did jump the gun on that one and I chalk it up to a rookie mistake. But I will not withdraw the nomination here. It has been pointed out to me that articles that stand up to the review are stronger after the fact. And it looks weak as in it fails WP:GNG. And if you look at my comments on other fighters afd page I think I'm giving them a fair shake. Trust me if this guy had fought on TUF and had 1 notable fight I'd say keep. I don't buy the whole wp:mmanot 3 notable fight deal. Besides: do you see all those red links where fighters used to be? Theres other forces out there who are much more indiscriminate. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it really depends on your opinion of a notable fight he has wins over UFC veteran Rob Yundt as well as four time King of the Cage champion Tony Lopez, Lopez is also the current Heavyweight & Superheavyweight champion of King of the Cage, Shivers has also had fights against Julio Paulino, Alex Schoenauer, Falaniko Vitale and Jaime Jara 3 of the 4 Paulino, Schoenauer and Vitale have all fought in the UFC at a point in there careers except for Jara although Jara has fought in Bellator. So in your opinion none of those fights/fighters are notable at all ? ......well then maybe you should tag some of the fighters i just listed for deletion as well. Entity of the Void (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoenauer was on TUF 1 :/. Lopez? Hmm. I will look into that. Jara is a boss and one of my favorite fighters. I'm pretty sure Jara would pass. Vitale was in Bellator and had a few UFC fights. Including the one where Lindland knocked himself out so he gets a pass. Mostly your arguement would pertain to WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not saying the guy hasn't fought some really tough and notable competition. i just don't think that their notability has rubbed off on him. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also like to add that he is now scheduled to fight in the main event of LFC 18 an event that will air live on AXS TV.http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2012/12/legacy-fc-18-features-heavyweight-lightweight-title-fights-in-houston Entity of the Void (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of thing the current policy doesnt address, and that's televised fights. Like if you can find sources saying a fighter has been on TV a few times then it would make a compelling argument. I keep going to the well pointing out when fighters have been on TUF that not only did they fight on the show they fought on TV. The current WP:MMANOT is crap and I think the GNG is more useful for determining notability. Oh yeah I was gonna nominate Tony Lopez just to test the policy because I wasn't sure if people would consider his shoXC fights big (they were on showtime). Then I saw he was on Bully beatdown. But it's unsourced. So I dunno... PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That information is sourced go to the top of the Lopez page its the second reference of the article. Entity of the Void (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez has also fought in the WEC as well as Bellator. Entity of the Void (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY For the admin who comes accross this article.

A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm totally confused by all the commentary above. Regardless, he clearly fails WP:MMANOT, with no fights for top tier organizations. CaSJer (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject fails WP:MMANOT and WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no fights for a top tier MMA organization, he obviously fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAILS WP:NMMA. There are guys with way more notability than his being deleted or recomended for deletion. If guys with 2 of the 3 notable fights needed are being deleted, then this one should definitely go. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hall Live[edit]

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

This afd is for multiple albums by Trevor Hall (singer). Others are

Albums lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Combined they are sourced by discogs, shops and Hillydilly.com, not a reliable source. I found nothing better. Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, no secondary sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or merge all. None of the albums are individually notable. 1292simon (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Gardner (artist)[edit]

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

Procedural AFD as a disputed PROD. Original PROD rationale by User:JamesBWatson was: "The article is substantially promotional. I can find no evidence of notability. It is difficult to check all of the references, as none of them is online, but what I can find suggests that many of them, perhaps most of them, are not about Susan Gardner, and others are not significant coverage, or not independent sources. The one source which clearly is substantial coverage of her, "Stone Music The Art and Poetry of Susan Gardner", is written by her. My searches have failed to produce any substantial coverage in any independent reliable source." ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "procedural AFD". There is no procedure that mandates taking a disputed WP:PROD to AfD, and JamesBWatson isn't some inexperienced newbie who needs help with the technicalities of starting a deletion discussion. What is your rationale for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find hardly any info on her from a google search, what I did find was almost all social networking sites and her own website. There was this, which I guess you could say makes a very marginal claim to fame, but I'm not convinced since it doesn't offer anything concrete to back up the claim ("internationally known"). Looks like a mostly unsourced BLP, I doubt it would be possible to source most of it since I couldn't find hardly anything written about her. delldot ∇. 00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beware! There seem to be 2 different artists calls Susan Gardner, this one who's also a poet and writer and lives in Santa Fe and owns susangardner.org[25] and another one in Brooklyn who owns susangardner.com[26]. I'm not sure if either is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:ARTIST. Sources commenting on an artists' style does not make them notable as an artist. 1292simon (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Association of Persons with Disabilities[edit]

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

Organization seems to fail WP:GNG. I can find no Google News search results but a Google News Archive search does provide some results. From looking through several results, none seem to represent significant coverage, only mentions of their actions. They pass point one of WP:NONPROFIT in WP:ORG but not point two, in my opinion. I could be convinced that, as their opinion is sometimes noted in other cases, that the organization is notable because their opinion is notable but I'm not seeing a reason to ignore notability criteria in this case (at least not yet. They also have numerous chapters in several countries but I'm not sure that this fact establishes notability. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several results on Google Books, but they are merely directory listings. No significant coverage found. --Michig (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers: Invasion "Mobile Infantry"[edit]

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

I only found a single reliable secondary source providing significant coverage of the game [27]. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game has a place in the universe's canon. It's been approved by the creators of the film itself, and uses its assets, which I felt made it significant enough to include. Additionally, I found another review at [28]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MechaDev (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other options as well. That would include a merge of redirect to either the Starship Troopers franchise page or a to the legacy section Starship Troopers (film) page where this is mentioned.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually against merging uncited content, especially into an already Featured Article. If the material that is merged could be cited to the SlideToPlay review then I would definitely consider that as an option, but I would not support merging uncited material in this case. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about a straight up redirect? The film page already mentions this so it can redirect there without requiring a merge.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-redirects in the page are sorta bad, so if the article gets deleted or redirected then that link should be removed. The film page doesn't mention the game, but the novel one does. I think a redirect to Starship Troopers#Cultural_influence would be fine if we get a consensus for it. I would support it. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Invasion film page, for which this game is a prequel, DOES mention the game. -- MechaDev 10:19, 15 December PST —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent sources only indicate it WP:EXISTS, not that it is notable. 1292simon (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters. MBisanz ^talk 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Mihama[edit]

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

Redirect declined due to secondary sourcing, but one is a primary source that only verifies the seiyuu (voice actress), and the other is a 404'd case study which only seemed to verify that grade-skipping is rare in Japan and made no mention of the character whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters. For now, sourcing is just too weak to warrant a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a source from JC Staff [29], that with the other sources present should be good for a character page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a primary source, since it's from the studio who animated the show. We need secondary sources — i.e., from something not associated with the show in some fashion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Sources do not support real-word notability. 1292simon (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2012 (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) 06:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cambria (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable company. However, I am not opposed to a partial merge and redir to Davisco Foods International. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this years ago. You would think they were notable since they are well known, but I remember it being difficult 4 years ago to source. Someone had asked me create it, a new user I think, so I did. I will see about sourcing it in the next day or two, or hopefully the visitors here will look for sources. I trust the judgement of the community, and only ask we look around before merging to make sure that would be the best outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Potential reasons for notability:

On Google Books, I found one apparently independent source that covers the companies primary product Transmaterial: A Catalog of Materials That Redefine our Physical Environment, p. 34 (ISBN 9781568985633).
There are many claims online (probably none are truly independent) that Cambria is the only US manufacturer of Engineered quartz.

I don't know how much either counts for notability, let other editors judge. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Anecdotally, the idea that Cambria isn't notable would be incomprehensible to anyone living in Minnesota. It doesn't appear that Cambria is a subsidiary of Davisco Foods. This businessweek overview mentions nothing of that, and the link provided in this article and in the Davisco Foods article doesn't work. The Davis family started out in food and later founded Cambria, but they currently appear to be separate. Cambria now owns Sun Country Airlines, which they purchased for $34 million Star Tribune Star Tribune Mankato Free Press. Cambria was ranked #4 in 2007 in Entrepreneur (magazine)'s "Hot 500" PDF list overview (This also gives information that Cambria was not a spinoff of a parent company). This article is with an interview with Marty Davis and includes talk of expansion to Asia. It also mentions that Cambria was born of Davisco foods, but doesn't necessarily say it was a subsidiary (I think, I've only skimmed it). It also mentions the US 169 Cambria Silo (which previously advertised for 7up). That in itself deserves a long section, if not an article. Here's some commentary of the legal battle related to the silo [30] [31] [32] [33] (I actually haven't figured out why the silo was able to say). They have opened a design center in California [34] and are the only producer of natural quartz surfaces in the US [35] a majority of the highbeam sources I've seen talk about the minimal environmental impact of the countertops; however, I'm not entirely sure these last two highbeam sources aren't press releases. Ryan Vesey 01:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryan. After checking out his sources, it appears much more is now available online about the company, enough to firmly establish notability. The article definitely needs updating, but at least we know the material to do so exists. Excellent job, Ryan. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it, and see if I can get some pictures before I fly back to school. The Le Sueur plant [36] is pretty well known. Ryan Vesey 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case keep. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It appears they also have sponsorship/partnership agreements with the Minnesota Twins, Wild, and Timberwolves Major League sports teams: [37] Mojoworker (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poorly sourced, but it would appear that their place as sole-producer in the US of quartz countertops would be a suitable claim to fame even if they were little more that could be added here — which there can. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think being the sole producer of something would definitely lend to it meeting WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason for deletion. -T.I.M^(Contact) 00:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - This topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to:

Cambria deal gives new life to Sun Country | StarTribune.com
Sun Country is on the rise | StarTribune.com
Cambria Holdings paid $34 million for Sun Country Airlines » Latest news » The Free Press, Mankato, MN
Cambria's paint job raises silo ruckus

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed by NA would allow this article to pass under WP:COMPANY. As stated above, this may be a snow closure. Mkdw ^talk 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kagura (Azumanga Daioh)[edit]

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

Redirected to the character list, but the redirect was undone due to one list naming her as a top character. This is literally the only source in the article, and it makes no other out-of-universe assertation of notability at all. Furthermore, the list that nominated her does not seem of any importance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list mentioned in the article was published by Mania.com, which is generally considered to be a reliable source, especially since it appears it was written by staff members. Since Mania.com is reliable, the list does appear to have a semblance of importance and credibility, but I'm reserving judgement on this one unless some one who is more knowledgeable about such reception decides if it's enough to establish notability. However, since there aren't any other sources, I'm leaning towards a redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters, but perhaps there are Japanese sources out there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. –Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Sources do not indicate real-world notability. 1292simon (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Inline Hockey League Elite Division[edit]

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

Non-notable division. Nothing reliable in google and google news. There are many related wikipedia pages, but they appear to be all created by the same user. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails even the wp:notability test which itself is too easy the case of athletics. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the related pages you mention be grouped into this AFD as per WP:BUNDLE? Zujua (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Nice article, but wikipedia is not a fansite. 1292simon (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. Not a professional league. Blue Riband► 03:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NHOCKEY only discusses players, coaches and managers, with no guidance on leagues. There is some coverage of the league in this New York Times article. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Die My Darling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Die my darling

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

This topic about an industrial/trance band appears to fail WP:N. While the topic may possibly meet point #5 of WP:BAND (depending upon whether or not Trisol Music Group is considered as a "major label"), this may not be enough to qualify overall topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One album with a major label isn't enough to pass WP:BAND. 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (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 Vibe Squad. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeeVS[edit]

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

Fails WP::BAND - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vibe Squad, the group he was with before going out on his own. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be kept as it is well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.86.73 (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Being well written, although nice, is not a reason for keeping an article. I direct your attention to notability guidelines, and in particular, the notability guidelines for musicians. If meeting of either of these guidelines can be established, the the article will be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BAND. 1292simon (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal merge to Vibe Squad. Worth noting there that he has released solo material. --Michig (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2012 (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megiddo (Lauren Hoffman album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artist is notable, and there are at least two reviews in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the question here is whether the album itself is notable. 1292simon (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two whole reviews from WP:RS? That's three more than 99% of all standalone album and single articles here. Certainly notable enough to get past WP:NALBUMS, regardless of chart performance or lack thereof. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source is just a product description and the second source only mentions the article in passing. 1292simon (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the reference in there points to a review of the other album, it should point to this. Agree on the second ref, I didn't notice it was written by the author. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

Keep - Can people leave Lauren Hoffman's albums alone? Her album articles as well as her biography page need EXPANSION, not deletion. Same thing as I said on Choreography's AfD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmoustache14 (talk • contribs) 2012-12-18 03:16:08
- And from what independent reliable sources do you propose this can be expanded? You could make a pretty much watertight argument for keeping if only you actually addressed that one point. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent sources do not indicate it is notable. Note that the CD Universe source should be considered a primary source since it is a Product Description, not an independent review. (it is amusing that an article claims to be notable when the article's intro says "it went relatively unnoticed"!) 1292simon (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be about record sales, not documentation. And CD Universe is actually, upon reading it, a combination of snippets from reviews and a statement from the artist. It does indicate where the real sources can be found, though. The complete text of Ben Ratliff's review of Megiddo, for example, rather than that 8 word snippet, can be found in the New York Times archives, dated 1997-10-03. The review in the New Yorker is longer than the snippet given, too, and mentions Fiona Apple. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's the coverage I found: Reviews from Allmusic and Les Inrockuptibles, and probably one from Le Figaro from 1997, plus further coverage from Keeping It Tight in the Old Dominion: A History of Virginia Rock Music, Billboard, The New York Times. That's plenty. --Michig (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2012 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Gambino[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, recreate when the fighter is noteworthy, don't keep it around until he does, as he may never. -T.I.M^(Contact) 23:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT, only two fights for top tier organizations, and given that they were both losses, it's not clear there will be any more. CaSJer (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA, fought twice (losses) for top tier organizations. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he does fail WP:NMMA, however he is still a current UFC fighter and only needs 1 more fight. Technically you would be right to say it doesn't stand up to the letter of the guidelines, but I think it stands up to the spirit of those guidelines because he will probably get that 3rd fight soon, at which time he would meet the requirements. In my opinion, a little common sense would say, just leave it be for a few more months before deciding.Willdawg111 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2012 (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.